90% of people don't know what a sandbox is. As in those people who say FFA PVP is sandbox.
Hehe yeah, when the term "Sandbox" refers to creativity, creation, building, imagination, they compare it to a purely destructive activity. It's like saying that painting is about slashing a finished painting to bits with a knife.
That is now considered an acceptable form of modern art.
Your story was what you did while grinding mob's to max level and maybe raiding
^thats a themepark. Why? Because everyone who played EQ1 had to do the same thing to acheive the same outcome. Everything you could do in that game and when you could do it was planned out by its developers. This is why its called a themepark. Like an amusement park roller coaster, you stand in line to ride a ride that goes around on steel tracks. You are playing someone else's dream.
A sandbox is like the lunar rover. You are given a steering wheel and a gas pedal. You can drive it anywhere at anytime you want on the moon. You can even drive over a bump and reach escape velocity and float away into space. Its your dream you can do what you want.
Everquest honestly isn't a themepark. At least it wasn't. You weren't tasked to ride the quest hubs to be savior of the world. Your story was what you did while grinding mob's to max level and maybe raiding.
The genre is a refinement of World of Warcraft. Even WoW is a refinement of World of Warcraft lol. That game is a transitional point. I don't blame it for its success or imitation.
Was it inspired by Everquest? Yes. The game was but WoW era is defined on quest progression, playability, accessibility and conveniences. All good things but oveEverquest isn't a sandbox either. I never said it was a sandbox. Its neither a sandbox or themepark. Themepark and Sandboxes are types of playing areas types. For example if you had a game like EQ1 and placed a quest hub at a castle it now has a themepark area, and a zone where you build houses and change things it now has sandbox area. As I said above most games are 100% themepark in that you're zones support quest and story.
EQ was never called a themepark until after WoW. Google can help you with that.
"This sounds suspiciously like Everquest’s generic theme park version of a fantasy world, but Garriott insists this ability to leap from one quest to the next will be consistent with the game’s internal narrative." - The Return of Lord British - Salon.com, Dec 2001
Never seen that quote before, having searched many times for the origins of it. Not withstanding, EQ in 2001 was never about leaping from one quest to the next, nor was that style of gameplay widely attributed to EQ until after it was popularized by WoW.
EQ was never called a themepark until after WoW. Google can help you with that.
"This sounds suspiciously like Everquest’s generic theme park version of a fantasy world, but Garriott insists this ability to leap from one quest to the next will be consistent with the game’s internal narrative." - The Return of Lord British - Salon.com, Dec 2001
Never seen that quote before, having searched many times for the origins of it. Not withstanding, EQ in 2001 was never about leaping from one quest to the next, nor was that style of gameplay widely attributed to EQ until after it was popularized by WoW.
Well, all I can do is tell you how it was. As I said earlier, I was there.
Google won't help. It's too old and most of the sites are gone, if they aren't they've been rebuilt and lost the old stuff. I even tried searching Raph Koster's site but that old stuff is gone.
It is true though that WoW brought a lot more talk about it, and the term really picked up steam at that point. But it was used quite often back in the EQ days just as I said. I was heavily involved in the arguments myself, on the issues/virtues of Sandbox vs. Themepark. Just as I've been for many years here. I also used to hound the forums at Stratics (was a reporter there for a short time too) and before that I was a regular at Auric's and the place that had UO's Mage Tower forum (can't remember the name off hand).
In short, I've been active in MMO discussions since UO's development, well before beta. And I've been heavily involved in the Sandbox and Themepark debates since the very first moment when EQ made their announcement on big power gaps during their development.
You can assume I don't know what I'm talking about, but you'd be wrong.
I remember the whole sandbox vs themepark debates from early 2000-2001. The concepts didn't really hit mainstream though until people started calling WoW "themepark" as a kind of insult to its quest-to-quest grind.
Then there was the whole argument over what "sandbox" even meant. Some thought it was just open world, some thought it required destructible terrain and player-built cities.
I'm actually quite glad those arguments settled down and people somewhat agreed on their definitions (or, at least, they stopped caring).
As was I, but that article was merely the exception as it was uncommon. In fact, in looking up themepark/theme park during that time frame, the few places it did occur were the same author using it in articles to describe quite a few games.
Classic EQ simply did not meet the criteria to be a themepark according to common usage of the word since it was popularized by WoW. Even when you try to shed its meaning and limit it to only being a game of pve, dungeons and raiding, EQ was always far more, even if it wasn't designed as such. The fact is, the game was very loosely designed in order to not be restrictive or to impose limitations on players and as a result, emergent gameplay of all kinds occurred. Beyond that, they also had quite a few PvP servers, as well as several other rulesets to encourage that sort of deviation.
As was I, but that article was merely the exception as it was uncommon. In fact, in looking up themepark/theme park during that time frame, the few places it did occur were the same author using it in articles to describe quite a few games.
Classic EQ simply did not meet the criteria to be a themepark according to common usage of the word since it was popularized by WoW. Even when you try to shed its meaning and limit it to only being a game of pve, dungeons and raiding, EQ was always far more, even if it wasn't designed as such. The fact is, the game was very loosely designed in order to not be restrictive or to impose limitations on players and as a result, emergent gameplay of all kinds occurred. Beyond that, they also had quite a few PvP servers, as well as several other rulesets to encourage that sort of deviation.
DikuMUD was the themepark MUD, whereas things like LP and Tiny were more of a sandbox. EQ is based off DikuMUD. It's pretty much a 3D version of DikuMUD. No one is saying EQ is bad. Nor is anyone saying it isn't more open than today's hub-based MMOs. However, it's undeniable that it is a themepark in design.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
Ya, thats what its always meant until it was redefined and people have decided to retroactively go back and misapply it to other games.
In the same way, sandbox has been boxed in (ironically) to mean something much more narrow than it ever was previously. Basically if you create a game with anything short of skill systems and terrain, you done crossed the line and went "themepark." Its idiotic.
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
Ya, thats what its always meant until it was redefined and people have decided to retroactively go back and misapply it to other games.
In the same way, sandbox has been boxed in (ironically) to mean something much more narrow than it ever was previously. Basically if you create a game with anything short of skill systems and terrain, you done crossed the line and went "themepark." Its idiotic.
You've missed the point entirely. Just because EQ1 didn't have quest hubs doesn't mean it is not a themepark. When you start a character in EQ1, you pretty much know everything that is going to happen to that character from day 1 until you delete it. Its a predetermined outcome. It's on rails.
You bash mobs in different zones (aka late 1990's style gameplay) until you reach level cap. Then you do some end game raiding. There isn't much room for unpredictability there. Just because EQ1 was a better themepark than EQ2 and Wow and their clones, doesn't mean it was a sandbox.
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
Ya, thats what its always meant until it was redefined and people have decided to retroactively go back and misapply it to other games.
In the same way, sandbox has been boxed in (ironically) to mean something much more narrow than it ever was previously. Basically if you create a game with anything short of skill systems and terrain, you done crossed the line and went "themepark." Its idiotic.
You've missed the point entirely. Just because EQ1 didn't have quest hubs doesn't mean it is not a themepark. When you start a character in EQ1, you pretty much know everything that is going to happen to that character from day 1 until you delete it. Its a predetermined outcome. It's on rails.
You bash mobs in different zones (aka late 1990's style gameplay) until you reach level cap. Then you do some end game raiding. There isn't much room for unpredictability there. Just because EQ1 was a better themepark than EQ2 and Wow and their clones, doesn't mean it was a sandbox.
Your understanding of how EverQuest worked sounds like you learned it from reading about it rather than actually playing it... because that simply isn't how it happened no matter how much you'd like to trivialize it and make it such. Granted, that is what it became years later, but people played the game in many very different ways, even if a majority simply went from 1 zone to the next bashing mobs.
For instance, I spent time making money, trading, transporting players and solo farming. I also spent a lot of time exploring (because travel was easy as a wizard), and delving into the lore scattered throughout the world via npcs, books and quests. I had enough money to buy anything I wanted before I even "bashed" my way through half of the levels.
Have you ever even heard the statistics on players who raided in older MMOs? Its said less than 10% raided, in early WoW. If early WoW raids required fewer people than most EQ raids, how many people do you imagine were really bashing mobs at end game raiding. The answer is very few, because contrary to themepark games, that actually wasn't the end all be all in EverQuest. Especially early on before SOE took over and made raiding the primary goal.
I also never said it was a sandbox. I know this is going to blow your mind with your second hand information and black or white logic, but EQ doesn't fit in either box. It simply offered too much player freedom and different forms of gameplay to be a themepark, and yet lacked the depth in many of those types of gameplay to be a sandbox. EQ is smack dab in the middle. In fact, few games have straddled the line as well as EQ (a line that, though many here falsely contend, did not even exist at the time nor for many years).
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
That is part of it, sandbox also means that players can create content as well, be that a player created guildcity, player owned stores & taverns, quests, dungeons & castles or similar things.
But most games have at least a little sandbox parts, crafting for example is a sandbox feature (even if most themeparks tend to have it pretty railed) and mixing the genres might not be a bad idea at all.
Themeparks greatest problem is the limited endgame while sandboxes problem is that they tend to become really chaotic with a lot of players running around without anything to do. Adding a little railed content to a sandbox or a player created endgame to a themepark have both advantages.
I do think a lot of the problem with new Vs old games is due to the cost of making modern graphics. New games tend to be small and few investors can afford to make a AAA MMO which mean only the most "commercial" games will get made, or what financers think most players want.
Guild Wars 2 is a sandbox then... interesting :P More seriously... what you say is only one part of a sandbox game. The player needs the ability to build, to shape the world. A sandbox needs an open world (box), materials to shape it (sand) and the tools to shape it. Therefore EQ1 has definitely never been a sandbox, and its gameplay is very much "on rails" like all theme park games. Kill mobs, ding, go to next farm stop, kill mobs, ding, go to next farm spot, etc... never was sandbox gameplay.
It is more a scale then games being just one or the other. GW2 is not as far on the themepark scale as Wow is but further out then Eve online. Eve on the other hand is not as much of a sandbox game that UO was and Minecraft probably hold the maximum sandbox factor (even if it isn't a MMO) I would still call GW2 a themepark and Eve a sandbox myself, but GW2 might be 75% themepark and 25% sandbox while Eve would be more like the other way around.
But logic really doesn't help here and it doesn't matter that much what a game is as long as it is fun to play. I think some devs have forgotten the fun part and just focus on what other games are doing and that goes for both themeparks and sandboxes. Far too many sandbox devs seems to try to make a new UO instead of trying to make a new fun game just as far too many themepark devs try with Wow.
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
Guild Wars 2 is a sandbox then... interesting :P More seriously... what you say is only one part of a sandbox game. The player needs the ability to build, to shape the world. A sandbox needs an open world (box), materials to shape it (sand) and the tools to shape it. Therefore EQ1 has definitely never been a sandbox, and its gameplay is very much "on rails" like all theme park games. Kill mobs, ding, go to next farm stop, kill mobs, ding, go to next farm spot, etc... never was sandbox gameplay.
See, that definition was added later. Originally, the term sandbox meant "Here's stuff to do. We won't tell you what to do with it. Have fun."
Unfortunately, the visual of "sand" gave birth to the concept of needing a destructible world and player built cities and such.
That's fine. I'm not really a fan of that type of gameplay (cuz it typically leads to chaos and only like 5 overpowered dudes creating and destroying everything). And if that's what we're calling sandbox now, then fine. I'm not a fan of sandbox games then.
I'm perfectly happy using the term "open world". A game with things to do, but no predetermined, hand-held path.
what about Gloria Victis? haven't played it myself but it has some features I like mostly devlopers who really listens to the Community. Again I like to say I have only read about it so this is not my personal oppinion but what I have read.
It seems to be alot of sandbox features in it. Me personally love sandboxes like minecraft, 7 Days and so on but they usually have Graphics that can't be compaired with the AAA Theme parks and maybe thats why sandboxes fall short. Many of my friends like theme parks more don't really know why maybe because it's usually easier to get into.
As was I, but that article was merely the exception as it was uncommon. In fact, in looking up themepark/theme park during that time frame, the few places it did occur were the same author using it in articles to describe quite a few games.
Classic EQ simply did not meet the criteria to be a themepark according to common usage of the word since it was popularized by WoW. Even when you try to shed its meaning and limit it to only being a game of pve, dungeons and raiding, EQ was always far more, even if it wasn't designed as such. The fact is, the game was very loosely designed in order to not be restrictive or to impose limitations on players and as a result, emergent gameplay of all kinds occurred. Beyond that, they also had quite a few PvP servers, as well as several other rulesets to encourage that sort of deviation.
DikuMUD was the themepark MUD, whereas things like LP and Tiny were more of a sandbox. EQ is based off DikuMUD. It's pretty much a 3D version of DikuMUD. No one is saying EQ is bad. Nor is anyone saying it isn't more open than today's hub-based MMOs. However, it's undeniable that it is a themepark in design.
That's right. This difference in game design goes back before MMO's. Although the term "Themepark" wasn't coined until EQ as far as I know.
From the Wikipedia entry on Diku:
"Commonly referred to as simply "Diku", the game was greatly inspired by AberMUD,[1][3]
though Diku became one of the first multi-user games to become popular
as a freely-available program for its gameplay and similarity to Dungeons & Dragons."
So, in the original meaning of all this, whether it's called "Themepark" or not, is a game designed like Dungeons & Dragons.
And in D&D, you have levels that separate the content as a whole. You know, there will always be content like "kill 10 rats" that players will skill/level past. That's to be expected because almost all of us want advancement. The real point is how far that's carried, and is it the standard all the way through the game or not. Themepark=Yes ....per game design that the player is captured into Sandbox=No ....freedom (at least free of that "capture")
Nearly every game I have played has been a combination of themepark and sandbox. That is because once you put human beings in a game together, they will always add layers of unpredictability and make their own contributions to game content.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Nearly every game I have played has been a combination of themepark and sandbox. That is because once you put human beings in a game together, they will always add layers of unpredictability and make their own contributions to game content.
There's also a third component - social. It's entertaining that this community, one with so many people fixated on forcing people to play with them, that component not only doesn't get spoken about but doesn't even get acknowledged.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I've always just considered themepark to mean "on rails" and sandbox to be... not on rails. I could be wrong, but I'm also one of those that no longer cares. As for personal preference, I hate MMOs on rails. I barely like single player RPGs that are on rails. I'm an open world kinda guy.
Ya, thats what its always meant until it was redefined and people have decided to retroactively go back and misapply it to other games.
In the same way, sandbox has been boxed in (ironically) to mean something much more narrow than it ever was previously. Basically if you create a game with anything short of skill systems and terrain, you done crossed the line and went "themepark." Its idiotic.
You've missed the point entirely. Just because EQ1 didn't have quest hubs doesn't mean it is not a themepark. When you start a character in EQ1, you pretty much know everything that is going to happen to that character from day 1 until you delete it. Its a predetermined outcome. It's on rails.
You bash mobs in different zones (aka late 1990's style gameplay) until you reach level cap. Then you do some end game raiding. There isn't much room for unpredictability there. Just because EQ1 was a better themepark than EQ2 and Wow and their clones, doesn't mean it was a sandbox.
Your understanding of how EverQuest worked sounds like you learned it from reading about it rather than actually playing it... because that simply isn't how it happened no matter how much you'd like to trivialize it and make it such. Granted, that is what it became years later, but people played the game in many very different ways, even if a majority simply went from 1 zone to the next bashing mobs.
For instance, I spent time making money, trading, transporting players and solo farming. I also spent a lot of time exploring (because travel was easy as a wizard), and delving into the lore scattered throughout the world via npcs, books and quests. I had enough money to buy anything I wanted before I even "bashed" my way through half of the levels.
Have you ever even heard the statistics on players who raided in older MMOs? Its said less than 10% raided, in early WoW. If early WoW raids required fewer people than most EQ raids, how many people do you imagine were really bashing mobs at end game raiding. The answer is very few, because contrary to themepark games, that actually wasn't the end all be all in EverQuest. Especially early on before SOE took over and made raiding the primary goal.
I also never said it was a sandbox. I know this is going to blow your mind with your second hand information and black or white logic, but EQ doesn't fit in either box. It simply offered too much player freedom and different forms of gameplay to be a themepark, and yet lacked the depth in many of those types of gameplay to be a sandbox. EQ is smack dab in the middle. In fact, few games have straddled the line as well as EQ (a line that, though many here falsely contend, did not even exist at the time nor for many years).
Everything you just listed can be done in WoW. Therefor using your logic, Wow is not a themepark.
EQ1 was basically themepark #2. Themepark #1 was the ancient precursor to EQ1 known as Meridian 59 (aka the first 3D MMORPG from 1996 where you grinded skills by farming orbs and bashing mobs).
In contrast the first sandbox MMORPG is Neverwinter Nights (from 1991, is like a very crude and basic shadowbane without any 3d graphics and text based until you enter combat). Why were sandboxes more common early on? Because DnD was a sandbox.
Its like you feel insulted by everyone calling EQ1 a themepark when you should feel honored that basically EVERY other themepark cloned much of it.
(i find it disturbing that people assume the history of MMORPG's started with EQ1 and UO!)
l2avism said: Why were sandboxes more common early on? Because DnD was a sandbox.
You hit on a very important point there. DnD was a sandbox, and the core of the sandbox gameplay was the Dungeon Master (DM). With the shift to MUDs and then to MMOs, what drove the sandbox gameplay, the DM, was removed, and replaced with repetitive progression tasks (mob killing, leveling) and scripted content. This is compounded by the fact that the chosen business model was subscription. The easiest way to make the gameplay fit the business model is to expand and drag out the leveling process, resulting in static, tiered worlds.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
EQ was a loot driven mob driven game where the player had absolutely no impact on the world. The player just went from area to area riding the rides the devs made. It was an open world (read as not quest guided) themepark through and through.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Every time I read one of these threads, I always get the vibe that people are deathly afraid of having their game labeled a theme park and even more afraid of having someone else's game labeled a sandbox. Both types of games are respectable and can provide plenty of quality entertainment. Too much stress and emotion over nothing in my opinion.
Also, as someone who never got to have a go with EQ, I find it fascinating that the general consensus (from what I can tell with most of the posts I've read over the years) seems to be that it fell in between what is often described as a theme park and sandbox game. Damn shame I missed out on that in it's heyday.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Comments
^thats a themepark.
Why? Because everyone who played EQ1 had to do the same thing to acheive the same outcome. Everything you could do in that game and when you could do it was planned out by its developers.
This is why its called a themepark. Like an amusement park roller coaster, you stand in line to ride a ride that goes around on steel tracks. You are playing someone else's dream.
A sandbox is like the lunar rover. You are given a steering wheel and a gas pedal. You can drive it anywhere at anytime you want on the moon. You can even drive over a bump and reach escape velocity and float away into space. Its your dream you can do what you want.
Google won't help. It's too old and most of the sites are gone, if they aren't they've been rebuilt and lost the old stuff.
I even tried searching Raph Koster's site but that old stuff is gone.
It is true though that WoW brought a lot more talk about it, and the term really picked up steam at that point. But it was used quite often back in the EQ days just as I said. I was heavily involved in the arguments myself, on the issues/virtues of Sandbox vs. Themepark. Just as I've been for many years here.
I also used to hound the forums at Stratics (was a reporter there for a short time too) and before that I was a regular at Auric's and the place that had UO's Mage Tower forum (can't remember the name off hand).
In short, I've been active in MMO discussions since UO's development, well before beta. And I've been heavily involved in the Sandbox and Themepark debates since the very first moment when EQ made their announcement on big power gaps during their development.
You can assume I don't know what I'm talking about, but you'd be wrong.
Once upon a time....
Then there was the whole argument over what "sandbox" even meant. Some thought it was just open world, some thought it required destructible terrain and player-built cities.
I'm actually quite glad those arguments settled down and people somewhat agreed on their definitions (or, at least, they stopped caring).
Classic EQ simply did not meet the criteria to be a themepark according to common usage of the word since it was popularized by WoW. Even when you try to shed its meaning and limit it to only being a game of pve, dungeons and raiding, EQ was always far more, even if it wasn't designed as such. The fact is, the game was very loosely designed in order to not be restrictive or to impose limitations on players and as a result, emergent gameplay of all kinds occurred. Beyond that, they also had quite a few PvP servers, as well as several other rulesets to encourage that sort of deviation.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
In the same way, sandbox has been boxed in (ironically) to mean something much more narrow than it ever was previously. Basically if you create a game with anything short of skill systems and terrain, you done crossed the line and went "themepark." Its idiotic.
When you start a character in EQ1, you pretty much know everything that is going to happen to that character from day 1 until you delete it. Its a predetermined outcome. It's on rails.
You bash mobs in different zones (aka late 1990's style gameplay) until you reach level cap. Then you do some end game raiding. There isn't much room for unpredictability there.
Just because EQ1 was a better themepark than EQ2 and Wow and their clones, doesn't mean it was a sandbox.
For instance, I spent time making money, trading, transporting players and solo farming. I also spent a lot of time exploring (because travel was easy as a wizard), and delving into the lore scattered throughout the world via npcs, books and quests. I had enough money to buy anything I wanted before I even "bashed" my way through half of the levels.
Have you ever even heard the statistics on players who raided in older MMOs? Its said less than 10% raided, in early WoW. If early WoW raids required fewer people than most EQ raids, how many people do you imagine were really bashing mobs at end game raiding. The answer is very few, because contrary to themepark games, that actually wasn't the end all be all in EverQuest. Especially early on before SOE took over and made raiding the primary goal.
I also never said it was a sandbox. I know this is going to blow your mind with your second hand information and black or white logic, but EQ doesn't fit in either box. It simply offered too much player freedom and different forms of gameplay to be a themepark, and yet lacked the depth in many of those types of gameplay to be a sandbox. EQ is smack dab in the middle. In fact, few games have straddled the line as well as EQ (a line that, though many here falsely contend, did not even exist at the time nor for many years).
But most games have at least a little sandbox parts, crafting for example is a sandbox feature (even if most themeparks tend to have it pretty railed) and mixing the genres might not be a bad idea at all.
Themeparks greatest problem is the limited endgame while sandboxes problem is that they tend to become really chaotic with a lot of players running around without anything to do. Adding a little railed content to a sandbox or a player created endgame to a themepark have both advantages.
I do think a lot of the problem with new Vs old games is due to the cost of making modern graphics. New games tend to be small and few investors can afford to make a AAA MMO which mean only the most "commercial" games will get made, or what financers think most players want.
It is more a scale then games being just one or the other. GW2 is not as far on the themepark scale as Wow is but further out then Eve online. Eve on the other hand is not as much of a sandbox game that UO was and Minecraft probably hold the maximum sandbox factor (even if it isn't a MMO) I would still call GW2 a themepark and Eve a sandbox myself, but GW2 might be 75% themepark and 25% sandbox while Eve would be more like the other way around.
But logic really doesn't help here and it doesn't matter that much what a game is as long as it is fun to play. I think some devs have forgotten the fun part and just focus on what other games are doing and that goes for both themeparks and sandboxes. Far too many sandbox devs seems to try to make a new UO instead of trying to make a new fun game just as far too many themepark devs try with Wow.
SandyPedants vs the EverFaithful arguing over exactly what kind of game EQ was, this time?
Splitting hairs over Label definitions is really important to a great argument!
Unfortunately, the visual of "sand" gave birth to the concept of needing a destructible world and player built cities and such.
That's fine. I'm not really a fan of that type of gameplay (cuz it typically leads to chaos and only like 5 overpowered dudes creating and destroying everything). And if that's what we're calling sandbox now, then fine. I'm not a fan of sandbox games then.
I'm perfectly happy using the term "open world". A game with things to do, but no predetermined, hand-held path.
It seems to be alot of sandbox features in it. Me personally love sandboxes like minecraft, 7 Days and so on but they usually have Graphics that can't be compaired with the AAA Theme parks and maybe thats why sandboxes fall short. Many of my friends like theme parks more don't really know why maybe because it's usually easier to get into.
This difference in game design goes back before MMO's. Although the term "Themepark" wasn't coined until EQ as far as I know.
From the Wikipedia entry on Diku:
So, in the original meaning of all this, whether it's called "Themepark" or not, is a game designed like Dungeons & Dragons.
And in D&D, you have levels that separate the content as a whole.
You know, there will always be content like "kill 10 rats" that players will skill/level past. That's to be expected because almost all of us want advancement.
The real point is how far that's carried, and is it the standard all the way through the game or not.
Themepark=Yes ....per game design that the player is captured into
Sandbox=No ....freedom (at least free of that "capture")
Once upon a time....
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Therefor using your logic, Wow is not a themepark.
EQ1 was basically themepark #2. Themepark #1 was the ancient precursor to EQ1 known as Meridian 59 (aka the first 3D MMORPG from 1996 where you grinded skills by farming orbs and bashing mobs).
In contrast the first sandbox MMORPG is Neverwinter Nights (from 1991, is like a very crude and basic shadowbane without any 3d graphics and text based until you enter combat). Why were sandboxes more common early on? Because DnD was a sandbox.
Its like you feel insulted by everyone calling EQ1 a themepark when you should feel honored that basically EVERY other themepark cloned much of it.
(i find it disturbing that people assume the history of MMORPG's started with EQ1 and UO!)
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Also, as someone who never got to have a go with EQ, I find it fascinating that the general consensus (from what I can tell with most of the posts I've read over the years) seems to be that it fell in between what is often described as a theme park and sandbox game. Damn shame I missed out on that in it's heyday.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb