Impact on the world is an illusion, a construct that exists in your mind. Being able to build a house or a castle has no more bearing on impacting the world than players in an open world "mob driven" game fighting over contested content.
I've played both, and forming and destroying player alliances with a castle had no more impact on the world than fighting a guild or alliance who had claimed a city or a dungeon as their territory. Politics were as important on EQs Rallos Zek as they ever were in UO or Darkfall. The outcome of the fights on Rallos Zek had no more or less bearing on the world and its inhabitants than notable "sandbox" games. One lost castle pixels, the other lost armor pixels.
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.
D&D was not a Sandbox by design. Good DMs would do their best to turn it into a Sandbox experience, and usually successfully. But the game, by design, was "on rails". As shown by the modules that were created and based on level ranges.
It's just another example of how Diku turned text Muds into Themepark, same thing as the modules. And also how players like the Sandbox experience.
Impact on the world is an illusion, a construct that exists in your mind. Being able to build a house or a castle has no more bearing on impacting the world than players in an open world "mob driven" game fighting over contested content.
I've played both, and forming and destroying player alliances with a castle had no more impact on the world than fighting a guild or alliance who had claimed a city or a dungeon as their territory. Politics were as important on EQs Rallos Zek as they ever were in UO or Darkfall. The outcome of the fights on Rallos Zek had no more or less bearing on the world and its inhabitants than notable "sandbox" games. One lost castle pixels, the other lost armor pixels.
I'm not sure what you were doing when you played Darkfall....
I starting playing MMO's with shadowbane. In shadowbane you could basically own entire zones and tax anyone who dared build a city in them. Gameplay revolved around guild politics and warfare and not PVE content. By controlling a zone by having cities placed there, you could patrol that area and deny entry to it to other players (by murdering them). By denying access to zones, you basically denied access to the entire player base to certain rune droppers and crafting materials.
Heck, there was even this one time were my guild ran to a seige against a city and stole the city from both the attacker and the defender and then held an auction and sold it to the highest bidder. How many games have you played were you could sell basically a city and an entire zone to another player? (we received alot of hate for that one ;p but not as much as that one gy who infiltrated a guild's inner council only to delete the city during a seige!!!)
Impact on the world is an illusion, a construct that exists in your mind. Being able to build a house or a castle has no more bearing on impacting the world than players in an open world "mob driven" game fighting over contested content.
I've played both, and forming and destroying player alliances with a castle had no more impact on the world than fighting a guild or alliance who had claimed a city or a dungeon as their territory. Politics were as important on EQs Rallos Zek as they ever were in UO or Darkfall. The outcome of the fights on Rallos Zek had no more or less bearing on the world and its inhabitants than notable "sandbox" games. One lost castle pixels, the other lost armor pixels.
Blowing up each others castles isn't sandbox content.
Building the castle can be. The use and benefits of the castle are. The ramifications of losing a castle is. The politics behind the player-chosen sides are.
If you played a game where your castle had no impact, that is the design of that particular game, determined entirely by that particular game's mechanics.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Impact on the world is an illusion, a construct that exists in your mind. Being able to build a house or a castle has no more bearing on impacting the world than players in an open world "mob driven" game fighting over contested content.
I've played both, and forming and destroying player alliances with a castle had no more impact on the world than fighting a guild or alliance who had claimed a city or a dungeon as their territory. Politics were as important on EQs Rallos Zek as they ever were in UO or Darkfall. The outcome of the fights on Rallos Zek had no more or less bearing on the world and its inhabitants than notable "sandbox" games. One lost castle pixels, the other lost armor pixels.
I disagree with your assessment.
When there is actual territory at stake - wars break out in RL as in sandbox games.
Politics over loot and mobs pales in comparison.
Shadowbane is a good example.
Having played those games, I can tell you their politics or wars mostly paled in comparison to that which we experienced on EQ PvP servers. Hundreds of people fighting over mobs, and guilds denying other guilds access to dungeons for months at a time. Guilds and alliances rising and falling over their ability to progress, just as it was with castles and cities.
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.
Sandbox always been about player change. You think playing in the sandbox as being able to change the landscape. EQ certainly isn't about player change.
The first time I heard themepark being used was SWG forums in like 2000-2001 regarding Jabba's palace. I don't remember hearing it before than.
Level grinding has nothing to do with themepark or sandbox. That's progression and can be in either sandbox or themepark. Every game that levels is essentially a themepark then.
EQ was more of a playground. The equipment is there and you go play. You couldn't make changes like sandbox and you didn't have directed rides like a themepark. There was very little real content in EQ. It was just places to level and get loot.
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.
D&D was not a Sandbox by design. Good DMs would do their best to turn it into a Sandbox experience, and usually successfully. But the game, by design, was "on rails". As shown by the modules that were created and based on level ranges.
It's just another example of how Diku turned text Muds into Themepark, same thing as the modules. And also how players like the Sandbox experience.
You clearly never played D&D. Sure, they released module "adventures", but people rarely played them. It was typically a setting/goal designed by a DM and then left to the players to accomplish it as they pleased. DMs were referees, not directors.
Tabletop RPGs were the ultimate example of sandbox gaming.
Impact on the world is an illusion, a construct that exists in your mind. Being able to build a house or a castle has no more bearing on impacting the world than players in an open world "mob driven" game fighting over contested content.
I've played both, and forming and destroying player alliances with a castle had no more impact on the world than fighting a guild or alliance who had claimed a city or a dungeon as their territory. Politics were as important on EQs Rallos Zek as they ever were in UO or Darkfall. The outcome of the fights on Rallos Zek had no more or less bearing on the world and its inhabitants than notable "sandbox" games. One lost castle pixels, the other lost armor pixels.
I disagree with your assessment.
When there is actual territory at stake - wars break out in RL as in sandbox games.
Politics over loot and mobs pales in comparison.
Shadowbane is a good example.
Having played those games, I can tell you their politics or wars mostly paled in comparison to that which we experienced on EQ PvP servers. Hundreds of people fighting over mobs, and guilds denying other guilds access to dungeons for months at a time. Guilds and alliances rising and falling over their ability to progress, just as it was with castles and cities.
The first time I heard themepark being used was SWG forums in like 2000-2001 regarding Jabba's palace. I don't remember hearing it before than.
Level grinding has nothing to do with themepark or sandbox. That's progression and can be in either sandbox or themepark. Every game that levels is essentially a themepark then.
EQ was more of a playground. The equipment is there and you go play. You couldn't make changes like sandbox and you didn't have directed rides like a themepark. There was very little real content in EQ. It was just places to level and get loot.
Oh, by all means, that settles it then. You didn't hear it before then so it didn't happen.
From Dullahan's post:
"Hundreds of people fighting over mobs, and guilds denying other guilds
access to dungeons for months at a time. Guilds and alliances rising and
falling over their ability to progress..."
So EQ's content was most definitely level based. It doesn't matter that there weren't the same sort of Quests like WoW, that was a refinement on the game design that EQ was lacking in. Just like "Instances" were, based on the problem revealed in the same quote.
Of course the rest of my point is meaningless if you simply won't believe me that I had heard the term "Themepark" long before you did (well, in '99), shortly after EQ was released.
So screw it.
Believe what you want to believe and ignore anyone else. That's how it's done, right?
So EQ's content was most definitely level based. It doesn't matter that there weren't the same sort of Quests like WoW, that was a refinement on the game design that EQ was lacking in. Just like "Instances" were, based on the problem revealed in the same quote. Of course the rest of my point is meaningless if you simply won't believe me that I had heard the term "Themepark" long before you did (well, in '99), shortly after EQ was released. So screw it. Believe what you want to believe and ignore anyone else. That's how it's done, right?
Fair enough. I never heard it. I heard it called Carebear land and the likes. All I was saying is that levels or progression the basis for a themepark then all MMORPG are themepark.
Comments
I've played both, and forming and destroying player alliances with a castle had no more impact on the world than fighting a guild or alliance who had claimed a city or a dungeon as their territory. Politics were as important on EQs Rallos Zek as they ever were in UO or Darkfall. The outcome of the fights on Rallos Zek had no more or less bearing on the world and its inhabitants than notable "sandbox" games. One lost castle pixels, the other lost armor pixels.
Good DMs would do their best to turn it into a Sandbox experience, and usually successfully.
But the game, by design, was "on rails". As shown by the modules that were created and based on level ranges.
It's just another example of how Diku turned text Muds into Themepark, same thing as the modules. And also how players like the Sandbox experience.
Once upon a time....
I starting playing MMO's with shadowbane.
In shadowbane you could basically own entire zones and tax anyone who dared build a city in them.
Gameplay revolved around guild politics and warfare and not PVE content. By controlling a zone by having cities placed there, you could patrol that area and deny entry to it to other players (by murdering them).
By denying access to zones, you basically denied access to the entire player base to certain rune droppers and crafting materials.
Heck, there was even this one time were my guild ran to a seige against a city and stole the city from both the attacker and the defender and then held an auction and sold it to the highest bidder. How many games have you played were you could sell basically a city and an entire zone to another player?
(we received alot of hate for that one ;p but not as much as that one gy who infiltrated a guild's inner council only to delete the city during a seige!!!)
Building the castle can be.
The use and benefits of the castle are.
The ramifications of losing a castle is.
The politics behind the player-chosen sides are.
If you played a game where your castle had no impact, that is the design of that particular game, determined entirely by that particular game's mechanics.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Level grinding has nothing to do with themepark or sandbox. That's progression and can be in either sandbox or themepark. Every game that levels is essentially a themepark then.
EQ was more of a playground. The equipment is there and you go play. You couldn't make changes like sandbox and you didn't have directed rides like a themepark. There was very little real content in EQ. It was just places to level and get loot.
Tabletop RPGs were the ultimate example of sandbox gaming.
Oh, by all means, that settles it then. You didn't hear it before then so it didn't happen.
From Dullahan's post:
So EQ's content was most definitely level based.
It doesn't matter that there weren't the same sort of Quests like WoW, that was a refinement on the game design that EQ was lacking in. Just like "Instances" were, based on the problem revealed in the same quote.
Of course the rest of my point is meaningless if you simply won't believe me that I had heard the term "Themepark" long before you did (well, in '99), shortly after EQ was released.
So screw it.
Believe what you want to believe and ignore anyone else. That's how it's done, right?
Once upon a time....
Fair enough. I never heard it. I heard it called Carebear land and the likes. All I was saying is that levels or progression the basis for a themepark then all MMORPG are themepark.