Originally posted by Fdzzaigl I propose that instead of looking for a definition we won't come up with anyhow, you just look at how many non-linear mechanics a game has instead, and use that to determine how "sandboxy" it is.Otherwise you end up with a thread like the one I once saw for Ryzom, where certain people are hammering on the game for "not being a sandbox", because it doesn't have housing. While almost every other aspect of it is non-linear and player driven. As for Archeage: the game has a number of non-linear aspects to it. Player driven crafting, housing, territory battles and social PK, even judging others who PK etc.But it also has a number of more linear and guided aspects, like questing and factions.In the end though, if you'd make a "sandboxyness meter", this game would definitely score fairly high, though not as much as some of the extreme examples like EVE or Wurm online.
I explictely pointed out same mistake you are doing now couple posts above.
See, people do not understand what non-linear nor design is...
I explictely pointed out same mistake you are doing now couple posts above.
See, people do not understand what non-linear nor design is...
You have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. If someone wants to take part in a discussion he should be expected to know at least some basic terms of the trade. I
As for Archeage: the game has a number of non-linear aspects to it. Player driven crafting, housing, territory battles and social PK, even judging others who PK etc.
But it also has a number of more linear and guided aspects, like questing and factions.
In the end though, if you'd make a "sandboxyness meter", this game would definitely score fairly high, though not as much as some of the extreme examples like EVE or Wurm online.
That post should be required reading for the website. This thread is over now honestly.
You have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. If someone wants to take part in a discussion he should be expected to know at least some basic terms of the trade. I
This isn't about a line.
I say non-linear design, the poster above immediately twist it into something utterly meaningless such as "non-linear mechanics" and starts making a feature list.
I explictely pointed out same mistake you are doing now couple posts above.
See, people do not understand what non-linear nor design is...
Originally posted by Gdemami
This isn't about a line.
I say non-linear design, the poster above immediately twist it into something utterly meaningless such as "non-linear mechanics" and starts making a feature list.
Complete lack of understanding.
Uhm no, what you did was to state that no one understands what non-linear design is, while not saying or attempting to prove what it actually is according to you. You have pointed out nothing.
I'm fine with being blamed for a lack of understanding as long as there's any argument to it. I suggest you present that argument if you have it.
In the meantime, let me explain what I was trying to present for archeage.
First off, I'm not presuming to be talking about the entire design, I simply suggest putting the game features that contribute to having an experience in the game that do not give you a stable outcome when you present input in the game against the ones that do. So that when a poster comes in and aks: "Is this game a sandbox?", some meaningful answer can be given.
What I would call non-linear when you partake in game activity A, you are not guaranteed result B.
Examples for Archeage include:
-Player crafting: you depend on other players to provide you with materials, although the crafting process is still straightforward (but hampered by RNG), prices and availabilty will widely vary.
-Open forms of PvP, territory battles whatever: fairly self explanatory, server politics determine the outcome of many of those things. Though individual players and even guilds & alliances can plan to do something, the outcome of these actions is not guaranteed at all.
-Housing: as you are relatively free to place your housing, you are not guaranteed the spots you want, your stuff can also degrade over time if you are not capable of paying taxes etc. due to unforeseen consequences.
as well as a number of other ones
Examples of more linear design (input A gives result would be:
-Traditional quests: do the quest and you unlock the reward. The next set of quests requires the previous one etc.
-Factions: choose a faction and the result is that a number of things become available to you, while other game content becomes unavailable.
What I think you're arguing for, is to draw a general conclusion about the game's design. My entire argument was that such a thing is probably useless because no one is ever going to agree about such a thing and the end result is usually that extreme opinions are the ones that remain.
Therefore I proposed to simply balance the parts of the game which give players an experience that is not linear (as in, input is not directly proportional to output) and / or is generally expected of this style of game against the parts of the game that are linear. Then a meaningful conclusion can be drawn about the type of game a player can expect to get.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Originally posted by FdzzaiglUhm no, what you did was to state that no one understands what non-linear design is, while not saying or attempting to prove what it actually is according to you. You have pointed out nothing.I'm fine with being blamed for a lack of understanding as long as there's any argument to it. I suggest you present that argument if you have it.
"I make no sense, prove me wrong" is a game I am not going to play with you, sorry.
If you want to have any constructive discussion, it is you who needs to make an effort and provide something discussion worthy. Instead, you just keep misusing the terms, despite you were pointed out your misuse.
I know what you are "trying" to say but you are in fact, saying something very different and it makes no sense.
If we're going to argue definitions then non linear implies non progressive play. To claim it just means a few alternative quest hubs would be a lame position.
I hate the word sandbox. Its just a word someone made up, people try and put a definition to this made up word.. There is NO ANSWER, your definition is right, and the next guys definition is right. You know you can leave it at that.
- Its no different than arguing about the color blue, you could argue forever on what shade of blue something is.
- You could argue that the 1970s game Pong is a sandbox. After all you can move the paddle left to right, you have a choice on how far you would like to move it, the sky is the limit.
HOWEVER the word sandbox could have some value in video games IF THE WORD IS USED LIGHTLY.
Example :
If someone told me game X will be released soon and its part sandbox part theme park, I would have a general idea what to expect........I just wouldn't dig too deep into it......I wouldn't hold anyone to it.......I would just know their are areas that you can do as you feel.
By the way " do as you feel " is my definition.
Try and relax, and take the game for what it is Good, Bad, or anyplace in between. Allow for some gray area !!!
Once upon a time Some RPG's came with an option that was either part of the original game, available on a disk that you could get from the developers or modded by other player, that removed level restrictions on items.
Then Gary's mod was made and became the template for the modern build it yourself style sandbox, mine craft would be an example of this.
Sandbox wasn't a genre of RPG. Daggerfall wasn't called a sandbox RPG, it was an open world RPG.
The first game I ever played that had a sandbox option was a copy of baldurs gate that a friend gave me, along with a mod that enabled sandbox mode. It simply removed all the level restrictions from the game, allowing me to use any item, and do any quest, while exploring the open world without having to level my characters.
Sandbox has only ever meant that the game has no restrictions on what a player can use based on their character level, within an open world setting.
The elders rolls games, darkfall, ultima online, mortal online, the grand theft auto games, are all sandbox because they're open world games that have no level requirement (or very limited) in order for your character to use things in the game. Even EVE, which has level requirements to be effective using items in the game, and very few items in the game that you can't use without leveling a skill first (and that typically just means you need to spend a few minutes getting the skill to one first.)
AA isn't a sandbox, they're trying to differentiate it from the typical themepark -because it is a themepark- by calling it a sandpark due to the amount of things you can do, the number of ways you can play, and a meta game revolving around territory control.
I think the OP is exaggerating, I see very few people calling AA a sandbox. Most people are very well aware that it's not a full blown sandbox, and tend to call it exactly how the XL Games labelled it, a sandpark.
AA isn't a sandbox, they're trying to differentiate it from the typical themepark -because it is a themepark- by calling it a sandpark due to the amount of things you can do, the number of ways you can play, and a meta game revolving around territory control.
I think the OP is exaggerating, I see very few people calling AA a sandbox. Most people are very well aware that it's not a full blown sandbox, and tend to call it exactly how the XL Games labelled it, a sandpark.
The point of the question was to show how shallow of a gameplay experience Archeage is. I did this because the ravenous defense auto response to anyone trying to point this out is ARCHEAGE IS A SANDBOX/SANDPARK you make your own content. The problem is there is no way to create your own conflict or politics because the core of the game is designed around the same old same old standard themepark features:
1. Linear gear progression with no gear loss or durability decay
2. Inconsequential PvP outside of tradepack zerging.......there is no territory control or resource conflict, there is essentially no reason to PvP outside of just PvPing for the hell of it (Think shadowbane camp / territory control or darkfall resource gathering from ganking, etc.) It's just WoW open world pvp with the ability to flag and kill your own faction.
3. Crafting is a copy paste of every single themepark MMO with a RNG attached
4. The housing / territory control is very comparable to DAoC, with set aside housing areas and a completely broken castle claiming and seiging system. Your house is not contestable, it has ZERO affect on the game experience or world. It could for all purposes be an instanced room to show off your "trophies".
5. The "classless" system is just a farce, you are forced into class roles and just pick your three talent tress.
6. There is no true politics or guild conflict because again pvp is inconsequential for both the victor and the loser. There is no resource conflict since it's a one time make linear gear progression (i.e. get best in slot and you're done forever).
I'm arguing the sandbox/sandpark title attached to the game, because it was a HUGE selling point to many many people, and it is a complete lie to cover up the fact the game is fundamentally broken and a lie.
"I make no sense, prove me wrong" is a game I am not going to play with you, sorry.
If you want to have any constructive discussion, it is you who needs to make an effort and provide something discussion worthy. Instead, you just keep misusing the terms, despite you were pointed out your misuse.
I know what you are "trying" to say but you are in fact, saying something very different and it makes no sense.
The only thing you have so far contributed to this thread are one or two sentence long posts claiming others are wrong and don't understand what they're talking about.
If you're making a claim like that, provide arguments to support it. Otherwise you have no point, that's the way any civil discussion works.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
The point of the question was to show how shallow of a gameplay experience Archeage is. I did this because the ravenous defense auto response to anyone trying to point this out is ARCHEAGE IS A SANDBOX/SANDPARK you make your own content. The problem is there is no way to create your own conflict or politics because the core of the game is designed around the same old same old standard themepark features:
1. Linear gear progression with no gear loss or durability decay
2. Inconsequential PvP outside of tradepack zerging.......there is no territory control or resource conflict, there is essentially no reason to PvP outside of just PvPing for the hell of it (Think shadowbane camp / territory control or darkfall resource gathering from ganking, etc.) It's just WoW open world pvp with the ability to flag and kill your own faction.
3. Crafting is a copy paste of every single themepark MMO with a RNG attached
4. The housing / territory control is very comparable to DAoC, with set aside housing areas and a completely broken castle claiming and seiging system. Your house is not contestable, it has ZERO affect on the game experience or world. It could for all purposes be an instanced room to show off your "trophies".
5. The "classless" system is just a farce, you are forced into class roles and just pick your three talent tress.
6. There is no true politics or guild conflict because again pvp is inconsequential for both the victor and the loser. There is no resource conflict since it's a one time make linear gear progression (i.e. get best in slot and you're done forever).
I'm arguing the sandbox/sandpark title attached to the game, because it was a HUGE selling point to many many people, and it is a complete lie to cover up the fact the game is fundamentally broken and a lie.
I totally get you.
When you made the original post you used "everyone says its a sandbox", and when everyone says that people aren't saying its a sandbox you change tactic slightly and include sandpark as well.
Then things like the "go back to wow" comment in the OP, as well as the "ravenous defense" comment in this post.
Finally ending with "the game is totally broken and a lie."
Or maybe I can point to point number 2 where you say "there's no territory control", and then in point 4 you say "territory control is very similar to DAoC." Perhaps if you had swapped point 4 with point 6 the contradiction would have been less obvious.
I totally get you. The point of the post wasn't to have a conversation about the game but to "show how shallow a gameplay experience archeage is". Because if you had just made a post saying that the game is shallow, broken, and a lie everyone would have just pointed out you're trolling and the thread would have been locked.
I totally get you. The point of the post wasn't to have a conversation about the game but to "show how shallow a gameplay experience archeage is". Because if you had just made a post saying that the game is shallow, broken, and a lie everyone would have just pointed out you're trolling and the thread would have been locked.
I totally get you.
I still don't mind having that conversation.
Maybe Archeage is shallow. Like maybe just a foot deep or so.
But most big name games out these days would be a teaspoon compared. So its not doing so bad really.
Originally posted by FdzzaiglThe only thing you have so far contributed to this thread are one or two sentence long posts claiming others are wrong and don't understand what they're talking about.If you're making a claim like that, provide arguments to support it. Otherwise you have no point, that's the way any civil discussion works.
If you do not know what design is, do not join a discussion about design. That is where any civil and constructive discussion actually starts.
The ball is in your court, I gave you all the clues you need, it's up to you whether you move forward and learn or stay in denial/ignorant mode.
I guess the angering issue is how close they were, and what it could have been. Imagine if there was true item decay and some sort of death penalty (crafting resource drop on death, not full loot obviously) making PvP meaningful. Imagine if these northern continent actually had true territory control, and a real benefit to farming housing to the area, possible raid timers to attack or reclaim the areas. Maybe the war system could be used to sway the NPC's to one faction or another, having guilds fight over the quest lines to flip territories to one another. Imagine if the tradepack system was more than just a glorified fed-ex quest. It could have been integrated into the war system to raise the NPS favor with your faction. They had so many ideas that could have been expanded upon and made into an amazing game and it just falls so so short because they took the easy way out.
Originally posted by tiglie I guess the angering issue is how close they were, and what it could have been. Imagine if there was true item decay and some sort of death penalty (crafting resource drop on death, not full loot obviously) making PvP meaningful. Imagine if these northern continent actually had true territory control, and a real benefit to farming housing to the area, possible raid timers to attack or reclaim the areas. Maybe the war system could be used to sway the NPC's to one faction or another, having guilds fight over the quest lines to flip territories to one another. Imagine if the tradepack system was more than just a glorified fed-ex quest. It could have been integrated into the war system to raise the NPS favor with your faction. They had so many ideas that could have been expanded upon and made into an amazing game and it just falls so so short because they took the easy way out.
They coulda just done item decay or player loot. But instead they went with a system that is something i've never really played personally and i'm not mad at them for it.
Item decay wouldn't work in the game because of the way the crafting is. They'd have to change everything around quite a bit.
Its already impossible for you to ever get a full outfit all best in slot. There is already always going to be a better piece of equipment out there for you to obtain. That is fresh imo and while I personally appreciate a full loot game, not everything has to be that way to be fun.
They could have made the game better, you're right about that. But I don't hate them for putting out a solid fun game, even if its not perfect.
Iv read every post in this thread and from what i gather, its just the ramblings of one persons dislike of a game that doesn't live up to his idea of what his ideal game should be. Nothing more, nothing less.
Originally posted by tiglie I guess the angering issue is how close they were, and what it could have been. Imagine if there was true item decay and some sort of death penalty (crafting resource drop on death, not full loot obviously) making PvP meaningful. Imagine if these northern continent actually had true territory control, and a real benefit to farming housing to the area, possible raid timers to attack or reclaim the areas. Maybe the war system could be used to sway the NPC's to one faction or another, having guilds fight over the quest lines to flip territories to one another. Imagine if the tradepack system was more than just a glorified fed-ex quest. It could have been integrated into the war system to raise the NPS favor with your faction. They had so many ideas that could have been expanded upon and made into an amazing game and it just falls so so short because they took the easy way out.
AH, finally you show the real reason why you create this thread.
"I hate this game because the game is not what i want!"
Geez, i allways ignore this kind of post because dont make sense at all, but i confess you got me, i really thought it was about some ppl call AA a sandbox. You know a normal discuss, but no, it was just some useless rage for nothing....
You have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. If someone wants to take part in a discussion he should be expected to know at least some basic terms of the trade. I
This isn't about a line.
I say non-linear design, the poster above immediately twist it into something utterly meaningless such as "non-linear mechanics" and starts making a feature list.
Complete lack of understanding.
From Wikipedia,
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, though that term is used incorrectly in those cases,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If you do not know what design is, do not join a discussion about design. That is where any civil and constructive discussion actually starts.
The ball is in your court, I gave you all the clues you need, it's up to you whether you move forward and learn or stay in denial/ignorant mode.
Of course, I totally understand now, I admit: I'm wrong and you're right, tell me how you received such wisdom Sherlock
....
Don't make the mistake of assuming Gdemami actually wants a constructive conversation.
His purpose is to go into every sandbox thread and chide people for not using his one true definition. When pressed to clarify his definition, or explain why it is in any way useful, he has no time for that because it is intuitively obvious to anyone but a simpleton. If you can't read his mind, it is your fault and you are incapable of rational thought.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, though that term is used incorrectly in those cases,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
The problem with this wikipedia entry is it was written for "video games", and not "MMOs".
(ie, Elder Scrolls games are more sandbox than, say, the Wizardry series, because the user has a lot of choice in how to dick around on his way to the end game).
MMO's change the notion of "sandbox", because now there are a lot of people sharing the same sand.
Thus a "sandbox" feature came to be understood as one where players can impact each others "sand".
ie, non-instanced housing, open world PVP, terraforming, farming, dynamic questing, character collision, megaserver, and emergent gameplay are considered sandbox features, whereas instancing, phasing, sharding, static questing, scripted gameplay, and cut scenes are not.
What confuses many people is that ArcheAge gives the choice between a more linear and a more sandbox gameplay. They don't understand it, they have always been forced into one single direction, so when they are given freedom, they are totally confused and don't understand it, and stick to the "on rails" part because it's familiar and doesn't require too much thinking.
I haven't touched a single quest since level 28. And I'm doing just fine.
Too true.
I fell into the trap myself, but at level 30 I decided to see what else the game had to offer.
That was the end of questing for me in Archeage and I started enjoying the game so much more. This game has so much to it.
Originally posted by Kyleran From Wikipedia,A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, though that term is used incorrectly in those cases,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
As poster above pointed out, this doesn't really apply to MMOs(only 1st half of his post is correct tho).
That article is somewhat applicapable to single player games that are final and static and they would be considered linear if compared to non-linear MMOs.
Originally posted by rounner If we're going to argue definitions then non linear implies non progressive play. To claim it just means a few alternative quest hubs would be a lame position.
Originally posted by dandurin Don't make the mistake of assuming Gdemami actually wants a constructive conversation. His purpose is to go into every sandbox thread and chide people for not using his one true definition. When pressed to clarify his definition, or explain why it is in any way useful, he has no time for that because it is intuitively obvious to anyone but a simpleton. If you can't read his mind, it is your fault and you are incapable of rational thought.
If you know my posts on the topic, you also know I give out the reasoning and propose coherent arguments but I cannot simplify and break them into more clear form.
If one does not understand the basic terms related to the topic, I cannot do anything about it. The example of such severe lack of understanding is above, including your very own post.
Sandbox is a design, it is how you build the game, the upper level mechanics. Yet, you start listing features and player experience, the feel.
You just toss around terms without any sense, neither there is such a thing as "sandbox feature", it's nonsense.
Feature is just a component, design is how those components are organized. The outcome may be a sandbox or themepark, despite each design using same features, they are just differently implemented.
It is running in circles because people are not capable to understand and use terms properly, the result is then a mess of emotional outburst rather than thought out, constructive content.
Comments
I explictely pointed out same mistake you are doing now couple posts above.
See, people do not understand what non-linear nor design is...
You have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. If someone wants to take part in a discussion he should be expected to know at least some basic terms of the trade. I
That post should be required reading for the website. This thread is over now honestly.
This isn't about a line.
I say non-linear design, the poster above immediately twist it into something utterly meaningless such as "non-linear mechanics" and starts making a feature list.
Complete lack of understanding.
Uhm no, what you did was to state that no one understands what non-linear design is, while not saying or attempting to prove what it actually is according to you. You have pointed out nothing.
I'm fine with being blamed for a lack of understanding as long as there's any argument to it. I suggest you present that argument if you have it.
In the meantime, let me explain what I was trying to present for archeage.
First off, I'm not presuming to be talking about the entire design, I simply suggest putting the game features that contribute to having an experience in the game that do not give you a stable outcome when you present input in the game against the ones that do. So that when a poster comes in and aks: "Is this game a sandbox?", some meaningful answer can be given.
What I would call non-linear when you partake in game activity A, you are not guaranteed result B.
Examples for Archeage include:
-Player crafting: you depend on other players to provide you with materials, although the crafting process is still straightforward (but hampered by RNG), prices and availabilty will widely vary.
-Open forms of PvP, territory battles whatever: fairly self explanatory, server politics determine the outcome of many of those things. Though individual players and even guilds & alliances can plan to do something, the outcome of these actions is not guaranteed at all.
-Housing: as you are relatively free to place your housing, you are not guaranteed the spots you want, your stuff can also degrade over time if you are not capable of paying taxes etc. due to unforeseen consequences.
as well as a number of other ones
Examples of more linear design (input A gives result
would be:
-Traditional quests: do the quest and you unlock the reward. The next set of quests requires the previous one etc.
-Factions: choose a faction and the result is that a number of things become available to you, while other game content becomes unavailable.
What I think you're arguing for, is to draw a general conclusion about the game's design. My entire argument was that such a thing is probably useless because no one is ever going to agree about such a thing and the end result is usually that extreme opinions are the ones that remain.
Therefore I proposed to simply balance the parts of the game which give players an experience that is not linear (as in, input is not directly proportional to output) and / or is generally expected of this style of game against the parts of the game that are linear. Then a meaningful conclusion can be drawn about the type of game a player can expect to get.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
"I make no sense, prove me wrong" is a game I am not going to play with you, sorry.
If you want to have any constructive discussion, it is you who needs to make an effort and provide something discussion worthy. Instead, you just keep misusing the terms, despite you were pointed out your misuse.
I know what you are "trying" to say but you are in fact, saying something very different and it makes no sense.
To answer the question:
Is Archage a sandbox?
No. But it is a ride rich themepark.
Once upon a time Some RPG's came with an option that was either part of the original game, available on a disk that you could get from the developers or modded by other player, that removed level restrictions on items.
Then Gary's mod was made and became the template for the modern build it yourself style sandbox, mine craft would be an example of this.
Sandbox wasn't a genre of RPG. Daggerfall wasn't called a sandbox RPG, it was an open world RPG.
The first game I ever played that had a sandbox option was a copy of baldurs gate that a friend gave me, along with a mod that enabled sandbox mode. It simply removed all the level restrictions from the game, allowing me to use any item, and do any quest, while exploring the open world without having to level my characters.
Sandbox has only ever meant that the game has no restrictions on what a player can use based on their character level, within an open world setting.
The elders rolls games, darkfall, ultima online, mortal online, the grand theft auto games, are all sandbox because they're open world games that have no level requirement (or very limited) in order for your character to use things in the game. Even EVE, which has level requirements to be effective using items in the game, and very few items in the game that you can't use without leveling a skill first (and that typically just means you need to spend a few minutes getting the skill to one first.)
AA isn't a sandbox, they're trying to differentiate it from the typical themepark -because it is a themepark- by calling it a sandpark due to the amount of things you can do, the number of ways you can play, and a meta game revolving around territory control.
I think the OP is exaggerating, I see very few people calling AA a sandbox. Most people are very well aware that it's not a full blown sandbox, and tend to call it exactly how the XL Games labelled it, a sandpark.
This.
A very good and clear explanation.
The point of the question was to show how shallow of a gameplay experience Archeage is. I did this because the ravenous defense auto response to anyone trying to point this out is ARCHEAGE IS A SANDBOX/SANDPARK you make your own content. The problem is there is no way to create your own conflict or politics because the core of the game is designed around the same old same old standard themepark features:
1. Linear gear progression with no gear loss or durability decay
2. Inconsequential PvP outside of tradepack zerging.......there is no territory control or resource conflict, there is essentially no reason to PvP outside of just PvPing for the hell of it (Think shadowbane camp / territory control or darkfall resource gathering from ganking, etc.) It's just WoW open world pvp with the ability to flag and kill your own faction.
3. Crafting is a copy paste of every single themepark MMO with a RNG attached
4. The housing / territory control is very comparable to DAoC, with set aside housing areas and a completely broken castle claiming and seiging system. Your house is not contestable, it has ZERO affect on the game experience or world. It could for all purposes be an instanced room to show off your "trophies".
5. The "classless" system is just a farce, you are forced into class roles and just pick your three talent tress.
6. There is no true politics or guild conflict because again pvp is inconsequential for both the victor and the loser. There is no resource conflict since it's a one time make linear gear progression (i.e. get best in slot and you're done forever).
I'm arguing the sandbox/sandpark title attached to the game, because it was a HUGE selling point to many many people, and it is a complete lie to cover up the fact the game is fundamentally broken and a lie.
The only thing you have so far contributed to this thread are one or two sentence long posts claiming others are wrong and don't understand what they're talking about.
If you're making a claim like that, provide arguments to support it. Otherwise you have no point, that's the way any civil discussion works.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I totally get you.
When you made the original post you used "everyone says its a sandbox", and when everyone says that people aren't saying its a sandbox you change tactic slightly and include sandpark as well.
Then things like the "go back to wow" comment in the OP, as well as the "ravenous defense" comment in this post.
Finally ending with "the game is totally broken and a lie."
Or maybe I can point to point number 2 where you say "there's no territory control", and then in point 4 you say "territory control is very similar to DAoC." Perhaps if you had swapped point 4 with point 6 the contradiction would have been less obvious.
I totally get you. The point of the post wasn't to have a conversation about the game but to "show how shallow a gameplay experience archeage is". Because if you had just made a post saying that the game is shallow, broken, and a lie everyone would have just pointed out you're trolling and the thread would have been locked.
I totally get you.
I still don't mind having that conversation.
Maybe Archeage is shallow. Like maybe just a foot deep or so.
But most big name games out these days would be a teaspoon compared. So its not doing so bad really.
If you do not know what design is, do not join a discussion about design. That is where any civil and constructive discussion actually starts.
The ball is in your court, I gave you all the clues you need, it's up to you whether you move forward and learn or stay in denial/ignorant mode.
They coulda just done item decay or player loot. But instead they went with a system that is something i've never really played personally and i'm not mad at them for it.
Item decay wouldn't work in the game because of the way the crafting is. They'd have to change everything around quite a bit.
Its already impossible for you to ever get a full outfit all best in slot. There is already always going to be a better piece of equipment out there for you to obtain. That is fresh imo and while I personally appreciate a full loot game, not everything has to be that way to be fun.
They could have made the game better, you're right about that. But I don't hate them for putting out a solid fun game, even if its not perfect.
Of course, I totally understand now, I admit: I'm wrong and you're right, tell me how you received such wisdom Sherlock
Rite.
On a more positive note: still got my peace of mind!
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
AH, finally you show the real reason why you create this thread.
"I hate this game because the game is not what i want!"
Geez, i allways ignore this kind of post because dont make sense at all, but i confess you got me, i really thought it was about some ppl call AA a sandbox. You know a normal discuss, but no, it was just some useless rage for nothing....
From Wikipedia,
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, though that term is used incorrectly in those cases,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Don't make the mistake of assuming Gdemami actually wants a constructive conversation.
His purpose is to go into every sandbox thread and chide people for not using his one true definition. When pressed to clarify his definition, or explain why it is in any way useful, he has no time for that because it is intuitively obvious to anyone but a simpleton. If you can't read his mind, it is your fault and you are incapable of rational thought.
The problem with this wikipedia entry is it was written for "video games", and not "MMOs".
(ie, Elder Scrolls games are more sandbox than, say, the Wizardry series, because the user has a lot of choice in how to dick around on his way to the end game).
MMO's change the notion of "sandbox", because now there are a lot of people sharing the same sand.
Thus a "sandbox" feature came to be understood as one where players can impact each others "sand".
ie, non-instanced housing, open world PVP, terraforming, farming, dynamic questing, character collision, megaserver, and emergent gameplay are considered sandbox features, whereas instancing, phasing, sharding, static questing, scripted gameplay, and cut scenes are not.
Too true.
I fell into the trap myself, but at level 30 I decided to see what else the game had to offer.
That was the end of questing for me in Archeage and I started enjoying the game so much more. This game has so much to it.
As poster above pointed out, this doesn't really apply to MMOs(only 1st half of his post is correct tho).
That article is somewhat applicapable to single player games that are final and static and they would be considered linear if compared to non-linear MMOs.
If you know my posts on the topic, you also know I give out the reasoning and propose coherent arguments but I cannot simplify and break them into more clear form.
If one does not understand the basic terms related to the topic, I cannot do anything about it. The example of such severe lack of understanding is above, including your very own post.
Sandbox is a design, it is how you build the game, the upper level mechanics. Yet, you start listing features and player experience, the feel.
You just toss around terms without any sense, neither there is such a thing as "sandbox feature", it's nonsense.
Feature is just a component, design is how those components are organized. The outcome may be a sandbox or themepark, despite each design using same features, they are just differently implemented.
It is running in circles because people are not capable to understand and use terms properly, the result is then a mess of emotional outburst rather than thought out, constructive content.
It is no rocket science...