Every game with sandbox features will market itself as "THE ULTIMATE AND BESTEST SANDBOX EVER" even though the term sandbox is community game and as such it has no true definition.
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.
I think it's very clear what defines a sandbox and what doesn't. We may disagree on that but regardless, my point about marketing is still valid. All of these games hype and BS to sell the game. Sandbox is the latest buzzword and they'e using it.
Let me just reiterate some points I made earlier.
Sandboxes don't mix well with levels. Once you start guiding players down a set path of level based content you are restricting their freedom to explore and experience the world. That is not a sandbox.
Can't put that house there, you went 2 feet past the "housing area". Is that a sandbox? Or is it a themepark with housing?
Oh but PvP at endgame! DAoC! That's it. Nuff said. Ok maybe I should elaborate. DAoC was all about the PvP at end game, they introduced housing, in instanced areas, not much different to restricting you to the housing projects really. DAoC was not a sandbox. How is it any different to AA?
The idea that the definition of a Sanbox is a very abstract thing is, sorry, I don't want to sound insulting, but it's barmy.
Sandbox - create a world environment, create systems and game mechanics, create tools to enable the players, and TURN EM LOOSE! That's fairly abstract but also fairly accurate.
Themepark - Create a world environment, create systems and game mechanics, populate the world with "stuff", force the players along a set path as they play through the story/content. There ya go, another fairly accurate abstract definition.
Which of those does AA look like most?
Now before anyone else loses it on me, I play AA, I have Patron status, and I actually quite enjoy it. It's NOT A BAD GAME. But it ain't a sandbox.
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, now you are not only talking for the average Joe as if you actually could talk for anyone but yourself, but you are also saying that two definitions that are overlapping and subjective at best contradict themselves... maybe in your personal definition of the terms they do
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
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.
I think it's very clear what defines a sandbox and what doesn't. We may disagree on that but regardless, my point about marketing is still valid. All of these games hype and BS to sell the game. Sandbox is the latest buzzword and they'e using it.
From your post I can see it is very clear that you know what defines a sandbox for jmcdermottuk. Now to argue that how jmcdermottuk defines sandbox is how sandbox should be universally defined... What makes jmcdermottuk's opinion so perfect and great?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
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.
Alright then, I'll have a stab at this without the is it, isn't it getting in the way.
What have we got then?
A fairly solid MMO by all accounts. There's a very nice class system. You have access to 10(i think) skill trees like defense, archery, sorcery, witchcraft etc and by L10 you will have picked 3 of them, in any combination, allowing for a total of 120 permutations. Realistically there are probably a dozen or so that most people will tell you are the best/viable ones but if you want to make something off the wall you can.
The art work is typically asian but very nice in my opinion, it runs of Cryengine 3 so graphically it's very good. The animations are very well done.
The questing has taken some flak with people saying it's really bad but personally I find it no worse or better than any other MMO I have played. The PvE game is pretty good by all accounts. I'm quite enjoying things so far.
The housing and farming requires you to have Patron status, in order to own land. Now you can buy APEX in game for gold and this will allow you to get Patron without buying it for real money. BUT land is at a premium, it's limited and most of it is taken unless you can find some out of the way locations. You can farm in open space, it's called illegal farming but you run the risk of someone coming along an uprooting or harvesting your stuff if you don't happen to be around to defend it. Farming on land you own is protected.
Crafting is pretty expensive, resource heavy and subject to RNG.
Trade runs are a great way to make money but you move very slowly so they take time. Until you get a donkey, then it gets a bit better.
ALL of those activities are tied to the labour point system. As a free player you will be limited to what you can do because, you can't own land, and labour regenerates slowly while you are logged in and not at all when offline. If you want to do the whole farming/trade run thing you really would benefit from Patron.
At L30 you are open to PvP. Your faction remain friendly but the opposite faction will be red. Actually this will explain it better than I can.
After 30 you carry on doing what you been doing until 50. Kill stuff, farm, trade runs etc. Then it's a case of kicking the crap out of anyone on the other side you come across. FUN STUFF!
It may not be everyone's cup of tea, there may be some debate whether it's really a sandbox (it isn't), but I'm having a good time in it. It's free, so there's no reason not to have a look for yourself.
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.
I think it's very clear what defines a sandbox and what doesn't. We may disagree on that but regardless, my point about marketing is still valid. All of these games hype and BS to sell the game. Sandbox is the latest buzzword and they'e using it.
From your post I can see it is very clear that you know what defines a sandbox for jmcdermottuk. Now to argue that how jmcdermottuk defines sandbox is how sandbox should be universally defined... What makes jmcdermottuk's opinion so perfect and great?
My opinion is about as perfect and great as yours I suppose, which is to say it's neither of those things. I don't claim to be the all knowing defacto sandbox guru of all space and time. What I base my opinion on is past experiences in games that were sandboxes and comparing those games to what some people call a sandbox today. My experience tell me that those games are significantly different.
I have no idea what games you may have played, if you have played a sandbox before but either way I don't think my opinion is better or right. I'm just expressing my own opinion, doing it honestly and without rancour, based purely on what I have seen and done in the past.
The fact that XL or Trion refer to AA as a sandbox means nothing. Wargaming call WoT a tank MMO. MMO my left buttock. 15 v 15 maps do not an MMO make. If WoT is a MMO then so was Counterstrike or Quake. Obviously they weren't so somebody is telling porkies.
Having played AA my opinion is that it's a Themepark, with housing, farming and some other features not seen since some older sanbox games were around, but those features have been implemented in a very themepark fashion. I don't see those features as defining a sandbox. It's how they are implemented, it's what they allow you to do in that world. Or more to the point it's what they don't allow you to do in that world that defines a sandbox. They more choices that are taken away from the player the less of a sandbox the game becomes. That's my opinion.
The real killer for me is levels. Obviously you disageree here but if you have a level based progression system you end up with a geographical path to follow to find stuff your level. Once you go down that road, how is it a sandbox? Look at the shit over ESO and Skyrim. People wanted that go where you want, when you want from Skyrim but didn't get it. Not because ESO is a themepark or a sandbox but because it's level based. Once you make that design choice you have the 10-15 area, the 15-20 area, 20-25 etc etc. They complaint they all made? It lost is sandbox feel.
Sandboxes and levels, nah. Shoot me, sue me, call me crazy, that's my opinion, to be ignored equally as much as everyone elses on this forum.
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
"Blood Bags do not work the same way as in DayZ for Arma 2. In fact I found it to be a pain hunting down a player, stealing their blood, finding an IV kit, (only spawn in First Aid kits) making a blood bag IV, and finding a friendly player to give it to you. Although this works, you must know your blood type. Otherwise you will die if you are injected with the wrong type. You will need a blood test kit to do so. I recommend testing the blood you're putting into yourself as well."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
IMO the game is broken down into a real estate simulator follow by crafting and PVP. Toss in some PVE stuff to get you up to the level to buy in game property and get you into the PVP areas go you can get hammered by that level 50 hiding and looking for easy pickings.
Originally posted by Ikonic Did I miss the miracle patch? Their Facebook and website are advertising this as the "Ultimate Sandbox".
No different than advertisers who say the ultimate pizza, or the worlds best beer, or whatever. Nothing to take to seriously honestly. It's a non issue for me. Most companies out there make grandiose statements. Wherever you see ultimates, best, famous, etc..you should know better.
I don't think it's the adjective that's bothering them. It's that they are calling it a Sandbox while their developers are calling it a Sandpark. How would you feel ordering a burger only to get a hotdog instead?
True in it's way, but the truth of the matter is that there is plenty of opportunity on the interweb to do a bit of research on the basic features of a game and know where on the scale of 'ultimate sandbox' it stands. I personally view AA more on the sandpark region of the scale, but I knew this going in, despite the lofty claim.
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
"Blood Bags do not work the same way as in DayZ for Arma 2. In fact I found it to be a pain hunting down a player, stealing their blood, finding an IV kit, (only spawn in First Aid kits) making a blood bag IV, and finding a friendly player to give it to you. Although this works, you must know your blood type. Otherwise you will die if you are injected with the wrong type. You will need a blood test kit to do so. I recommend testing the blood you're putting into yourself as well."
Hey now I enjoyed Arma2.. as well as the X series of space sims... which I consider to be similar from a realism standpoint.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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, now you are not only talking for the average Joe as if you actually could talk for anyone but yourself, but you are also saying that two definitions that are overlapping and subjective at best contradict themselves... maybe in your personal definition of the terms they do
I'm using the general definitions.
I'm also taking from your response that you cannot see the difference between advertising a game as a sandpark or sandbox. In that case, nothing further to discuss.
Just curious, would you find it misleading if Bioware started calling SWToR a sandbox?
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.
I think it's very clear what defines a sandbox and what doesn't. We may disagree on that but regardless, my point about marketing is still valid. All of these games hype and BS to sell the game. Sandbox is the latest buzzword and they'e using it.
From your post I can see it is very clear that you know what defines a sandbox for jmcdermottuk. Now to argue that how jmcdermottuk defines sandbox is how sandbox should be universally defined... What makes jmcdermottuk's opinion so perfect and great?
Well then let's just throw out all the terms since everyone has their own definition, according to you. Just call all these games. I think that's pretty straightforward and leaves little to debate.
It may not be everyone's cup of tea, there may be some debate whether it's really a sandbox (it isn't), but I'm having a good time in it. It's free, so there's no reason not to have a look for yourself.
Thank you for your view. I still want to play but I can't at the moment.
kangaroomouse, eve online doesnt fit those ultimate sandbox requirements of yours. is eve not a sandbox?
You are right, EvE is not the Ultimate sandbox. Eve is more of a sandbox than AA and it has almost all of the requirements even though they are a little restricted.
or are minecraft and second life the only sandboxes?
Second life is a glorified chat room for social rejects not a sandbox.
even in landmark and trove you can't build anywhere you choose. (in landmark whatever you do outside of your plot erases over a couple hours)
Then they are not Ultimate Sandboxes also, they are more Sandbox than AA though because AA IS NOT A SANDBOX AT ALL.
A sandbox is when you get a box of sand (World) and tools (come in various forms) to shape and manipulate it with a LASTING effect. But of cause it can also be destroyed and erased.
----
AA has NO Sandbox features. I would like to hear just ONE sandbox feature of AA. Just one. But it seems that no one can provide that.
So the ultimate sandbox is the game that doesn't exist. The "potential" that inexplicably no human has ever been able to produce in a way that we could play the game right here, right now.
SWG, Minecraft, Wurm to name just a few i remember.
Sorry, but if only your imagination can make up a """"better"""" sandbox, that does not mean that AA isn't the best sandbox out there right now.
No! Even if AA was the only game in the world it would not be a sandbox. Not the worst or the best. IT IS NOT A SANDBOX.
You are also free to name just ONE sandbox feature of AA.
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
"Blood Bags do not work the same way as in DayZ for Arma 2. In fact I found it to be a pain hunting down a player, stealing their blood, finding an IV kit, (only spawn in First Aid kits) making a blood bag IV, and finding a friendly player to give it to you. Although this works, you must know your blood type. Otherwise you will die if you are injected with the wrong type. You will need a blood test kit to do so. I recommend testing the blood you're putting into yourself as well."
Hey now I enjoyed Arma2.. as well as the X series of space sims... which I consider to be similar from a realism standpoint.
To each their own but, IMHO, arma 2 jumped the realism shark... too much of it and it's no longer about immersion, it becomes as tedious as a job.... And I already have one of those
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
Realism has nothing to do with Sandbox. SWG was as realistic as a faffin Leprechaun yet it was a fully realized Sandbox.
----
It's amusing though you think Arma 2 or DayZ are sandbox games.
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
Realism has nothing to do with Sandbox. SWG was as realistic as a faffin Leprechaun yet it was a fully realized Sandbox.
----
It's amusing though you think Arma 2 or DayZ are sandbox games.
Reading incomprehension FTW!
Where did I say they were sandbox games? It was simply an example of realism - which by the way, is all about simulating the steps and sub-steps needed to accomplish something if it was real... As in cross matching blood, for example... Jedis don't have to be real for a Star Wars game to be realistic,.... You do know that, right?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Realism would include things like meaningful deaths in PvP. Lots of sandbox purists actually hate the stereotype that a sandbox has to have hard core death penalties and PvP ganking in it (after all, in the real world, sandboxes are supposed to be about more than just running around kicking everyone elses' castles down)
If the definition of "sandbox" is just an opinion, then GW2 is a sandbox, as someone once told me. Let's call WoW a sandbox too, since i've heard people call it one before. I mean, it has farming too, and soon "housing". The only difference, is that they are static, and AA isn't.
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
Realism has nothing to do with Sandbox. SWG was as realistic as a faffin Leprechaun yet it was a fully realized Sandbox.
----
It's amusing though you think Arma 2 or DayZ are sandbox games.
In truth, you have more freedom in an FPS game, because you can set up your own server rules as an admin. In that way, it kind of is a sandbox. You can also build in DayZ. Here's a video about crafting and building a base in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvBXXwX_pm4
kangaroomouse, eve online doesnt fit those ultimate sandbox requirements of yours. is eve not a sandbox?
You are right, EvE is not the Ultimate sandbox. Eve is more of a sandbox than AA and it has almost all of the requirements even though they are a little restricted.
or are minecraft and second life the only sandboxes?
Second life is a glorified chat room for social rejects not a sandbox.
even in landmark and trove you can't build anywhere you choose. (in landmark whatever you do outside of your plot erases over a couple hours)
Then they are not Ultimate Sandboxes also, they are more Sandbox than AA though because AA IS NOT A SANDBOX AT ALL.
A sandbox is when you get a box of sand (World) and tools (come in various forms) to shape and manipulate it with a LASTING effect. But of cause it can also be destroyed and erased.
----
AA has NO Sandbox features. I would like to hear just ONE sandbox feature of AA. Just one. But it seems that no one can provide that.
one sandbox feature, by your definition. You have a tool, Farms, to make ingredients for a host of reasons. You can choose what to farm, when to farm, how to use your product, sell your farm if u don't like it, move your farm if u wish, don't have a farm if you don't want one and the list goes on. Sounds like a sandbox feature to me.
Comments
Every game with sandbox features will market itself as "THE ULTIMATE AND BESTEST SANDBOX EVER" even though the term sandbox is community game and as such it has no true definition.
Long story short ... it's how marketing works
/thread off
I think it's very clear what defines a sandbox and what doesn't. We may disagree on that but regardless, my point about marketing is still valid. All of these games hype and BS to sell the game. Sandbox is the latest buzzword and they'e using it.
Let me just reiterate some points I made earlier.
Sandboxes don't mix well with levels. Once you start guiding players down a set path of level based content you are restricting their freedom to explore and experience the world. That is not a sandbox.
Can't put that house there, you went 2 feet past the "housing area". Is that a sandbox? Or is it a themepark with housing?
Oh but PvP at endgame! DAoC! That's it. Nuff said. Ok maybe I should elaborate. DAoC was all about the PvP at end game, they introduced housing, in instanced areas, not much different to restricting you to the housing projects really. DAoC was not a sandbox. How is it any different to AA?
The idea that the definition of a Sanbox is a very abstract thing is, sorry, I don't want to sound insulting, but it's barmy.
Sandbox - create a world environment, create systems and game mechanics, create tools to enable the players, and TURN EM LOOSE! That's fairly abstract but also fairly accurate.
Themepark - Create a world environment, create systems and game mechanics, populate the world with "stuff", force the players along a set path as they play through the story/content. There ya go, another fairly accurate abstract definition.
Which of those does AA look like most?
Now before anyone else loses it on me, I play AA, I have Patron status, and I actually quite enjoy it. It's NOT A BAD GAME. But it ain't a sandbox.
Well, now you are not only talking for the average Joe as if you actually could talk for anyone but yourself, but you are also saying that two definitions that are overlapping and subjective at best contradict themselves... maybe in your personal definition of the terms they do
From your post I can see it is very clear that you know what defines a sandbox for jmcdermottuk. Now to argue that how jmcdermottuk defines sandbox is how sandbox should be universally defined... What makes jmcdermottuk's opinion so perfect and great?
Alright then, I'll have a stab at this without the is it, isn't it getting in the way.
What have we got then?
A fairly solid MMO by all accounts. There's a very nice class system. You have access to 10(i think) skill trees like defense, archery, sorcery, witchcraft etc and by L10 you will have picked 3 of them, in any combination, allowing for a total of 120 permutations. Realistically there are probably a dozen or so that most people will tell you are the best/viable ones but if you want to make something off the wall you can.
The art work is typically asian but very nice in my opinion, it runs of Cryengine 3 so graphically it's very good. The animations are very well done.
The questing has taken some flak with people saying it's really bad but personally I find it no worse or better than any other MMO I have played. The PvE game is pretty good by all accounts. I'm quite enjoying things so far.
The housing and farming requires you to have Patron status, in order to own land. Now you can buy APEX in game for gold and this will allow you to get Patron without buying it for real money. BUT land is at a premium, it's limited and most of it is taken unless you can find some out of the way locations. You can farm in open space, it's called illegal farming but you run the risk of someone coming along an uprooting or harvesting your stuff if you don't happen to be around to defend it. Farming on land you own is protected.
Crafting is pretty expensive, resource heavy and subject to RNG.
Trade runs are a great way to make money but you move very slowly so they take time. Until you get a donkey, then it gets a bit better.
ALL of those activities are tied to the labour point system. As a free player you will be limited to what you can do because, you can't own land, and labour regenerates slowly while you are logged in and not at all when offline. If you want to do the whole farming/trade run thing you really would benefit from Patron.
At L30 you are open to PvP. Your faction remain friendly but the opposite faction will be red. Actually this will explain it better than I can.
http://archeage.gamepedia.com/World_PvP
After 30 you carry on doing what you been doing until 50. Kill stuff, farm, trade runs etc. Then it's a case of kicking the crap out of anyone on the other side you come across. FUN STUFF!
It may not be everyone's cup of tea, there may be some debate whether it's really a sandbox (it isn't), but I'm having a good time in it. It's free, so there's no reason not to have a look for yourself.
My opinion is about as perfect and great as yours I suppose, which is to say it's neither of those things. I don't claim to be the all knowing defacto sandbox guru of all space and time. What I base my opinion on is past experiences in games that were sandboxes and comparing those games to what some people call a sandbox today. My experience tell me that those games are significantly different.
I have no idea what games you may have played, if you have played a sandbox before but either way I don't think my opinion is better or right. I'm just expressing my own opinion, doing it honestly and without rancour, based purely on what I have seen and done in the past.
The fact that XL or Trion refer to AA as a sandbox means nothing. Wargaming call WoT a tank MMO. MMO my left buttock. 15 v 15 maps do not an MMO make. If WoT is a MMO then so was Counterstrike or Quake. Obviously they weren't so somebody is telling porkies.
Having played AA my opinion is that it's a Themepark, with housing, farming and some other features not seen since some older sanbox games were around, but those features have been implemented in a very themepark fashion. I don't see those features as defining a sandbox. It's how they are implemented, it's what they allow you to do in that world. Or more to the point it's what they don't allow you to do in that world that defines a sandbox. They more choices that are taken away from the player the less of a sandbox the game becomes. That's my opinion.
The real killer for me is levels. Obviously you disageree here but if you have a level based progression system you end up with a geographical path to follow to find stuff your level. Once you go down that road, how is it a sandbox? Look at the shit over ESO and Skyrim. People wanted that go where you want, when you want from Skyrim but didn't get it. Not because ESO is a themepark or a sandbox but because it's level based. Once you make that design choice you have the 10-15 area, the 15-20 area, 20-25 etc etc. They complaint they all made? It lost is sandbox feel.
Sandboxes and levels, nah. Shoot me, sue me, call me crazy, that's my opinion, to be ignored equally as much as everyone elses on this forum.
Peace!
Lol. Some of the sandbox purist in this thread should be forced to play Arma 2 so they get a good feel for how totally un-fun too much realism in a game can be...
"Blood Bags do not work the same way as in DayZ for Arma 2. In fact I found it to be a pain hunting down a player, stealing their blood, finding an IV kit, (only spawn in First Aid kits) making a blood bag IV, and finding a friendly player to give it to you. Although this works, you must know your blood type. Otherwise you will die if you are injected with the wrong type. You will need a blood test kit to do so. I recommend testing the blood you're putting into yourself as well."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
yeah its because the term " sandbox " is only a opinion. hell i could say Star Wars is the ultimate sandbox and not even say why.
People should never listen to advertising when it comes to these games, dont listen to that or sites that rate games because its all fiction.
True in it's way, but the truth of the matter is that there is plenty of opportunity on the interweb to do a bit of research on the basic features of a game and know where on the scale of 'ultimate sandbox' it stands. I personally view AA more on the sandpark region of the scale, but I knew this going in, despite the lofty claim.
I self identify as a monkey.
Hey now I enjoyed Arma2.. as well as the X series of space sims... which I consider to be similar from a realism standpoint.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Not just the game, but their reputation as a competent game studio.
They went from "no tricks, no traps" in Rift, to a big mess with AA.
I'm using the general definitions.
I'm also taking from your response that you cannot see the difference between advertising a game as a sandpark or sandbox. In that case, nothing further to discuss.
Just curious, would you find it misleading if Bioware started calling SWToR a sandbox?
Well then let's just throw out all the terms since everyone has their own definition, according to you. Just call all these games. I think that's pretty straightforward and leaves little to debate.
Thank you for your view. I still want to play but I can't at the moment.
A sandbox is when you get a box of sand (World) and tools (come in various forms) to shape and manipulate it with a LASTING effect. But of cause it can also be destroyed and erased.
----
AA has NO Sandbox features. I would like to hear just ONE sandbox feature of AA. Just one. But it seems that no one can provide that.
You are also free to name just ONE sandbox feature of AA.
To each their own but, IMHO, arma 2 jumped the realism shark... too much of it and it's no longer about immersion, it becomes as tedious as a job.... And I already have one of those
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Realism has nothing to do with Sandbox. SWG was as realistic as a faffin Leprechaun yet it was a fully realized Sandbox.
----
It's amusing though you think Arma 2 or DayZ are sandbox games.
Reading incomprehension FTW!
Where did I say they were sandbox games? It was simply an example of realism - which by the way, is all about simulating the steps and sub-steps needed to accomplish something if it was real... As in cross matching blood, for example... Jedis don't have to be real for a Star Wars game to be realistic,.... You do know that, right?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
In truth, you have more freedom in an FPS game, because you can set up your own server rules as an admin. In that way, it kind of is a sandbox. You can also build in DayZ. Here's a video about crafting and building a base in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvBXXwX_pm4
one sandbox feature, by your definition. You have a tool, Farms, to make ingredients for a host of reasons. You can choose what to farm, when to farm, how to use your product, sell your farm if u don't like it, move your farm if u wish, don't have a farm if you don't want one and the list goes on. Sounds like a sandbox feature to me.
I self identify as a monkey.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.