I really dislike threads like this. People seem to really want to scratch the term sandbox and therefore use that as the basis of arguing that sandbox games should not be made (what other purpose does pretending the term sandbox doesn't exist serve?).
Just because there isn't a textbook definition doesn't mean that we all don't know what it generally means.
One way to look at it (for those of you who honestly don't know what it means - which I honestly believe you have to TRY to not know what this common term means) is this:
Sandboxes are player-centric.
Non-sandboxes are developer-centric.
______________________ Give a man some fun and you entertain him for a day. Teach a man to make fun and you entertain him for a lifetime.
The best defition I can give to a sandbox or any decent person for that matter can be compiled in just 2 words: EVE Online
The pre-nge Star Wars Galaxies is a much better example for most people than EVE. It's hard for most MMO gamers to understand what is going on in EVE due to the fact that your character is essentially a ship in space and whatnot, and not some biped character running around on a planet. If you go look at the feature set of SWG the time of it's original release, you will learn what a sandbox game is. I'm sure there are other examples as well though.
Both of these posts are correct in my view. demalus's post just above totally nails it too. Sandbox puts the player first and lets them create content rather than just burn through existing content.
SWG was the ultimate sandbox. While there were specific level areas there wasn't a specific order of quests you went through to zoom through those areas. Games like WoW or AoC, where you can go somewhere do all the quests and you're suddenly ready for the next area, can be fun they aren't sandbox games at all since they are entirely linear.
In SWG Pre-CU/Pre-NGE you could really be anything and "advance" just fine as that. I had friends that were hair dressers. I was a tailor and a doctor myself. Others were all combat, or dancers or a mix of things. All of us managed to have fun together doing all sorts of things. Maybe we'd explore a new planet, or hang out at our favorite player bar, or go gathering for new and wonderfully expensive resources. It wasn't just 'Do these quests, in this order, max your level and raid raid raid.' SWG was a world we lived in and could do anything we wanted when we wanted to.
EVE Online is similar. While there are missions you can run if you run low on ISK, the universe is really just there for you to conquer as you wish. There's nothing forcing you to do certain things in a certain order. Wanna mine? Do it! Want to explore? Do it! Want to join PvP right away in an alliance? Do it!
While EVE doesn't have all the social aspects of SWG which made that game so wonderful to live in, but it does have the openness and expanse that makes a sandbox game great.
Sandbox games need to be fully supported by the devs since instead of pregenerated quests or missions being the stepping stones to raid "content" and item collection, a sandbox game needs to give players tools to create content themselves. A robust and detailed crafting system, interactive and engaving social systems, open worlds where players can decide what to do and no "end game" raid. What the players make of the game is the "end game" in a sandbox.
SWG did this with interactive and social classes, player cities and an open world where PvP could be used to control areas. EVE Online does this via control of space and all the wonderful 0.0 resources that are there for the taking, if you're up to it and able to deal with the people who have already claimed it for themselves.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
The best defition I can give to a sandbox or any decent person for that matter can be compiled in just 2 words:
EVE Online
The pre-nge Star Wars Galaxies is a much better example for most people than EVE. It's hard for most MMO gamers to understand what is going on in EVE due to the fact that your character is essentially a ship in space and whatnot, and not some biped character running around on a planet. If you go look at the feature set of SWG the time of it's original release, you will learn what a sandbox game is. I'm sure there are other examples as well though.
Both of these posts are correct in my view. demalus's post just above totally nails it too. Sandbox puts the player first and lets them create content rather than just burn through existing content.
SWG was the ultimate sandbox. While there were specific level areas there wasn't a specific order of quests you went through to zoom through those areas. Games like WoW or AoC, where you can go somewhere do all the quests and you're suddenly ready for the next area, can be fun they aren't sandbox games at all since they are entirely linear.
In SWG Pre-CU/Pre-NGE you could really be anything and "advance" just fine as that. I had friends that were hair dressers. I was a tailor and a doctor myself. Others were all combat, or dancers or a mix of things. All of us managed to have fun together doing all sorts of things. Maybe we'd explore a new planet, or hang out at our favorite player bar, or go gathering for new and wonderfully expensive resources. It wasn't just 'Do these quests, in this order, max your level and raid raid raid.' SWG was a world we lived in and could do anything we wanted when we wanted to.
EVE Online is similar. While there are missions you can run if you run low on ISK, the universe is really just there for you to conquer as you wish. There's nothing forcing you to do certain things in a certain order. Wanna mine? Do it! Want to explore? Do it! Want to join PvP right away in an alliance? Do it!
While EVE doesn't have all the social aspects of SWG which made that game so wonderful to live in, but it does have the openness and expanse that makes a sandbox game great.
Sandbox games need to be fully supported by the devs since instead of pregenerated quests or missions being the stepping stones to raid "content" and item collection, a sandbox game needs to give players tools to create content themselves. A robust and detailed crafting system, interactive and engaving social systems, open worlds where players can decide what to do and no "end game" raid. What the players make of the game is the "end game" in a sandbox.
SWG did this with interactive and social classes, player cities and an open world where PvP could be used to control areas. EVE Online does this via control of space and all the wonderful 0.0 resources that are there for the taking, if you're up to it and able to deal with the people who have already claimed it for themselves.
Open ended, you do not have to follow a certain path, alot of options, the developer gives the tools, the player creates the content.
More specific characteristics :
Skill based ( allows more freedom of choice )
Player made items. ( allows for crafters to be as important as fighters )
Item Decay/Destruction upon death, or PvP with partial/full loot to keep the demand for new items up
Player housing, player run cities, housing customization, city defense, ...
Open world, not instanced
Single shard ( less segregation, more choice for social interaction )
No paid expansions ( less segregation, allows more horizontal expansion, allows players to choose what to play )
A purpose for all professions : fighters, crafters, traders, politics ...
Guilds and Alliances of guilds ( for politics, cooperation, player cities, ... )
...
A sandbox mmorpg does not need all of these characteristics, but many of them.
Examples of sandbox mmorpg's :
EVE Online
Ryzom
Ultima Online
SWG Pre CU-NGE
A Tale in the Desert
Starquest Online
Darkfall
...
Second Life is probably the most sandbox of them all, but I do not consider it a game, thus it doesn't fall in the sandbox mmorpg category.
Then there are games that have a few sandbox elements, but not enough to be considered sandbox mmorpg's ( but they can still be alot of fun ) :
Asheron's Call, with it's skill based characters.
DAoC RvR could be considered more sandboxy than WAR RvR because in the DAoC frontier you can choose which keeps you take, or if you go straight for the relic, or don't go for the relic at all and just open up Darkness Falls, or ply While in WAR you have a campaign that is more on rails, with timers and stuff.
Current SWG : They still have player crafting, but it's importance is diminished alot. There is still player run cities, but with crafting less important, I doubt they are still tradehubs. It is no longer skillbased, so character freedom is gone.
I am sure there are more games that have certain sandbox elements, or have more freedom than others, feel free to post them
Greetings,
Cyberwiz.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I see a sandbox game, the same way I see a sandbox. You start with materials and tools, little more. Everyhting else, all creation, destruction, chaos, peace, is determined by whoever decided to play in the sandbox.
This translates into gaming as a developer giving the player a game, with few rules and a lot of freedom. Letting the player transform the universe at his will. This does not mean a no-bounds, go everywhere, do everything thing.
The best example I've played, is EVE Online. The first players were give a bleak universe, they could morph it as they wished. They could have all mined and inflated the market making missioning nearly obsolete.They could have killed off pirates and flippers when they first started appearing, instead of building their ranks. In EVE, the players did build the economy, the social system, the famous and infamous. Most of the ships and products are player built.
Another good example is Star Wars Galaxies, Pre-NGE/CU/FU. It allowed players to building the world as they saw fit, without inposing a ton of rules.
An example of a game I think is nowhere near a sandbox, World of Warcraft. They player's crafting options are very limited. There's no player housing or development, and the market isn't as player controlled, with NPC vendors and most items being sold are from random drops.
Another one, and a game I play often, Lord of The Rings Online. The world is solidly shaped already, with linear quest lines and an auction house, similar to WoW's. Although crafting is very important, the best gear still is not player made and, although there are player houses, they are prebuilt. Everyhting falls within a solid set of rules.
____________________________ Telthalion Rohircil - Guardian - Elemandir - Lord of The Rings Online --- == RIP == Torey - Commando - Orion - Tabula Rasa == RIP == --- Jordaniel Torey - Navy Megathron, Active Armor Tank - Tranquility - EVE Online --- Torey Scott - Rifleman - Fallen Earth ____________________________
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but I know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
I dont think the term should really apply to any MMO.....There isnt a game out there where you can go anywhere you want and do whatever you want, not without consequences.......Eve, Uo, Ryzom, and the other games that claim they are sandboxes are not......Heck the first time I ever logged into UO the second I left Brittain I was killed by 3 other players....how is that a sandbox?? First dungeon I saw there was a dragon that immediately killed me...Nope cant go there either.....Ryzom you can do what you want as long as what you want involves digging or fighting low level mobs......You cant just wander off very far or you die......Same with Eve.....I cant just log into eve and take my ship out for a cruise anywhere.....Youd be dead in 5 minutes....... If games were truly like a sandbox they would be no fun....Theres a reason why children leave the sandbox after a short time.....YOu dont see the bigger kids playing in the sandbox and you surely dont see adults in it........
Lol, so you are saying that the possibility to die makes it not possible to be a sandbox?
You are talking nonsense ...
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I really dislike threads like this. People seem to really want to scratch the term sandbox and therefore use that as the basis of arguing that sandbox games should not be made (what other purpose does pretending the term sandbox doesn't exist serve?). Just because there isn't a textbook definition doesn't mean that we all don't know what it generally means.
One way to look at it (for those of you who honestly don't know what it means - which I honestly believe you have to TRY to not know what this common term means) is this: Sandboxes are player-centric. Non-sandboxes are developer-centric.
The funny thing is, your answer actually reinforces the entire purpose of this post. "Sandboxes are player-centric. Non-sandboxes are developer-centric". Could you be any more vague?
The answers here vary greatly, highlighting the futile nature of the term.
I'm not arguing that games using some of these descriptions shouldn't be made. By all means, make them! Some of these features are great. But these mmo worlds have too many grey areas, and a simple one word explanation really doesn't say enough. WoW incorporates many of the features present in many of these definitions. However the Sandbox Mafia around here will throw a fit if you try to call WoW a sandbox.
There seem to be a lot of petty arguments about whether a particular game can accurately be described as a "Sandbox". How do you define it? A game where you are not placed into pre-defined classes, and where the content is mostly generated by players as opposed to developers. Games that are skill-based as opposed to class based, and where all (or almost all) items are player created = Sandbox IMO.
Where does this definition come from? Link plz
Just do some research mkay? And stop the trolling already ...
Besides, the question was " What do YOU mean when YOU use the term "Sandbox" " so it is personal and does not need a link.
Greetings,
Cyberwiz
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I really dislike threads like this. People seem to really want to scratch the term sandbox and therefore use that as the basis of arguing that sandbox games should not be made (what other purpose does pretending the term sandbox doesn't exist serve?). Just because there isn't a textbook definition doesn't mean that we all don't know what it generally means.
One way to look at it (for those of you who honestly don't know what it means - which I honestly believe you have to TRY to not know what this common term means) is this: Sandboxes are player-centric. Non-sandboxes are developer-centric.
The funny thing is, your answer actually reinforces the entire purpose of this post. "Sandboxes are player-centric. Non-sandboxes are developer-centric". Could you be any more vague?
The answers here vary greatly, highlighting the futile nature of the term.
I'm not arguing that games using some of these descriptions shouldn't be made. By all means, make them! Some of these features are great. But these mmo worlds have too many grey areas, and a simple one word explanation really doesn't say enough. WoW incorporates many of the features present in many of these definitions. However the Sandbox Mafia around here will throw a fit if you try to call WoW a sandbox.
Hehe, thats because WoW is not a sandbox It is a theme partk.
We all know the sandbox games, go look at their features and you will know what sandbox mmorpg means ...
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I could call all MMO's with a fully dynamic map sandbox, maybe darkfall could be added. Honestly the only true sandbox game atm is wurm online, and that's kinda sad because if you're not into it you'll likely think it's a joke and they've got the most unexperienced developers ever.
I don't have a strict definition of "sandbox". It seems like a vague term to me, although the distinction is dear to my heart. The core to me seems to be that sandbox games give you the freedom to choose what you want to do rather than having to follow a preset path. It is a matter of degree, of course.
Its is easier to give definitive examples and I'm going to follow the pack on that one - EVE is a paradigm sandbox, WoW is a paradigm theme park. I loved EVE but I eventually got bored with it and I'm always on the looking for new sandboxes.
Regarding player-generated adventures, I used to think that these would be the future of MMORPGs, but I have changed my mind after what happened at CoH and CoV. They gave the players the ability to produce their own adventures and now the game seems to be dominated by player-written farms, produced to give maximum xp with minimum effort by endlessly grinding through the same mobs.
For example there are 10 quests. However, you can do the quests out of order, like 9,3,7,2 etc. That is "non-linear", but IMO is not a sandbox.
For me, sandbox = ability to change the game world. If you can't change the game world, it's not a sandbox for me. This is why character skillz, or charater levels are the same to me. If you progress your character, it's "progression". I don't care if you have classes and levels, skills with caps, no caps, skills taht increase with use, or skills you spend points on. Those are simply different ways to do "progression" from weak to strong. I don't care if you can shoose any skilll you want to increase, it's still "weak to strong". If it's not "weak to strong" then why would you bother? If more options make you better in combat, then you're stronger, so it's still "weak to strong".
But that doesn't change the game world, so it has nothing to do with "sandbox".
As far as I'm concerned a sandbox is just a game that has a large handful of ways to "advance" in it without any of those ways being nerfed. Basically it has nothing to do with PvP, PvP is just something that's usually there because it's a viable path and one that you can logically tie into every other path.
for the defination of a nerfed path of advancement see: Crafter in WoW.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
As far as I'm concerned a sandbox is just a game that has a large handful of ways to "advance" in it without any of those ways being nerfed. Basically it has nothing to do with PvP, PvP is just something that's usually there because it's a viable path and one that you can logically tie into every other path. for the defination of a nerfed path of advancement see: Crafter in WoW.
How would the advancment apply too A Tale in The Desert?
As far as I'm concerned a sandbox is just a game that has a large handful of ways to "advance" in it without any of those ways being nerfed. Basically it has nothing to do with PvP, PvP is just something that's usually there because it's a viable path and one that you can logically tie into every other path. for the defination of a nerfed path of advancement see: Crafter in WoW.
How would the advancment apply too A Tale in The Desert?
Well the ladies flowers that she bred aren't suddenly more useless and not worthwhile because there's a raid that lets people who complete it get whatever color they want is there?
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
There seem to be a lot of petty arguments about whether a particular game can accurately be described as a "Sandbox". How do you define it? A game where you are not placed into pre-defined classes, and where the content is mostly generated by players as opposed to developers. Games that are skill-based as opposed to class based, and where all (or almost all) items are player created = Sandbox IMO.
Skillbased can be as restrictive as classbased. For example if a game lets you develop any skill that you like, but at the cost of other skills (not enough points for all skills) its restrictive. If you cant 'unlearn' skills to free up points for other skills, it is restrictive.
On the other hand, there are class based games that let you chose a different class whenever you like which removes a restriction (SWG), or where you can have 2 professions at once and change the 2nd profession and skillset whenever you like (Guild Wars).
Also a MMO can have loads of devs generated content, while still having the tools to let player create their content.
I just check what features a game has and look for diversity in gameplay. I dont care about if it is technically a sandbox MMO. Sandbox arguments are pretty useless.
So many people have different opinions on what a sandbox MMO i've started just calling them "Open ended" games.
Sounds like a plan, JGM. I like it.
Maybe, but doesn't that then make Themepark games "close ended"?
And how would that really apply?
Why does theme park have to be the opposite? Themepark and open-ended are two different approaches to design, but are not the only two and are not mutually exclusive. There can be elements of each one in an MMO. Take, for example, EVE Online. It's one of the first MMOs mentioned when people bring up sandbox, but it also has the 'theme park' elements in its missions system.
MMOs draw from a wide range of sources. It seems it really makes more sense to refer to individual mechanics as rulesets as themepark, sandbox, etc than MMOs in their entirety.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
When I think about a "sandbox" MMO, I think "building, creation". That's what you do in a sandbox. You take sand, maybe a little water, and you mold it into anything you can think of.
With respect to an MMO, those traits remain the same. A Sandbox MMO gives players many choices of things to create in the world. It also has the forethought of how those things can be used. Allow players to create structures and claim land and they will generate gut-wrenching, meaningful content. Give players a wide variety of goods to craft and services to offer and they will create never-ending "fun" content. Give players solid political systems and you'll watch nations rise and fall.
Combat is ancillary. It will happen. It's these tools that allow people to take personal stock in creating potentially lasting marks on the world that will create some of the best combat. Why? Because people have stake in winning or losing. Because they are fighting for a reason and no just "because I can".
To me, sandbox is the ability to create.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Comments
I really dislike threads like this. People seem to really want to scratch the term sandbox and therefore use that as the basis of arguing that sandbox games should not be made (what other purpose does pretending the term sandbox doesn't exist serve?).
Just because there isn't a textbook definition doesn't mean that we all don't know what it generally means.
One way to look at it (for those of you who honestly don't know what it means - which I honestly believe you have to TRY to not know what this common term means) is this:
Sandboxes are player-centric.
Non-sandboxes are developer-centric.
______________________
Give a man some fun and you entertain him for a day. Teach a man to make fun and you entertain him for a lifetime.
Both of these posts are correct in my view. demalus's post just above totally nails it too. Sandbox puts the player first and lets them create content rather than just burn through existing content.
SWG was the ultimate sandbox. While there were specific level areas there wasn't a specific order of quests you went through to zoom through those areas. Games like WoW or AoC, where you can go somewhere do all the quests and you're suddenly ready for the next area, can be fun they aren't sandbox games at all since they are entirely linear.
In SWG Pre-CU/Pre-NGE you could really be anything and "advance" just fine as that. I had friends that were hair dressers. I was a tailor and a doctor myself. Others were all combat, or dancers or a mix of things. All of us managed to have fun together doing all sorts of things. Maybe we'd explore a new planet, or hang out at our favorite player bar, or go gathering for new and wonderfully expensive resources. It wasn't just 'Do these quests, in this order, max your level and raid raid raid.' SWG was a world we lived in and could do anything we wanted when we wanted to.
EVE Online is similar. While there are missions you can run if you run low on ISK, the universe is really just there for you to conquer as you wish. There's nothing forcing you to do certain things in a certain order. Wanna mine? Do it! Want to explore? Do it! Want to join PvP right away in an alliance? Do it!
While EVE doesn't have all the social aspects of SWG which made that game so wonderful to live in, but it does have the openness and expanse that makes a sandbox game great.
Sandbox games need to be fully supported by the devs since instead of pregenerated quests or missions being the stepping stones to raid "content" and item collection, a sandbox game needs to give players tools to create content themselves. A robust and detailed crafting system, interactive and engaving social systems, open worlds where players can decide what to do and no "end game" raid. What the players make of the game is the "end game" in a sandbox.
SWG did this with interactive and social classes, player cities and an open world where PvP could be used to control areas. EVE Online does this via control of space and all the wonderful 0.0 resources that are there for the taking, if you're up to it and able to deal with the people who have already claimed it for themselves.
@eoweth
Great post man. I agree 100%.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
The pre-nge Star Wars Galaxies is a much better example for most people than EVE. It's hard for most MMO gamers to understand what is going on in EVE due to the fact that your character is essentially a ship in space and whatnot, and not some biped character running around on a planet. If you go look at the feature set of SWG the time of it's original release, you will learn what a sandbox game is. I'm sure there are other examples as well though.
Both of these posts are correct in my view. demalus's post just above totally nails it too. Sandbox puts the player first and lets them create content rather than just burn through existing content.
SWG was the ultimate sandbox. While there were specific level areas there wasn't a specific order of quests you went through to zoom through those areas. Games like WoW or AoC, where you can go somewhere do all the quests and you're suddenly ready for the next area, can be fun they aren't sandbox games at all since they are entirely linear.
In SWG Pre-CU/Pre-NGE you could really be anything and "advance" just fine as that. I had friends that were hair dressers. I was a tailor and a doctor myself. Others were all combat, or dancers or a mix of things. All of us managed to have fun together doing all sorts of things. Maybe we'd explore a new planet, or hang out at our favorite player bar, or go gathering for new and wonderfully expensive resources. It wasn't just 'Do these quests, in this order, max your level and raid raid raid.' SWG was a world we lived in and could do anything we wanted when we wanted to.
EVE Online is similar. While there are missions you can run if you run low on ISK, the universe is really just there for you to conquer as you wish. There's nothing forcing you to do certain things in a certain order. Wanna mine? Do it! Want to explore? Do it! Want to join PvP right away in an alliance? Do it!
While EVE doesn't have all the social aspects of SWG which made that game so wonderful to live in, but it does have the openness and expanse that makes a sandbox game great.
Sandbox games need to be fully supported by the devs since instead of pregenerated quests or missions being the stepping stones to raid "content" and item collection, a sandbox game needs to give players tools to create content themselves. A robust and detailed crafting system, interactive and engaving social systems, open worlds where players can decide what to do and no "end game" raid. What the players make of the game is the "end game" in a sandbox.
SWG did this with interactive and social classes, player cities and an open world where PvP could be used to control areas. EVE Online does this via control of space and all the wonderful 0.0 resources that are there for the taking, if you're up to it and able to deal with the people who have already claimed it for themselves.
What a good post.
Posts like this remind me how much I hate SoE.
Playing: EvE, Ryzom
A generic definition :
Open ended, you do not have to follow a certain path, alot of options, the developer gives the tools, the player creates the content.
More specific characteristics :
Skill based ( allows more freedom of choice )
Player made items. ( allows for crafters to be as important as fighters )
Item Decay/Destruction upon death, or PvP with partial/full loot to keep the demand for new items up
Player housing, player run cities, housing customization, city defense, ...
Open world, not instanced
Single shard ( less segregation, more choice for social interaction )
No paid expansions ( less segregation, allows more horizontal expansion, allows players to choose what to play )
A purpose for all professions : fighters, crafters, traders, politics ...
Guilds and Alliances of guilds ( for politics, cooperation, player cities, ... )
...
A sandbox mmorpg does not need all of these characteristics, but many of them.
Examples of sandbox mmorpg's :
EVE Online
Ryzom
Ultima Online
SWG Pre CU-NGE
A Tale in the Desert
Starquest Online
Darkfall
...
Second Life is probably the most sandbox of them all, but I do not consider it a game, thus it doesn't fall in the sandbox mmorpg category.
Then there are games that have a few sandbox elements, but not enough to be considered sandbox mmorpg's ( but they can still be alot of fun
) :
Asheron's Call, with it's skill based characters.
DAoC RvR could be considered more sandboxy than WAR RvR because in the DAoC frontier you can choose which keeps you take, or if you go straight for the relic, or don't go for the relic at all and just open up Darkness Falls, or ply While in WAR you have a campaign that is more on rails, with timers and stuff.
Current SWG : They still have player crafting, but it's importance is diminished alot. There is still player run cities, but with crafting less important, I doubt they are still tradehubs. It is no longer skillbased, so character freedom is gone.
I am sure there are more games that have certain sandbox elements, or have more freedom than others, feel free to post them
Greetings,
Cyberwiz.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I see a sandbox game, the same way I see a sandbox. You start with materials and tools, little more. Everyhting else, all creation, destruction, chaos, peace, is determined by whoever decided to play in the sandbox.
This translates into gaming as a developer giving the player a game, with few rules and a lot of freedom. Letting the player transform the universe at his will. This does not mean a no-bounds, go everywhere, do everything thing.
The best example I've played, is EVE Online. The first players were give a bleak universe, they could morph it as they wished. They could have all mined and inflated the market making missioning nearly obsolete.They could have killed off pirates and flippers when they first started appearing, instead of building their ranks. In EVE, the players did build the economy, the social system, the famous and infamous. Most of the ships and products are player built.
Another good example is Star Wars Galaxies, Pre-NGE/CU/FU. It allowed players to building the world as they saw fit, without inposing a ton of rules.
An example of a game I think is nowhere near a sandbox, World of Warcraft. They player's crafting options are very limited. There's no player housing or development, and the market isn't as player controlled, with NPC vendors and most items being sold are from random drops.
Another one, and a game I play often, Lord of The Rings Online. The world is solidly shaped already, with linear quest lines and an auction house, similar to WoW's. Although crafting is very important, the best gear still is not player made and, although there are player houses, they are prebuilt. Everyhting falls within a solid set of rules.
____________________________
Telthalion Rohircil - Guardian - Elemandir - Lord of The Rings Online
---
== RIP == Torey - Commando - Orion - Tabula Rasa == RIP ==
---
Jordaniel Torey - Navy Megathron, Active Armor Tank - Tranquility - EVE Online
---
Torey Scott - Rifleman - Fallen Earth
____________________________
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but I know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Lol, so you are saying that the possibility to die makes it not possible to be a sandbox?
You are talking nonsense ...
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
The funny thing is, your answer actually reinforces the entire purpose of this post. "Sandboxes are player-centric. Non-sandboxes are developer-centric". Could you be any more vague?
The answers here vary greatly, highlighting the futile nature of the term.
I'm not arguing that games using some of these descriptions shouldn't be made. By all means, make them! Some of these features are great. But these mmo worlds have too many grey areas, and a simple one word explanation really doesn't say enough. WoW incorporates many of the features present in many of these definitions. However the Sandbox Mafia around here will throw a fit if you try to call WoW a sandbox.
Where does this definition come from? Link plz
Just do some research mkay? And stop the trolling already ...
Besides, the question was " What do YOU mean when YOU use the term "Sandbox" " so it is personal and does not need a link.
Greetings,
Cyberwiz
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
The funny thing is, your answer actually reinforces the entire purpose of this post. "Sandboxes are player-centric. Non-sandboxes are developer-centric". Could you be any more vague?
The answers here vary greatly, highlighting the futile nature of the term.
I'm not arguing that games using some of these descriptions shouldn't be made. By all means, make them! Some of these features are great. But these mmo worlds have too many grey areas, and a simple one word explanation really doesn't say enough. WoW incorporates many of the features present in many of these definitions. However the Sandbox Mafia around here will throw a fit if you try to call WoW a sandbox.
Hehe, thats because WoW is not a sandbox
It is a theme partk.
We all know the sandbox games, go look at their features and you will know what sandbox mmorpg means ...
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I could call all MMO's with a fully dynamic map sandbox, maybe darkfall could be added. Honestly the only true sandbox game atm is wurm online, and that's kinda sad because if you're not into it you'll likely think it's a joke and they've got the most unexperienced developers ever.
I don't have a strict definition of "sandbox". It seems like a vague term to me, although the distinction is dear to my heart. The core to me seems to be that sandbox games give you the freedom to choose what you want to do rather than having to follow a preset path. It is a matter of degree, of course.
Its is easier to give definitive examples and I'm going to follow the pack on that one - EVE is a paradigm sandbox, WoW is a paradigm theme park. I loved EVE but I eventually got bored with it and I'm always on the looking for new sandboxes.
Regarding player-generated adventures, I used to think that these would be the future of MMORPGs, but I have changed my mind after what happened at CoH and CoV. They gave the players the ability to produce their own adventures and now the game seems to be dominated by player-written farms, produced to give maximum xp with minimum effort by endlessly grinding through the same mobs.
I do not equate non-linear with sandbox.
For example there are 10 quests. However, you can do the quests out of order, like 9,3,7,2 etc. That is "non-linear", but IMO is not a sandbox.
For me, sandbox = ability to change the game world. If you can't change the game world, it's not a sandbox for me. This is why character skillz, or charater levels are the same to me. If you progress your character, it's "progression". I don't care if you have classes and levels, skills with caps, no caps, skills taht increase with use, or skills you spend points on. Those are simply different ways to do "progression" from weak to strong. I don't care if you can shoose any skilll you want to increase, it's still "weak to strong". If it's not "weak to strong" then why would you bother? If more options make you better in combat, then you're stronger, so it's still "weak to strong".
But that doesn't change the game world, so it has nothing to do with "sandbox".
Sounds like a plan, JGM. I like it.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Sounds like a plan, JGM. I like it.
Maybe, but doesn't that then make Themepark games "close ended"?
And how would that really apply?
As far as I'm concerned a sandbox is just a game that has a large handful of ways to "advance" in it without any of those ways being nerfed. Basically it has nothing to do with PvP, PvP is just something that's usually there because it's a viable path and one that you can logically tie into every other path.
for the defination of a nerfed path of advancement see: Crafter in WoW.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
There a host of ways to come at this. To me their are mmo's that were born from computer based single player games and there are mmo's that weren't.
How would the advancment apply too A Tale in The Desert?
How would the advancment apply too A Tale in The Desert?
Well the ladies flowers that she bred aren't suddenly more useless and not worthwhile because there's a raid that lets people who complete it get whatever color they want is there?
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Skillbased can be as restrictive as classbased. For example if a game lets you develop any skill that you like, but at the cost of other skills (not enough points for all skills) its restrictive. If you cant 'unlearn' skills to free up points for other skills, it is restrictive.
On the other hand, there are class based games that let you chose a different class whenever you like which removes a restriction (SWG), or where you can have 2 professions at once and change the 2nd profession and skillset whenever you like (Guild Wars).
Also a MMO can have loads of devs generated content, while still having the tools to let player create their content.
I just check what features a game has and look for diversity in gameplay. I dont care about if it is technically a sandbox MMO. Sandbox arguments are pretty useless.
Sounds like a plan, JGM. I like it.
Maybe, but doesn't that then make Themepark games "close ended"?
And how would that really apply?
Why does theme park have to be the opposite? Themepark and open-ended are two different approaches to design, but are not the only two and are not mutually exclusive. There can be elements of each one in an MMO. Take, for example, EVE Online. It's one of the first MMOs mentioned when people bring up sandbox, but it also has the 'theme park' elements in its missions system.
MMOs draw from a wide range of sources. It seems it really makes more sense to refer to individual mechanics as rulesets as themepark, sandbox, etc than MMOs in their entirety.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
When I think about a "sandbox" MMO, I think "building, creation". That's what you do in a sandbox. You take sand, maybe a little water, and you mold it into anything you can think of.
With respect to an MMO, those traits remain the same. A Sandbox MMO gives players many choices of things to create in the world. It also has the forethought of how those things can be used. Allow players to create structures and claim land and they will generate gut-wrenching, meaningful content. Give players a wide variety of goods to craft and services to offer and they will create never-ending "fun" content. Give players solid political systems and you'll watch nations rise and fall.
Combat is ancillary. It will happen. It's these tools that allow people to take personal stock in creating potentially lasting marks on the world that will create some of the best combat. Why? Because people have stake in winning or losing. Because they are fighting for a reason and no just "because I can".
To me, sandbox is the ability to create.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez