AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
So how do the sandbox elements in this game compare to the sandbox elements of UO?
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
Do you even play this game? Seriously, your post screams, "I have never played ArcheAge before in my life!"
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
So you are saying it is a sandbox then? Not a Sandpark? I'm confused. The website says sandbox, you say sandbox, others says Sandpark, others say sandbox post 50. Sounds like no one really knows what the hell it is.
Why couldn't it be both? The world is not so white and black, my friend.
Ok, a Sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark.
You are saying it's a blend of a sandpark (themepark and sandbox) and sandbox? That's just confusing as hell. And redundant. Why not just call it a sandpark if it has both elements of a sandbox and themepark?
Since it has features of both sandbox and themepark, all three definitions work just fine. No game ever is a pure sandbox or themepark. Which wouldn't even be possible because there's no scientifically agreed, universally applicable definition of "sandbox" or "themepark" in the first place. Even in this thread everyone's just projecting their own personal definitions as the "true" definitions. You keep saying it is confusing but I don't agree. It's only confusing if your world consists of different boxes that can only be black or white, yet nothing in-between and especially not overlapping each other.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
Ultima Online and Eve are still alive. Actually, some people went back to UO recently in a forum thread here and found it to be pretty neat for its sandbox features.
Honestly, the only really sandbox-y thing Archeage has is land management (if you can even get it) and open world PvP. I wouldn't call trade-routes to be sandboxy (you're running back and forth across set paths as designated by the game, not by you) and the housing system leaves much to be desired.
There's nothing in the game mechanics to really support (significantly beyond what any theme park could support) things like creating player towns, running your own shop, or hosting a cantina in this game. There isn't any significant territory control either beyond gankfests (even castles will just be for bragging rights when they come out, and they're on set schedules for their battles too which isn't very sandbox-y. Several theme parks have systems like that)
Please tell us more about what is sandbox-y and what isn't.
If the only place to find similar games is either in space in an excel simulator or in a game that struggles to beat Dwarf Fortress in the graphics department, I think ArcheAge has a very, very clear niche with no real competition. At least before EQ Next which is totally going to be so much better for sure, right?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
So how do the sandbox elements in this game compare to the sandbox elements of UO?
I didn't play UO for that long before moving to EQ so let me compare it to SWG.
For a start SWG was skillbased (as was UO) and if you wanted to go fight Rancors as a new character you could. Probably not that successfuly, but the vertical progression was less marked than a themepark. Housing could be placed pretty much anywhere you wanted, provided the ground was level enough. This actually led to player developed towns appearing.
The guild I was in were all Imps and we had a town we called Taashi on Tatooine. We had the players homes, a guild hall, shops, a shuttle pad, crafting halls. All of this player made and laid out in a design that we chose, in a location that we chose. Try doing that in AA and see how far you get. It's just not possible.
Now Skill based vs level based. UO, SWG, EVE from char creation you load up the game and it's basically pick a direction, go anywhere, try anything. Admittedly the harder content will pulverise you until you get you skills up/trained but the freedom to go is there. In AA you start as Lvl 1 in the starter area and you progress along a defined route of increasing mob level as your character levels, then at 30 you have a few options where to go, but you still have those restrictions. You can't go to this L45 area becasse you're 30 and you will die, period.
In EVE I can create a char spend an hour or two getting some frigate skills up then go to 0.0 in a rifter or something if that's what I want to do. I can jump into PvP right off the bat or I can go do agent missions or play the market, whatever.
SWG was similar in that if you didn't have those advanced skill sets up yet you just get some mates along and you could still go fight Rancors. You might have to kite them around a bit but it was possible.
That flexibility is absent from AA because, well, because it's a themepark. The fact that they included features not seen since the older sandbox games, housing, farming etc doesn't make it a sandbox. They have too many restrictions on those features to be truely sandbox.
Housing, farming, trade runs etc, none of those makes a sandbox, it's how they are implemented that defines a sandbox. AA lacks the flexibility and freedom to be called a real sandbox.
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
Ultima Online and Eve are still alive. Actually, some people went back to UO recently in a forum thread here and found it to be pretty neat for its sandbox features.
Honestly, the only really sandbox-y thing Archeage has is land management (if you can even get it) and open world PvP. I wouldn't call trade-routes to be sandboxy (you're running back and forth across set paths as designated by the game, not by you) and the housing system leaves much to be desired.
There's nothing in the game mechanics to really support (significantly beyond what any theme park could support) things like creating player towns, running your own shop, or hosting a cantina in this game. There isn't any significant territory control either beyond gankfests (even castles will just be for bragging rights when they come out, and they're on set schedules for their battles too which isn't very sandbox-y. Several theme parks have systems like that)
Please tell us more about what is sandbox-y and what isn't.
If the only place to find similar games is either in space in an excel simulator or in a game that struggles to beat Dwarf Fortress in the graphics department, I think ArcheAge has a very, very clear niche with no real competition. At least before EQ Next which is totally going to be so much better for sure, right?
....my entire post was about what's sandbox-y and what wasn't. At this point you're just screaming and shouting hoping no one will ignore the fact that you yourself are ignoring everyone else.
Archeage does have a very clear niche ("clear" once you take off the rose-colored glasses at least), though, but that niche isn't sandbox. That niche is "keep up in the gear race with others in a PvP environment". There's no other game out there that's both extremely gear-based with no full loot PvP (similar to a themepark) while also being almost 100% PvP in the end game. For those looking for a game where you either socialize and work to extreme efficiency so you can kill others or else be killed yourself in a game of "nothing else to do but PvP" at the end (and I don't mean that as an insult) in something that isn't than a P2W facebook game (I'm not saying Archeage is P2W or not), Archeage is that niche.
For those looking for a game where you can have an impact on the world itself and craft castles of sand, Archeage is NOT that niche.
Unfortunately, tons of people have rose-colored glasses on and think Archeage's niche is "sandbox". It's not, and they are in for a rude awakening when they find out what Archeage's niche ACTUALLY is once all the PvE filler is done (which doesn't take long).
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
Do you even play this game? Seriously, your post screams, "I have never played ArcheAge before in my life!"
Yeah I do, I was playing it this morning in fact and FINALLY I managed to find a plot to stick a scarecrow farm on. Still got nothing big enough for a house though. Yeah, real sandbox that. Oh and look at that, me with land. I must be a Patron then, eh?
I'm not saying the game is bad. I'm saying it's not a sandbox. I didn't expect it to be one because I did my research. I knew what to expect and I'm quite enjoying it. But no amount of fan or marketing BS will ever convince me this is a sandbox. I know what a sandbox is because I've played several and AA isn't. As I said though, that doesn't make it a bad game.
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
So you are saying it is a sandbox then? Not a Sandpark? I'm confused. The website says sandbox, you say sandbox, others says Sandpark, others say sandbox post 50. Sounds like no one really knows what the hell it is.
Why couldn't it be both? The world is not so white and black, my friend.
Ok, a Sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark.
You are saying it's a blend of a sandpark (themepark and sandbox) and sandbox? That's just confusing as hell. And redundant. Why not just call it a sandpark if it has both elements of a sandbox and themepark?
Since it has features of both sandbox and themepark, all three definitions work just fine. No game ever is a pure sandbox or themepark. Which wouldn't even be possible because there's no scientifically agreed, universally applicable definition of "sandbox" or "themepark" in the first place. Even in this thread everyone's just projecting their own personal definitions as the "true" definitions. You keep saying it is confusing but I don't agree. It's only confusing if your world consists of different boxes that can only be black or white, yet nothing in-between and especially not overlapping each other.
It is confusing because the developers are calling it a sandpark and the site says sandbox. So until one of them can clarify what it is and why they are calling it two different things it will remain a confusion to many.
Again, calling it a sandpark, themepark, and sandbox is redundant because they widely accepted definition of a sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark. So why call it a sandbox/themepark/(sandbox/themepark) blend? Makes no sense. Again, I am not the one using the labels. Trion and XL are. It appears they can't agree as to what the game is; hence, the confusion.
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
So you are saying it is a sandbox then? Not a Sandpark? I'm confused. The website says sandbox, you say sandbox, others says Sandpark, others say sandbox post 50. Sounds like no one really knows what the hell it is.
Why couldn't it be both? The world is not so white and black, my friend.
Ok, a Sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark.
You are saying it's a blend of a sandpark (themepark and sandbox) and sandbox? That's just confusing as hell. And redundant. Why not just call it a sandpark if it has both elements of a sandbox and themepark?
Since it has features of both sandbox and themepark, all three definitions work just fine. No game ever is a pure sandbox or themepark. Which wouldn't even be possible because there's no scientifically agreed, universally applicable definition of "sandbox" or "themepark" in the first place. Even in this thread everyone's just projecting their own personal definitions as the "true" definitions. You keep saying it is confusing but I don't agree. It's only confusing if your world consists of different boxes that can only be black or white, yet nothing in-between and especially not overlapping each other.
It is confusing because the developers are calling it a sandpark and the site says sandbox. So until one of them can clarify what it is and why they are calling it two different things it will remain a confusion to many.
Again, calling it a sandpark, themepark, and sandbox is redundant because they widely accepted definition of a sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark. So why call it a sandbox/themepark/(sandbox/themepark) blend? Makes no sense. Again, I am not the one using the labels. Trion and XL are. It appears they can't agree as to what the game is; hence, the confusion.
As you've stated, the widely accepted definition of sandpark is a game that blends sandbox and theme park elements. Archeage does this more than most games do (IE, it has more sandbox elements than many other games do, and has more theme park elements than a different set of games do), therefore it is a sandpark.
(honestly, the more I look at it, the more even calling it a sandpark is wrong. Archeage's themepark elements drop off sharply once you're past hastla weapons and are level capped and thus don't have any reason to PvE anymore. At that point, there's no themepark left because PvE is what a theme park IS. So I guess it goes from a sandpark to.... sand, or something)
Truthfully the more I look at it, the more I'd call Archeage a "Facebook browser game that isn't on facebook or a browser... and in 3D!" I play lots of facebook games too and they're also very similar in that they start off having lots of PvE and lots of farmville just like Archeage but eventually you cap out and reach what could be end-game and it's all about the PvP from there. Can't think of a short oneword term for that, though.
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
So how do the sandbox elements in this game compare to the sandbox elements of UO?
I didn't play UO for that long before moving to EQ so let me compare it to SWG.
For a start SWG was skillbased (as was UO) and if you wanted to go fight Rancors as a new character you could. Probably not that successfuly, but the vertical progression was less marked than a themepark. Housing could be placed pretty much anywhere you wanted, provided the ground was level enough. This actually led to player developed towns appearing.
The guild I was in were all Imps and we had a town we called Taashi on Tatooine. We had the players homes, a guild hall, shops, a shuttle pad, crafting halls. All of this player made and laid out in a design that we chose, in a location that we chose. Try doing that in AA and see how far you get. It's just not possible.
Now Skill based vs level based. UO, SWG, EVE from char creation you load up the game and it's basically pick a direction, go anywhere, try anything. Admittedly the harder content will pulverise you until you get you skills up/trained but the freedom to go is there. In AA you start as Lvl 1 in the starter area and you progress along a defined route of increasing mob level as your character levels, then at 30 you have a few options where to go, but you still have those restrictions. You can't go to this L45 area becasse you're 30 and you will die, period.
In EVE I can create a char spend an hour or two getting some frigate skills up then go to 0.0 in a rifter or something if that's what I want to do. I can jump into PvP right off the bat or I can go do agent missions or play the market, whatever.
SWG was similar in that if you didn't have those advanced skill sets up yet you just get some mates along and you could still go fight Rancors. You might have to kite them around a bit but it was possible.
That flexibility is absent from AA because, well, because it's a themepark. The fact that they included features not seen since the older sandbox games, housing, farming etc doesn't make it a sandbox. They have too many restrictions on those features to be truely sandbox.
Housing, farming, trade runs etc, none of those makes a sandbox, it's how they are implemented that defines a sandbox. AA lacks the flexibility and freedom to be called a real sandbox.
I'm reserving my own judgement about what Archeage is until I've played the game until 50th and beyond. I have to say though that this post makes some really excellent comparisons between Archeage and other games with sandbox elements. And puts forth a good solid debate as to what Archeage is and is not.
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
So how do the sandbox elements in this game compare to the sandbox elements of UO?
I didn't play UO for that long before moving to EQ so let me compare it to SWG.
For a start SWG was skillbased (as was UO) and if you wanted to go fight Rancors as a new character you could. Probably not that successfuly, but the vertical progression was less marked than a themepark. Housing could be placed pretty much anywhere you wanted, provided the ground was level enough. This actually led to player developed towns appearing.
The guild I was in were all Imps and we had a town we called Taashi on Tatooine. We had the players homes, a guild hall, shops, a shuttle pad, crafting halls. All of this player made and laid out in a design that we chose, in a location that we chose. Try doing that in AA and see how far you get. It's just not possible.
Now Skill based vs level based. UO, SWG, EVE from char creation you load up the game and it's basically pick a direction, go anywhere, try anything. Admittedly the harder content will pulverise you until you get you skills up/trained but the freedom to go is there. In AA you start as Lvl 1 in the starter area and you progress along a defined route of increasing mob level as your character levels, then at 30 you have a few options where to go, but you still have those restrictions. You can't go to this L45 area becasse you're 30 and you will die, period.
In EVE I can create a char spend an hour or two getting some frigate skills up then go to 0.0 in a rifter or something if that's what I want to do. I can jump into PvP right off the bat or I can go do agent missions or play the market, whatever.
SWG was similar in that if you didn't have those advanced skill sets up yet you just get some mates along and you could still go fight Rancors. You might have to kite them around a bit but it was possible.
That flexibility is absent from AA because, well, because it's a themepark. The fact that they included features not seen since the older sandbox games, housing, farming etc doesn't make it a sandbox. They have too many restrictions on those features to be truely sandbox.
Housing, farming, trade runs etc, none of those makes a sandbox, it's how they are implemented that defines a sandbox. AA lacks the flexibility and freedom to be called a real sandbox.
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
So how do the sandbox elements in this game compare to the sandbox elements of UO?
I didn't play UO for that long before moving to EQ so let me compare it to SWG.
For a start SWG was skillbased (as was UO) and if you wanted to go fight Rancors as a new character you could. Probably not that successfuly, but the vertical progression was less marked than a themepark. Housing could be placed pretty much anywhere you wanted, provided the ground was level enough. This actually led to player developed towns appearing.
The guild I was in were all Imps and we had a town we called Taashi on Tatooine. We had the players homes, a guild hall, shops, a shuttle pad, crafting halls. All of this player made and laid out in a design that we chose, in a location that we chose. Try doing that in AA and see how far you get. It's just not possible.
Now Skill based vs level based. UO, SWG, EVE from char creation you load up the game and it's basically pick a direction, go anywhere, try anything. Admittedly the harder content will pulverise you until you get you skills up/trained but the freedom to go is there. In AA you start as Lvl 1 in the starter area and you progress along a defined route of increasing mob level as your character levels, then at 30 you have a few options where to go, but you still have those restrictions. You can't go to this L45 area becasse you're 30 and you will die, period.
In EVE I can create a char spend an hour or two getting some frigate skills up then go to 0.0 in a rifter or something if that's what I want to do. I can jump into PvP right off the bat or I can go do agent missions or play the market, whatever.
SWG was similar in that if you didn't have those advanced skill sets up yet you just get some mates along and you could still go fight Rancors. You might have to kite them around a bit but it was possible.
That flexibility is absent from AA because, well, because it's a themepark. The fact that they included features not seen since the older sandbox games, housing, farming etc doesn't make it a sandbox. They have too many restrictions on those features to be truely sandbox.
Housing, farming, trade runs etc, none of those makes a sandbox, it's how they are implemented that defines a sandbox. AA lacks the flexibility and freedom to be called a real sandbox.
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
As you've stated, the widely accepted definition of sandpark is a game that blends sandbox and theme park elements. Archeage does this more than most games do (IE, it has more sandbox elements than many other games do, and has more theme park elements than a different set of games do), therefore it is a sandpark.
(honestly, the more I look at it, the more even calling it a sandpark is wrong. Archeage's themepark elements drop off sharply once you're past hastla weapons and are level capped and thus don't have any reason to PvE anymore. At that point, there's no themepark left because PvE is what a theme park IS. So I guess it goes from a sandpark to.... sand, or something)
Truthfully the more I look at it, the more I'd call Archeage a "Facebook browser game that isn't on facebook or a browser... and in 3D!" I play lots of facebook games too and they're also very similar in that they start off having lots of PvE and lots of farmville just like Archeage but eventually you cap out and reach what could be end-game and it's all about the PvP from there. Can't think of a short oneword term for that, though.
So you are suggesting it is themepark until level 50? So endgame is sandbox? I thought endgame was PVP. Again, confusion.
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
If the marketing is part of the same company they know exactly what they are doing and have every obligation to advertise the game as it should be. The problem is that Trion, the company, is sending mixed messages about what this game is.
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
Ultima Online and Eve are still alive. Actually, some people went back to UO recently in a forum thread here and found it to be pretty neat for its sandbox features.
Honestly, the only really sandbox-y thing Archeage has is land management (if you can even get it) and open world PvP. I wouldn't call trade-routes to be sandboxy (you're running back and forth across set paths as designated by the game, not by you) and the housing system leaves much to be desired.
There's nothing in the game mechanics to really support (significantly beyond what any theme park could support) things like creating player towns, running your own shop, or hosting a cantina in this game. There isn't any significant territory control either beyond gankfests (even castles will just be for bragging rights when they come out, and they're on set schedules for their battles too which isn't very sandbox-y. Several theme parks have systems like that)
Please tell us more about what is sandbox-y and what isn't.
If the only place to find similar games is either in space in an excel simulator or in a game that struggles to beat Dwarf Fortress in the graphics department, I think ArcheAge has a very, very clear niche with no real competition. At least before EQ Next which is totally going to be so much better for sure, right?
....my entire post was about what's sandbox-y and what wasn't. At this point you're just screaming and shouting hoping no one will ignore the fact that you yourself are ignoring everyone else.
Archeage does have a very clear niche ("clear" once you take off the rose-colored glasses at least), though, but that niche isn't sandbox. That niche is "keep up in the gear race with others in a PvP environment". There's no other game out there that's both extremely gear-based with no full loot PvP (similar to a themepark) while also being almost 100% PvP in the end game. For those looking for a game where you either socialize and work to extreme efficiency so you can kill others or else be killed yourself in a game of "nothing else to do but PvP" at the end (and I don't mean that as an insult) in something that isn't than a P2W facebook game (I'm not saying Archeage is P2W or not), Archeage is that niche.
For those looking for a game where you can have an impact on the world itself and craft castles of sand, Archeage is NOT that niche.
Unfortunately, tons of people have rose-colored glasses on and think Archeage's niche is "sandbox". It's not, and they are in for a rude awakening when they find out what Archeage's niche ACTUALLY is once all the PvE filler is done (which doesn't take long).
Sorry, I guess I need to use clearer, more to-the-point language that my point can be actually understood. You told us what is sandbox-y and what isn't, while having absolutely no grounds to make such claims in the first place. You, like everyone else here, is just projecting their personal feelings on what a sandbox is or isn't, which in the end is just as meaningful of an opinion as what I, Hyanmen of the interwebs, think about the climate change.
Screaming and kicking that AA "isn't" a sandbox is hilarious to watch, but doesn't really detract from the underlying fact that countless cases can be made for AA's being more of a sandbox than many other games out there. Yes, it's not like a game is sandbox or isn't sandbox. Games can only be more of a sandbox or less of a sandbox. A sliding scale, not a switch that you flip on or off depending on what mmorpg poster X thinks about it.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
Exactly this. Sandbox seems to be the current buzzword in MMO's and everyone wants to be the next Sandbox. Much like the term MMO, the word Sandbox seems to have been redefined into anything that will sell the game.
You guys can tell us what the "better" sandboxes are that are out there currently?
Even with it's technical flaws and lack of proper support this game manages to be the best sandbox out there by a wide margin. A title well deserved.
So you are saying it is a sandbox then? Not a Sandpark? I'm confused. The website says sandbox, you say sandbox, others says Sandpark, others say sandbox post 50. Sounds like no one really knows what the hell it is.
Why couldn't it be both? The world is not so white and black, my friend.
Ok, a Sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark.
You are saying it's a blend of a sandpark (themepark and sandbox) and sandbox? That's just confusing as hell. And redundant. Why not just call it a sandpark if it has both elements of a sandbox and themepark?
Since it has features of both sandbox and themepark, all three definitions work just fine. No game ever is a pure sandbox or themepark. Which wouldn't even be possible because there's no scientifically agreed, universally applicable definition of "sandbox" or "themepark" in the first place. Even in this thread everyone's just projecting their own personal definitions as the "true" definitions. You keep saying it is confusing but I don't agree. It's only confusing if your world consists of different boxes that can only be black or white, yet nothing in-between and especially not overlapping each other.
It is confusing because the developers are calling it a sandpark and the site says sandbox. So until one of them can clarify what it is and why they are calling it two different things it will remain a confusion to many.
Again, calling it a sandpark, themepark, and sandbox is redundant because they widely accepted definition of a sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark. So why call it a sandbox/themepark/(sandbox/themepark) blend? Makes no sense. Again, I am not the one using the labels. Trion and XL are. It appears they can't agree as to what the game is; hence, the confusion.
Once again, you are only confused because you seem to think that a game can only be one thing. Please tell me what the "widely accepted" definitions of sandbox and themepark are? They are as well-defined as a line drawn on the water. Overlapping, changing, transforming, subjective. That's not a bad thing per se - you just need to understand it.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
If the marketing is part of the same company they know exactly what they are doing and have every obligation to advertise the game as it should be. The problem is that Trion, the company, is sending mixed messages about what this game is.
Ethically, yes. But what if they either don't give a crap about ethics, or they're just being cheap and lazy (or both)?
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
Exactly this. Sandbox seems to be the current buzzword in MMO's and everyone wants to be the next Sandbox. Much like the term MMO, the word Sandbox seems to have been redefined into anything that will sell the game.
You are talking as if there was some clear definition of the term in the past, to be now suddenly redefined. Maybe there was, on a very, very abstract level only at best though.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
Exactly this. Sandbox seems to be the current buzzword in MMO's and everyone wants to be the next Sandbox. Much like the term MMO, the word Sandbox seems to have been redefined into anything that will sell the game.
You are talking as if there was some clear definition of the term in the past, to be now suddenly redefined. Maybe there was, on a very, very abstract level only at best though.
Well it doesn't seem to help when even Trion/XL seem to be a bit schitzophrenic about what to call the fucking thing.
However, you know what? This all seems like a massive waste of effort. How about instead of arguing about what its called you instead define and discus the merits of the features the game has? So regardless what people want to call it, how about debating if its any fucking good?
Once again, you are only confused because you seem to think that a game can only be one thing. Please tell me what the "widely accepted" definitions of sandbox and themepark are? They are as well-defined as a line drawn on the water. Overlapping, changing, transforming, subjective. That's not a bad thing per se - you just need to understand it.
Listen, we're talking in circles here. I am getting from you that you consider this game to have all of these elements and that's fine. But if a company is selling a product and advertising it as two different things (things that do have contradictions with each other), then it is going to lead average Joe to confusion. If you can see past all that and accept that, grats to you. But you have to at least acknowledge the way they are selling the game leaves a lot to be confused about.
Well it doesn't seem to help when even Trion/XL seem to be a bit schitzophrenic about what to call the fucking thing.
However, you know what? This all seems like a massive waste of effort. How about instead of arguing about what its called you instead define and discus the merits of the features the game has? So regardless what people want to call it, how about debating if its any fucking good?
To answer your question, I have no fucking idea because I am still waiting for them to fix the bug I reported CBT3 so I can play the fucker. In the meantime, all I can ask is what the game is about because I can't play it.
And the responses on these boards are either "Best MMO since EQ" or "Worst MMO ever". So it's clear there are two extreme opinions of the game which is common on these boards but is more than annoying because it makes visiting this site rather pointless at times because for every person that claims it's the greatest MMO ever, there is an equally loud voice saying it's pure shit.
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
Exactly this. Sandbox seems to be the current buzzword in MMO's and everyone wants to be the next Sandbox. Much like the term MMO, the word Sandbox seems to have been redefined into anything that will sell the game.
You are talking as if there was some clear definition of the term in the past, to be now suddenly redefined. Maybe there was, on a very, very abstract level only at best though.
Well it doesn't seem to help when even Trion/XL seem to be a bit schitzophrenic about what to call the fucking thing.
However, you know what? This all seems like a massive waste of effort. How about instead of arguing about what its called you instead define and discus the merits of the features the game has? So regardless what people want to call it, how about debating if its any fucking good?
They're not any schitzophrenic as the game can be sandpark and sandbox either way.
Taking a break from FFXIV, I enjoy the more open structure (or rather lack of structure) of the game immensely. 120 class combinations that (obviously) are not balanced at all, the ranged/melee/healing mechanics that are broken & unbalanced yet give birth to more creativity than possible. The areas that while restrict you somewhat are not so well defined that you couldn't find a loophole through which to go where you're not supposed to. Once you do, you can take advantage by planting your illegal treefarm there in hopes of no one else finding out what you're up to.
It's made to be broken in all the different ways and that's what makes this a great sandbox and a great breath of fresh air for me. In contrast to the game that does go to lengths to restrict you for the sake of balance and proper game design. This game is a hundred times more open and free than FFXIV could ever hope to be. The only restriction I would like to see added is that you could only do the things available in-game, not by hacks or other third party sources.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Comments
AA is no sandbox. You start out with a themepark and all that happens is the quest hubs disappear at 30. Calling it a sandpark implies more sandbox with themepark elements.
If anything it's more of a Themebox, a Themepark game with some loosely "sandbox" features. And I use that term lightly.
Limitations on where you can you build and the fact that from 1-50 you are zone restricted by level, so you can't just go anywhere you want, both make this a themepark.
Sanboxes and levels just don't mix well. Levels restrict you geographically to areas suitable for that level. Once you start following that path you're no longer in a sandbox.
So how do the sandbox elements in this game compare to the sandbox elements of UO?
Do you even play this game? Seriously, your post screams, "I have never played ArcheAge before in my life!"
Since it has features of both sandbox and themepark, all three definitions work just fine. No game ever is a pure sandbox or themepark. Which wouldn't even be possible because there's no scientifically agreed, universally applicable definition of "sandbox" or "themepark" in the first place. Even in this thread everyone's just projecting their own personal definitions as the "true" definitions. You keep saying it is confusing but I don't agree. It's only confusing if your world consists of different boxes that can only be black or white, yet nothing in-between and especially not overlapping each other.
Please tell us more about what is sandbox-y and what isn't.
If the only place to find similar games is either in space in an excel simulator or in a game that struggles to beat Dwarf Fortress in the graphics department, I think ArcheAge has a very, very clear niche with no real competition. At least before EQ Next which is totally going to be so much better for sure, right?
I didn't play UO for that long before moving to EQ so let me compare it to SWG.
For a start SWG was skillbased (as was UO) and if you wanted to go fight Rancors as a new character you could. Probably not that successfuly, but the vertical progression was less marked than a themepark. Housing could be placed pretty much anywhere you wanted, provided the ground was level enough. This actually led to player developed towns appearing.
The guild I was in were all Imps and we had a town we called Taashi on Tatooine. We had the players homes, a guild hall, shops, a shuttle pad, crafting halls. All of this player made and laid out in a design that we chose, in a location that we chose. Try doing that in AA and see how far you get. It's just not possible.
Now Skill based vs level based. UO, SWG, EVE from char creation you load up the game and it's basically pick a direction, go anywhere, try anything. Admittedly the harder content will pulverise you until you get you skills up/trained but the freedom to go is there. In AA you start as Lvl 1 in the starter area and you progress along a defined route of increasing mob level as your character levels, then at 30 you have a few options where to go, but you still have those restrictions. You can't go to this L45 area becasse you're 30 and you will die, period.
In EVE I can create a char spend an hour or two getting some frigate skills up then go to 0.0 in a rifter or something if that's what I want to do. I can jump into PvP right off the bat or I can go do agent missions or play the market, whatever.
SWG was similar in that if you didn't have those advanced skill sets up yet you just get some mates along and you could still go fight Rancors. You might have to kite them around a bit but it was possible.
That flexibility is absent from AA because, well, because it's a themepark. The fact that they included features not seen since the older sandbox games, housing, farming etc doesn't make it a sandbox. They have too many restrictions on those features to be truely sandbox.
Housing, farming, trade runs etc, none of those makes a sandbox, it's how they are implemented that defines a sandbox. AA lacks the flexibility and freedom to be called a real sandbox.
....my entire post was about what's sandbox-y and what wasn't. At this point you're just screaming and shouting hoping no one will ignore the fact that you yourself are ignoring everyone else.
Archeage does have a very clear niche ("clear" once you take off the rose-colored glasses at least), though, but that niche isn't sandbox. That niche is "keep up in the gear race with others in a PvP environment". There's no other game out there that's both extremely gear-based with no full loot PvP (similar to a themepark) while also being almost 100% PvP in the end game. For those looking for a game where you either socialize and work to extreme efficiency so you can kill others or else be killed yourself in a game of "nothing else to do but PvP" at the end (and I don't mean that as an insult) in something that isn't than a P2W facebook game (I'm not saying Archeage is P2W or not), Archeage is that niche.
For those looking for a game where you can have an impact on the world itself and craft castles of sand, Archeage is NOT that niche.
Unfortunately, tons of people have rose-colored glasses on and think Archeage's niche is "sandbox". It's not, and they are in for a rude awakening when they find out what Archeage's niche ACTUALLY is once all the PvE filler is done (which doesn't take long).
Yeah I do, I was playing it this morning in fact and FINALLY I managed to find a plot to stick a scarecrow farm on. Still got nothing big enough for a house though. Yeah, real sandbox that. Oh and look at that, me with land. I must be a Patron then, eh?
I'm not saying the game is bad. I'm saying it's not a sandbox. I didn't expect it to be one because I did my research. I knew what to expect and I'm quite enjoying it. But no amount of fan or marketing BS will ever convince me this is a sandbox. I know what a sandbox is because I've played several and AA isn't. As I said though, that doesn't make it a bad game.
It is confusing because the developers are calling it a sandpark and the site says sandbox. So until one of them can clarify what it is and why they are calling it two different things it will remain a confusion to many.
Again, calling it a sandpark, themepark, and sandbox is redundant because they widely accepted definition of a sandpark is a blend of sandbox and themepark. So why call it a sandbox/themepark/(sandbox/themepark) blend? Makes no sense. Again, I am not the one using the labels. Trion and XL are. It appears they can't agree as to what the game is; hence, the confusion.
As you've stated, the widely accepted definition of sandpark is a game that blends sandbox and theme park elements. Archeage does this more than most games do (IE, it has more sandbox elements than many other games do, and has more theme park elements than a different set of games do), therefore it is a sandpark.
(honestly, the more I look at it, the more even calling it a sandpark is wrong. Archeage's themepark elements drop off sharply once you're past hastla weapons and are level capped and thus don't have any reason to PvE anymore. At that point, there's no themepark left because PvE is what a theme park IS. So I guess it goes from a sandpark to.... sand, or something)
Truthfully the more I look at it, the more I'd call Archeage a "Facebook browser game that isn't on facebook or a browser... and in 3D!" I play lots of facebook games too and they're also very similar in that they start off having lots of PvE and lots of farmville just like Archeage but eventually you cap out and reach what could be end-game and it's all about the PvP from there. Can't think of a short oneword term for that, though.
I'm reserving my own judgement about what Archeage is until I've played the game until 50th and beyond. I have to say though that this post makes some really excellent comparisons between Archeage and other games with sandbox elements. And puts forth a good solid debate as to what Archeage is and is not.
Thank you for the explanation. So basing off this information, I can see why you would not call it a sandpark (and most likely why XL is calling it a sandbox.....perhaps a better term would be themebox since it seems the themepark elements outweigh the sandpark ones...again based off of your description).
So if this is true, why is Trion calling it a sandbox?
Trion's MARKETTING is calling it a sandbox (website design falls under advertising expenses and thus is marketting, too). The trion guys in interviews (the ones that do things like request to XLGames for the direction of the game, etc) who actually know what the game IS call it a sandpark.
Marketting has no obligation to know what the game is, apparently.
So you are suggesting it is themepark until level 50? So endgame is sandbox? I thought endgame was PVP. Again, confusion.
If the marketing is part of the same company they know exactly what they are doing and have every obligation to advertise the game as it should be. The problem is that Trion, the company, is sending mixed messages about what this game is.
Sorry, I guess I need to use clearer, more to-the-point language that my point can be actually understood. You told us what is sandbox-y and what isn't, while having absolutely no grounds to make such claims in the first place. You, like everyone else here, is just projecting their personal feelings on what a sandbox is or isn't, which in the end is just as meaningful of an opinion as what I, Hyanmen of the interwebs, think about the climate change.
Screaming and kicking that AA "isn't" a sandbox is hilarious to watch, but doesn't really detract from the underlying fact that countless cases can be made for AA's being more of a sandbox than many other games out there. Yes, it's not like a game is sandbox or isn't sandbox. Games can only be more of a sandbox or less of a sandbox. A sliding scale, not a switch that you flip on or off depending on what mmorpg poster X thinks about it.
Exactly this. Sandbox seems to be the current buzzword in MMO's and everyone wants to be the next Sandbox. Much like the term MMO, the word Sandbox seems to have been redefined into anything that will sell the game.
Once again, you are only confused because you seem to think that a game can only be one thing. Please tell me what the "widely accepted" definitions of sandbox and themepark are? They are as well-defined as a line drawn on the water. Overlapping, changing, transforming, subjective. That's not a bad thing per se - you just need to understand it.
Ethically, yes. But what if they either don't give a crap about ethics, or they're just being cheap and lazy (or both)?
You are talking as if there was some clear definition of the term in the past, to be now suddenly redefined. Maybe there was, on a very, very abstract level only at best though.
Well it doesn't seem to help when even Trion/XL seem to be a bit schitzophrenic about what to call the fucking thing.
However, you know what? This all seems like a massive waste of effort. How about instead of arguing about what its called you instead define and discus the merits of the features the game has? So regardless what people want to call it, how about debating if its any fucking good?
Listen, we're talking in circles here. I am getting from you that you consider this game to have all of these elements and that's fine. But if a company is selling a product and advertising it as two different things (things that do have contradictions with each other), then it is going to lead average Joe to confusion. If you can see past all that and accept that, grats to you. But you have to at least acknowledge the way they are selling the game leaves a lot to be confused about.
To answer your question, I have no fucking idea because I am still waiting for them to fix the bug I reported CBT3 so I can play the fucker. In the meantime, all I can ask is what the game is about because I can't play it.
And the responses on these boards are either "Best MMO since EQ" or "Worst MMO ever". So it's clear there are two extreme opinions of the game which is common on these boards but is more than annoying because it makes visiting this site rather pointless at times because for every person that claims it's the greatest MMO ever, there is an equally loud voice saying it's pure shit.
They're not any schitzophrenic as the game can be sandpark and sandbox either way.
Taking a break from FFXIV, I enjoy the more open structure (or rather lack of structure) of the game immensely. 120 class combinations that (obviously) are not balanced at all, the ranged/melee/healing mechanics that are broken & unbalanced yet give birth to more creativity than possible. The areas that while restrict you somewhat are not so well defined that you couldn't find a loophole through which to go where you're not supposed to. Once you do, you can take advantage by planting your illegal treefarm there in hopes of no one else finding out what you're up to.
It's made to be broken in all the different ways and that's what makes this a great sandbox and a great breath of fresh air for me. In contrast to the game that does go to lengths to restrict you for the sake of balance and proper game design. This game is a hundred times more open and free than FFXIV could ever hope to be. The only restriction I would like to see added is that you could only do the things available in-game, not by hacks or other third party sources.