EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
In other words, EVE is a sandbox on multiple levels. Either element makes a game feel more like a sandbox. Add a combination of sandbox elements, and you have such a good example as EVE.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
In other words, EVE is a sandbox on multiple levels. Either element makes a game feel more like a sandbox. Add a combination of sandbox elements, and you have such a good example as EVE.
Exactly, you just have to think:
With this feature I’m building a castle?
Or am I just enjoying a rollercoaster that will keep doing the same loop after I’m done?
What you want is one from one fo the big devlopment houses.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
SWG is one of the only games I've played that truely felt like a sandbox game. I could plop a house down in the middle of the desert and harvest resources all day long and make an in-game living. To me that felt like freedom, even if it was mundane.
SWG is one of the only games I've played that truely felt like a sandbox game. I could plop a house down in the middle of the desert and harvest resources all day long and make an in-game living. To me that felt like freedom, even if it was mundane.
This in a nutshell is basically what I think folks feel when we discuss sandbox MMOs(at least I do)....that being that a sandbox is along the lines of a virtual reality game. AT least when it comes to MMOs.
You have the freedom to affect the landscape, there are more roles than combat, and game directed content is kept to the minimum. The kids(players) are in their sandbox, and free to do as they wish.
Contrast that with EQ1. There was an open world, but you couldnt change the landcape. That was reserved for the Devs to institute anything they desired(content). Trades were in, but the game didnt revolve around them.... or other non-combat roles(like politician/dancers....clerics/chanters were field support).
You throw in something like FFA PVP, and what is deemed "sandbox" in MMOs is something I have no desire to play.
I made a thread a while back about how "sandbox" single player games are more akin to "themepark" MMOs. RDR, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 all play closer to EQ/WoW than they do to SWG/UO.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I like a content rich game. Content to me doesnt include sitting around talking about what happened in 1922. It goes back to ROLL play vs ROLE play. I am in the ROLL play camp.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
In other words, EVE is a sandbox on multiple levels. Either element makes a game feel more like a sandbox. Add a combination of sandbox elements, and you have such a good example as EVE.
Eve combines both linear and non-linear features. I don't mean the specific features are non-linear but rather many are implemented in a non-linear fashon. Features can be implemented either way. Having one linear feature does not make a game linear overall. There are no perfect exemplars on either end of the scale when it comes to MMORPGs. When people get bogged down arguing about specific features they miss the point. Fixed character classes can be more or less linear. The same holds true for skill progression systems.
And again, being linear or non-linear has nothing to do with sandbox.
Well from the number of replies saying, "xxx has nothing to do with sandbox," and "sandbox is xxx"
If there is one thing this thread proves there is no concise/solid definition of sandbox. Only people's impressions.
I personally feel that WoW is pretty sandboxy. I can go where I want, when I want (generally, yes some areas are harder than others but that doesn't mean I can't go there). I'm given many different ways to level, and I have some control in how I design my toon. I can create my own story, and generally be what I want. Housing would make it better, affecting the land and the story of the world would make it great.
Ryzom I'm currently playing and everyone says it's sandboxy. I can do two things and two things only. Fight by grinding all day against plants and/or animals. Yes I can fight differently with different weapons and in slightly different areas, but not significantly different, or dig in the dirt all day to craft. However I can train whatever skill I want and craft what I want. Is that more sandboxy than wow. IMO no it isn't - hundreds of choices of weapons but using them in the exact same places the exact same way.
The ring makes it a bit better.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I certainly hope developers are paying attention to this type of gaming 'want'. I've never played Second Life for longer than 3 minutes when it first launched but I was intrigued by what could be done within it. That game is a little too um, 'sandy' for my tastes but I like the possibilities it opens up.
I always looked upon SWG as a sandbox MMO. I'm sure many would disagree but I don't care. For me, that game was so open and I felt I could truly create my own content. Also, I felt very dependent upon my fellow players to add to my experience within that game. Not just for community or socializing, but for creating a system of commerce and trade and adventuring. The Star Wars part really didn't matter in that game and I liked that. I suppose that's why SOE changed it because the core of the game had nothing to do with that franchise.
Its a lot easier to make a open world single player game than a MMO. So not sure this means we will be seeing any new open world MMOs soon. But good to see all the same.
EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
In other words, EVE is a sandbox on multiple levels. Either element makes a game feel more like a sandbox. Add a combination of sandbox elements, and you have such a good example as EVE.
Eve combines both linear and non-linear features. I don't mean the specific features are non-linear but rather many are implemented in a non-linear fashon. Features can be implemented either way. Having one linear feature does not make a game linear overall. There are no perfect exemplars on either end of the scale when it comes to MMORPGs. When people get bogged down arguing about specific features they miss the point. Fixed character classes can be more or less linear. The same holds true for skill progression systems.
And again, being linear or non-linear has nothing to do with sandbox.
And again where's your proof. Where's your reasoning. I've given the actual definition of sandbox games several times on these forums and reasoning to back it up. The history and meaning of the term is well known. All you're saying is all authority is wrong and you're right. You're not right.
My definition comes from the sandbox analogy that I well explained in this thread.
I'm not saying that I’m right and you are wrong.
But just that your definition doesn’t make sense, and where it came from anyway?
Both sandbox and theme park can be non-linear that's not the point.
EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
EvE is quite a linear game, you are constrained by the game mechanics in what you can do just, I guess, as you are constrained by the game mechanics in WoW as to what you can do. Point is most mmorpg place limits on the players, they enter a world/universe designed by the game developer, the apparent freedom is always an illusion since you are after all just playing a game created by others. The term Sandbox is just a term thrown about by the non-thinking members of the mmorpg community as it very often is a personal definition, ie for some you need to have FFA PvP with full loot for a game to even be considered as sandbox.
EVE isn't a sandbox because it has no classes (because in truth it does, they're just well hidden) in fact it is the very non-linear aspect of the game design that literally lets a 1 week old player join in a major fleet fight in 0.0 if they so desire. Contrast that to a game like WOW where you'll never see an upper level raid until you get through the first 80 levels and then gear up your character properly.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
EvE is quite a linear game, you are constrained by the game mechanics in what you can do just, I guess, as you are constrained by the game mechanics in WoW as to what you can do. Point is most mmorpg place limits on the players, they enter a world/universe designed by the game developer, the apparent freedom is always an illusion since you are after all just playing a game created by others. The term Sandbox is just a term thrown about by the non-thinking members of the mmorpg community as it very often is a personal definition, ie for some you need to have FFA PvP with full loot for a game to even be considered as sandbox.
The original theme park/sandbox analogy has a meaning.
Players and developers just forgot about it and started using these words to other meanings.
As far as single/muti-player games go, yea I think they are. Just look at how many of those games have some sort of open-world element to them. They're still not all that open ended or 'sandboxy", but they've moved further away from the linear route.
MMORPS, on the other hand, have moved more towards directed game play. Go here, do this quest, go there, do that quest, level, repeat.
Until one of the big developers really hits it with a more open-ended MMORPG, I don't see how you'll see much of a shift.
Who cares?I'm a gamer...I love all types of games not just a very narrow and myopic range of them.A bad game is a bad game no matte rif it's sandboxy or to the other extreme on rails e.g I'd rather paly a good House of the Dead type game than a horrible Mercenaries type game.
Sandbox =/= innovative and great....it's jsut another type of game mechanic.
Zymurgeist do yo consider WoW a sandbox? Because it fits your definition.
All currrent MMOs are sandboxes. Some are just more linear than others. WoW isn't the most linear MMO out there either. That honor goes to some of the Korean F2P Grinders which make WoW seem positively freeform.
With that statement you have lost any credibility in this discussion.
I think part of the problems with defining "Sandbox" vs. "Theme-park" is that everyone is making everything black and white, ignoring that the world is full of grey. This happens when certain features are considered essential to label a game one way or the other. Can a sandbox have levels? Sure. Can a theme-park be skill based? Yes. I would even say that a sandbox could have some elements of instancing. They just can't be the most central part of the game, or it starts to feel a little theme-parkish.
1. Levels/Classes: This is just a way of quantifying/clustering skills. Being a "sandbox" references one's freedom to do as one will throughout the game world. This can be accomplished with levels/skills. So this can't be a defining element.
2. Instancing: In most games, and instance feels like a ride at a theme-park, thus people usually assume it is a themepark game. But a mostly sandbox game could incorporate a small amount of instancing and not disrupt the overall feel of the game. Thus it would still be a sandbox game. This may be a defining element, but only by the degree of instancing.
3. Open World: This generally means sandbox. But if a game that is build around linear or limited branching storyline that is the central key to the game decided to do it in an open world, that would not qualify it as a sandbox. Open world is not a guarentee of a sandbox. See WoW for more details.
Overall, most people know what a sandbox is when they hear it, even if it is difficult to specifically define. It's more about the feel of the game rather than the specific feature sets. If it is driven by player developed content (such as player cities/economy, pvp/faction warfare, exploration, crafting, etc) regardless of the feature set, there's a good chance that most people would consider it a sandbox. If it is driven by a storyline, relies on significant instancing/phasing, and does not have multiple ways of advancing characters, then there's a good chance that most people would consider it a theme-park.
I suggest we define some new terms as to be able to separate these diffrent sandbox impressions.
We can call classless games that! -------- Skill-based sandbox?
We can call open world this! (No level restriction or forced storyline) -------- Open world sandbox?
We can call decisions and choices as such! ----- Choice sandbox?
We can call a player content driven world (Politics, pvp war, economy and factions) too good to be true. Player driven world sandbox
Perhaps this will make communcation a lot more quick and snappy, if someone says sandbox you can just ask what type, skill based, open world, choice, player driven?, if they reply everything they are referring to player driven world.
Sandbox defines freedom ina game, nothing much else, these terms would eventually become common knowledge among MMO players.
These names are just suggestions but I think we should name these variations of MMO sandbox.
The original theme park/sandbox analogy has a meaning.
Players and developers just forgot about it and started using these words to other meanings.
The term predates the analogy by years. Themepark is a later addition. The first widespread gaming press usage of the term was in describing Grand Theft Auto but it was in common usage among game developers before that.
I didn't know. If you could explain it better I would be very interested.
Originally posted by zymurgeist
Originally posted by wisesquirrel
Or we can skip the whole sandbox label thing that is being misapplied and describe games as what they are.
I'm pretty sure devs have understood/realized the potential of the sandbox for quite some time. With that in mind, they have likely also realized the cost/development it would take to truly do sandbox justice. Expectations on sandbox games are as high as their potential. Freedom don't come cheap.
Not to mention, why take a chance on a sandbox when you can bank with something like WoW?
I almost forgot about this thread after I posted it. Some interesting responses. To me sandbox refers to the world, not your character. You play in a sandbox, independent of what your character's abilities are. Clearly, devs fluctuate on how restrictive character customization can be, but I would say that falls under character development, not world restriction.
And I also think linear is a good term to describe the opposite of sandbox. Of course, an MMO doesn't have to be strictly one or the other, it can fall somewhere in between having elements of both.
I am an advocate of making a dynamic online world as "sandboxy" as possible. Being a child of EQ, most every MMO I have played since then has felt pretty restrictive to me. While certainly not a perfect game, I liked how I had the option to quest, XP or raid, which seems like a wide range of options compared to today's MMOs. One thing I would certainly change is move from a level-based advancement system to a skill-based one, thereby freeing your character up even further from the relentless XP grind.
Compare that to the game I am currently playing (I won't mention which one) which essentially ties questing and XP together. You have to travel from quest NPC to quest NPC and complete them to have any hope of advancing to the next level. It consolidates the world rather than expands it.
I think part of the problems with defining "Sandbox" vs. "Theme-park" is that everyone is making everything black and white, ignoring that the world is full of grey. This happens when certain features are considered essential to label a game one way or the other. Can a sandbox have levels? Sure. Can a theme-park be skill based? Yes. I would even say that a sandbox could have some elements of instancing. They just can't be the most central part of the game, or it starts to feel a little theme-parkish.
1. Levels/Classes: This is just a way of quantifying/clustering skills. Being a "sandbox" references one's freedom to do as one will throughout the game world. This can be accomplished with levels/skills. So this can't be a defining element.
2. Instancing: In most games, and instance feels like a ride at a theme-park, thus people usually assume it is a themepark game. But a mostly sandbox game could incorporate a small amount of instancing and not disrupt the overall feel of the game. Thus it would still be a sandbox game. This may be a defining element, but only by the degree of instancing.
3. Open World: This generally means sandbox. But if a game that is build around linear or limited branching storyline that is the central key to the game decided to do it in an open world, that would not qualify it as a sandbox. Open world is not a guarentee of a sandbox. See WoW for more details.
Overall, most people know what a sandbox is when they hear it, even if it is difficult to specifically define. It's more about the feel of the game rather than the specific feature sets. If it is driven by player developed content (such as player cities/economy, pvp/faction warfare, exploration, crafting, etc) regardless of the feature set, there's a good chance that most people would consider it a sandbox. If it is driven by a storyline, relies on significant instancing/phasing, and does not have multiple ways of advancing characters, then there's a good chance that most people would consider it a theme-park.
Just my 2 cents,
I like how you insult the guy for saying every MMO is a sand box and then proceed to basically say the same thing. For example I could say every MMO is more sandbox than a single player game because interactions with other players opens up such a giant range of options this is true.
1. Eve has levels, or ranks in skills, its different than say the classic leveling scheme, there's a lot of mini levels, but there's still distinction. Any sort of progression is linear, period. Weak -> Strong is a path whether it curves, crosses, zig zags, or loop de loops, it is a path that ends in a destination. So I agree with you, this can not really determine whether a game is a sandbox or themepark, I will say that skill based leveling FEELS more like freedom than level based games, and is thus attributed more to a sandbox, however every game has its progression making it more like a themepark.
2. Instancing is another scape goat for this arguement. If a developer chooses to change the size of the sand box people play in who are you to turn around and tell them its not a sand box. A single kid in a tiny sandbox fits the analogy exactly the same as one with 10 thousand the size of a city. To me it matters more what you can do in an instance than the fact that its instanced.
3. Most MMO's feature an open world primarily. The thing I find interesting as well is that if the developers want to tell a story its immidiately a themepark. That to me just kind of burns the whole analogy down, because I'm pretty sure there's no story being told if I go to any of the local themeparks. I'm still making my story up as I go along. Just because the developers wish to shape the over all events of the game, story, world what have you doesn't make it any less of a open world. It is all in how they implement it.
And seriously, stop using wow as the preeminent theme park example, its got qualities on both "sides" quite strongly. And if you don't think players shape those worlds go find one of the servers where one side completely outnumbers the other and see how it differs from a balanced server, just because you can't shape the landscape doesn't mean you can't shape the experience.
Oh, over all, people know what they want to play and what they like to play. Whether they can recognize a term with a dictionary in one hand and wikipedia in the other and the guy who coined it standing there is up for debate. People don't know what a sand box is, they know what they think a sand box is which is why you can have 20 people in a thread all trying to define it.
Originally posted by zymurgeist
Or we can skip the whole sandbox label thing that is being misapplied and describe games as what they are.
This. I've argued to stop trying to genrefy MMO's because there are simply too many factors at work, the experience at one stage of the game can be completely different at another, this is especially true in the themepark/sandbox debate.
The term sandbox was originally used to describe an “open world” style of MMORPG where players of all advancement levels were encouraged to wander the virtual world in search of their own stories and adventures. The metaphor is pretty self explanatory: put a child in a sandbox and they will use their imaginations to create all manner of fun for themselves. Theme Park games, on the other hand, are MMOs that guide players through the game’s experience. The developers craft the rides and players need only jump on and enjoy. Each is a different approach to MMO development, valid for its own reasons and appealing to its own audiences.
Over time though, the term sandbox has been somehow misused by some to describe a game that is questless, and levelless, devoid of any and all developer meddling. Theme Park, on the other hand, has become a word to describe a gaming experience that provides the players with no choice at all, no variation and no choice.
Sandboxes, for all of their freedom, should probably have a few toys thrown in: a shovel, maybe a few buckets and a Tonka bulldozer. A Theme park, while it does have predictable rides, should offer variation and choice in what you want to ride. Don’t like rollercoasters? Try the Merry-Go-Round or some carnival games.
In the end, neither term was meant to represent the extremes that many people use them to represent.
_________________________________________
In my opinion the key point is that sandbox games require creativity, and not all players have that.
Oh, and I don't think it means freedom or non-linear gameplay, these are just consequences or ways to build a compelling sandbox.
This, IMO, sums it up pretty well. In terms of actual MMOs ppl should get rid of their "its all or nothing; 100% or 0" thinking. Lets say Second Life is the ultimate Sandbox. You can (afaik; never "played" it) create/change everything. But to say something else is not sandbox at all because it maybe is "just" 75% sandbox & 25% themepark (thinking about EvE) does not look right to me.
I think part of the problems with defining "Sandbox" vs. "Theme-park" is that everyone is making everything black and white, ignoring that the world is full of grey. This happens when certain features are considered essential to label a game one way or the other. Can a sandbox have levels? Sure. Can a theme-park be skill based? Yes. I would even say that a sandbox could have some elements of instancing. They just can't be the most central part of the game, or it starts to feel a little theme-parkish.
1. Levels/Classes: This is just a way of quantifying/clustering skills. Being a "sandbox" references one's freedom to do as one will throughout the game world. This can be accomplished with levels/skills. So this can't be a defining element.
2. Instancing: In most games, and instance feels like a ride at a theme-park, thus people usually assume it is a themepark game. But a mostly sandbox game could incorporate a small amount of instancing and not disrupt the overall feel of the game. Thus it would still be a sandbox game. This may be a defining element, but only by the degree of instancing.
3. Open World: This generally means sandbox. But if a game that is build around linear or limited branching storyline that is the central key to the game decided to do it in an open world, that would not qualify it as a sandbox. Open world is not a guarentee of a sandbox. See WoW for more details.
Overall, most people know what a sandbox is when they hear it, even if it is difficult to specifically define. It's more about the feel of the game rather than the specific feature sets. If it is driven by player developed content (such as player cities/economy, pvp/faction warfare, exploration, crafting, etc) regardless of the feature set, there's a good chance that most people would consider it a sandbox. If it is driven by a storyline, relies on significant instancing/phasing, and does not have multiple ways of advancing characters, then there's a good chance that most people would consider it a theme-park.
Just my 2 cents,
I like how you insult the guy for saying every MMO is a sand box and then proceed to basically say the same thing. For example I could say every MMO is more sandbox than a single player game because interactions with other players opens up such a giant range of options this is true.
1. Eve has levels, or ranks in skills, its different than say the classic leveling scheme, there's a lot of mini levels, but there's still distinction. Any sort of progression is linear, period. Weak -> Strong is a path whether it curves, crosses, zig zags, or loop de loops, it is a path that ends in a destination. So I agree with you, this can not really determine whether a game is a sandbox or themepark, I will say that skill based leveling FEELS more like freedom than level based games, and is thus attributed more to a sandbox, however every game has its progression making it more like a themepark.
2. Instancing is another scape goat for this arguement. If a developer chooses to change the size of the sand box people play in who are you to turn around and tell them its not a sand box. A single kid in a tiny sandbox fits the analogy exactly the same as one with 10 thousand the size of a city. To me it matters more what you can do in an instance than the fact that its instanced.
3. Most MMO's feature an open world primarily. The thing I find interesting as well is that if the developers want to tell a story its immidiately a themepark. That to me just kind of burns the whole analogy down, because I'm pretty sure there's no story being told if I go to any of the local themeparks. I'm still making my story up as I go along. Just because the developers wish to shape the over all events of the game, story, world what have you doesn't make it any less of a open world. It is all in how they implement it.
And seriously, stop using wow as the preeminent theme park example, its got qualities on both "sides" quite strongly. And if you don't think players shape those worlds go find one of the servers where one side completely outnumbers the other and see how it differs from a balanced server, just because you can't shape the landscape doesn't mean you can't shape the experience.
Oh, over all, people know what they want to play and what they like to play. Whether they can recognize a term with a dictionary in one hand and wikipedia in the other and the guy who coined it standing there is up for debate. People don't know what a sand box is, they know what they think a sand box is which is why you can have 20 people in a thread all trying to define it.
Originally posted by zymurgeist
Or we can skip the whole sandbox label thing that is being misapplied and describe games as what they are.
This. I've argued to stop trying to genrefy MMO's because there are simply too many factors at work, the experience at one stage of the game can be completely different at another, this is especially true in the themepark/sandbox debate.
You seem to not comprehend what I was saying. I did not state that every MMO was a sandbox. That is ludicrous. What I stated was the specific features do not necessarily define a sandbox. For instance levels, which could be in a sandbox game, where some seem to think that a sandbox game must be skill based vs. levels. As for your other points:
1. Eve is not a level based game. Yes there are ranks to skills. But the progression is not linear. If you think it is, you should look up the definition of linear. In Eve, you can take a combat skill such as Small Hybrid Turrets, and then decide to train a few industrial skills such as Refining, Veldspar Processing, etc. Then it could be back to combat skills by taking Caldari Cruisers. Some skills have rank prerequisites from other skills, some don't. Bottom line is you do not go up a defined path, but rather select skills you want in many cases in the order you want them. Very much not linear.
2. Instancing isolates you from the rest of the world. That is the aspect that runs counter to "sandbox" based on how the term has traditionally been applied. If you feel that three grains of sand constitutes a "sandbox", you are entitled to your opinion, but I suspect most would not. You will note, however, my point that while over instancing would generally not be considered "sandbox", the mechanic should not be treated as a purely pass/fail for "sandbox".
3. You state that: "Just because the developers wish to shape the over all events of the game, story, world what have you doesn't make it any less of a open world.", and I would agree. Story does not make it less "open world". Again, as I previously posted, a themepark game can be an "open world". What developers wishing to shape the over all events of the game, story, and world does impact is whether the game would then be considered a sandbox. A sandbox game's most defining trait is that players shape the overall events, story and world.
Lastly, your comments on WoW. While I appreciate your directing me to stop using it, fortunately I do not follow your orders. I use it, as many other do, as it is the one game that virtually all gamers are familiar with, and thus can understand the comparisons. If I use games such as Dark & Light, Tabula Rasa, etc to give examples, it is lost on most people as those games low populations necesarily mean that most gamers have not played them. And regarding the differences on different population servers, I don't understand your point. I played on Illidan, which had a higher horde population. The only thing about that which effected the experience as far as I could tell was that BG que's where longer for Horde than Alliance. Once I was in AB, for example, it was still a 15 v 15 fight, irregardless of the population disparity.
As with all good themeparks, WoW has different kinds of rides to ride (BG, Raids, Daily's, etc), but it is not a sandbox.
Comments
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
In other words, EVE is a sandbox on multiple levels. Either element makes a game feel more like a sandbox. Add a combination of sandbox elements, and you have such a good example as EVE.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Exactly, you just have to think:
With this feature I’m building a castle?
Or am I just enjoying a rollercoaster that will keep doing the same loop after I’m done?
There are lots of sandboxes out there.
What you want is one from one fo the big devlopment houses.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
SWG is one of the only games I've played that truely felt like a sandbox game. I could plop a house down in the middle of the desert and harvest resources all day long and make an in-game living. To me that felt like freedom, even if it was mundane.
This in a nutshell is basically what I think folks feel when we discuss sandbox MMOs(at least I do)....that being that a sandbox is along the lines of a virtual reality game. AT least when it comes to MMOs.
You have the freedom to affect the landscape, there are more roles than combat, and game directed content is kept to the minimum. The kids(players) are in their sandbox, and free to do as they wish.
Contrast that with EQ1. There was an open world, but you couldnt change the landcape. That was reserved for the Devs to institute anything they desired(content). Trades were in, but the game didnt revolve around them.... or other non-combat roles(like politician/dancers....clerics/chanters were field support).
You throw in something like FFA PVP, and what is deemed "sandbox" in MMOs is something I have no desire to play.
I made a thread a while back about how "sandbox" single player games are more akin to "themepark" MMOs. RDR, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 all play closer to EQ/WoW than they do to SWG/UO.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I like a content rich game. Content to me doesnt include sitting around talking about what happened in 1922. It goes back to ROLL play vs ROLE play. I am in the ROLL play camp.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
And again, being linear or non-linear has nothing to do with sandbox.
Well from the number of replies saying, "xxx has nothing to do with sandbox," and "sandbox is xxx"
If there is one thing this thread proves there is no concise/solid definition of sandbox. Only people's impressions.
I personally feel that WoW is pretty sandboxy. I can go where I want, when I want (generally, yes some areas are harder than others but that doesn't mean I can't go there). I'm given many different ways to level, and I have some control in how I design my toon. I can create my own story, and generally be what I want. Housing would make it better, affecting the land and the story of the world would make it great.
Ryzom I'm currently playing and everyone says it's sandboxy. I can do two things and two things only. Fight by grinding all day against plants and/or animals. Yes I can fight differently with different weapons and in slightly different areas, but not significantly different, or dig in the dirt all day to craft. However I can train whatever skill I want and craft what I want. Is that more sandboxy than wow. IMO no it isn't - hundreds of choices of weapons but using them in the exact same places the exact same way.
The ring makes it a bit better.
Venge Sunsoar
I certainly hope developers are paying attention to this type of gaming 'want'. I've never played Second Life for longer than 3 minutes when it first launched but I was intrigued by what could be done within it. That game is a little too um, 'sandy' for my tastes but I like the possibilities it opens up.
I always looked upon SWG as a sandbox MMO. I'm sure many would disagree but I don't care. For me, that game was so open and I felt I could truly create my own content. Also, I felt very dependent upon my fellow players to add to my experience within that game. Not just for community or socializing, but for creating a system of commerce and trade and adventuring. The Star Wars part really didn't matter in that game and I liked that. I suppose that's why SOE changed it because the core of the game had nothing to do with that franchise.
Its a lot easier to make a open world single player game than a MMO. So not sure this means we will be seeing any new open world MMOs soon. But good to see all the same.
My definition comes from the sandbox analogy that I well explained in this thread.
I'm not saying that I’m right and you are wrong.
But just that your definition doesn’t make sense, and where it came from anyway?
Both sandbox and theme park can be non-linear that's not the point.
I don't think allowing a level nothing player to interact with level close to max players has anything to do with a sandbox.
What makes EVE a sandbox IMO, is the ability to change the game world, and control space.
What if you couldn't join in a big space battle until you reached level close to max?
The result would still be the same, you could still change the game world, and control space.
What if in WoW you could join raids at level 1?
It still wouldnt' be a sandbox, because raids don't change the world in any way.
EvE is quite a linear game, you are constrained by the game mechanics in what you can do just, I guess, as you are constrained by the game mechanics in WoW as to what you can do. Point is most mmorpg place limits on the players, they enter a world/universe designed by the game developer, the apparent freedom is always an illusion since you are after all just playing a game created by others. The term Sandbox is just a term thrown about by the non-thinking members of the mmorpg community as it very often is a personal definition, ie for some you need to have FFA PvP with full loot for a game to even be considered as sandbox.The original theme park/sandbox analogy has a meaning.
Players and developers just forgot about it and started using these words to other meanings.
Are developers finally realizing the attraction of a "sandbox" world?
No.
As far as single/muti-player games go, yea I think they are. Just look at how many of those games have some sort of open-world element to them. They're still not all that open ended or 'sandboxy", but they've moved further away from the linear route.
MMORPS, on the other hand, have moved more towards directed game play. Go here, do this quest, go there, do that quest, level, repeat.
Until one of the big developers really hits it with a more open-ended MMORPG, I don't see how you'll see much of a shift.
Who cares?I'm a gamer...I love all types of games not just a very narrow and myopic range of them.A bad game is a bad game no matte rif it's sandboxy or to the other extreme on rails e.g I'd rather paly a good House of the Dead type game than a horrible Mercenaries type game.
Sandbox =/= innovative and great....it's jsut another type of game mechanic.
With that statement you have lost any credibility in this discussion.
I think part of the problems with defining "Sandbox" vs. "Theme-park" is that everyone is making everything black and white, ignoring that the world is full of grey. This happens when certain features are considered essential to label a game one way or the other. Can a sandbox have levels? Sure. Can a theme-park be skill based? Yes. I would even say that a sandbox could have some elements of instancing. They just can't be the most central part of the game, or it starts to feel a little theme-parkish.
1. Levels/Classes: This is just a way of quantifying/clustering skills. Being a "sandbox" references one's freedom to do as one will throughout the game world. This can be accomplished with levels/skills. So this can't be a defining element.
2. Instancing: In most games, and instance feels like a ride at a theme-park, thus people usually assume it is a themepark game. But a mostly sandbox game could incorporate a small amount of instancing and not disrupt the overall feel of the game. Thus it would still be a sandbox game. This may be a defining element, but only by the degree of instancing.
3. Open World: This generally means sandbox. But if a game that is build around linear or limited branching storyline that is the central key to the game decided to do it in an open world, that would not qualify it as a sandbox. Open world is not a guarentee of a sandbox. See WoW for more details.
Overall, most people know what a sandbox is when they hear it, even if it is difficult to specifically define. It's more about the feel of the game rather than the specific feature sets. If it is driven by player developed content (such as player cities/economy, pvp/faction warfare, exploration, crafting, etc) regardless of the feature set, there's a good chance that most people would consider it a sandbox. If it is driven by a storyline, relies on significant instancing/phasing, and does not have multiple ways of advancing characters, then there's a good chance that most people would consider it a theme-park.
Just my 2 cents,
§ Look at me! §
Now that I have some attention.
I suggest we define some new terms as to be able to separate these diffrent sandbox impressions.
We can call classless games that! -------- Skill-based sandbox?
We can call open world this! (No level restriction or forced storyline) -------- Open world sandbox?
We can call decisions and choices as such! ----- Choice sandbox?
We can call a player content driven world (Politics, pvp war, economy and factions) too good to be true. Player driven world sandbox
Perhaps this will make communcation a lot more quick and snappy, if someone says sandbox you can just ask what type, skill based, open world, choice, player driven?, if they reply everything they are referring to player driven world.
Sandbox defines freedom ina game, nothing much else, these terms would eventually become common knowledge among MMO players.
These names are just suggestions but I think we should name these variations of MMO sandbox.
I didn't know. If you could explain it better I would be very interested.
Agreed.
I'm pretty sure devs have understood/realized the potential of the sandbox for quite some time. With that in mind, they have likely also realized the cost/development it would take to truly do sandbox justice. Expectations on sandbox games are as high as their potential. Freedom don't come cheap.
Not to mention, why take a chance on a sandbox when you can bank with something like WoW?
I almost forgot about this thread after I posted it. Some interesting responses. To me sandbox refers to the world, not your character. You play in a sandbox, independent of what your character's abilities are. Clearly, devs fluctuate on how restrictive character customization can be, but I would say that falls under character development, not world restriction.
And I also think linear is a good term to describe the opposite of sandbox. Of course, an MMO doesn't have to be strictly one or the other, it can fall somewhere in between having elements of both.
I am an advocate of making a dynamic online world as "sandboxy" as possible. Being a child of EQ, most every MMO I have played since then has felt pretty restrictive to me. While certainly not a perfect game, I liked how I had the option to quest, XP or raid, which seems like a wide range of options compared to today's MMOs. One thing I would certainly change is move from a level-based advancement system to a skill-based one, thereby freeing your character up even further from the relentless XP grind.
Compare that to the game I am currently playing (I won't mention which one) which essentially ties questing and XP together. You have to travel from quest NPC to quest NPC and complete them to have any hope of advancing to the next level. It consolidates the world rather than expands it.
I like how you insult the guy for saying every MMO is a sand box and then proceed to basically say the same thing. For example I could say every MMO is more sandbox than a single player game because interactions with other players opens up such a giant range of options this is true.
1. Eve has levels, or ranks in skills, its different than say the classic leveling scheme, there's a lot of mini levels, but there's still distinction. Any sort of progression is linear, period. Weak -> Strong is a path whether it curves, crosses, zig zags, or loop de loops, it is a path that ends in a destination. So I agree with you, this can not really determine whether a game is a sandbox or themepark, I will say that skill based leveling FEELS more like freedom than level based games, and is thus attributed more to a sandbox, however every game has its progression making it more like a themepark.
2. Instancing is another scape goat for this arguement. If a developer chooses to change the size of the sand box people play in who are you to turn around and tell them its not a sand box. A single kid in a tiny sandbox fits the analogy exactly the same as one with 10 thousand the size of a city. To me it matters more what you can do in an instance than the fact that its instanced.
3. Most MMO's feature an open world primarily. The thing I find interesting as well is that if the developers want to tell a story its immidiately a themepark. That to me just kind of burns the whole analogy down, because I'm pretty sure there's no story being told if I go to any of the local themeparks. I'm still making my story up as I go along. Just because the developers wish to shape the over all events of the game, story, world what have you doesn't make it any less of a open world. It is all in how they implement it.
And seriously, stop using wow as the preeminent theme park example, its got qualities on both "sides" quite strongly. And if you don't think players shape those worlds go find one of the servers where one side completely outnumbers the other and see how it differs from a balanced server, just because you can't shape the landscape doesn't mean you can't shape the experience.
Oh, over all, people know what they want to play and what they like to play. Whether they can recognize a term with a dictionary in one hand and wikipedia in the other and the guy who coined it standing there is up for debate. People don't know what a sand box is, they know what they think a sand box is which is why you can have 20 people in a thread all trying to define it.
This. I've argued to stop trying to genrefy MMO's because there are simply too many factors at work, the experience at one stage of the game can be completely different at another, this is especially true in the themepark/sandbox debate.
This, IMO, sums it up pretty well. In terms of actual MMOs ppl should get rid of their "its all or nothing; 100% or 0" thinking. Lets say Second Life is the ultimate Sandbox. You can (afaik; never "played" it) create/change everything. But to say something else is not sandbox at all because it maybe is "just" 75% sandbox & 25% themepark (thinking about EvE) does not look right to me.
You seem to not comprehend what I was saying. I did not state that every MMO was a sandbox. That is ludicrous. What I stated was the specific features do not necessarily define a sandbox. For instance levels, which could be in a sandbox game, where some seem to think that a sandbox game must be skill based vs. levels. As for your other points:
1. Eve is not a level based game. Yes there are ranks to skills. But the progression is not linear. If you think it is, you should look up the definition of linear. In Eve, you can take a combat skill such as Small Hybrid Turrets, and then decide to train a few industrial skills such as Refining, Veldspar Processing, etc. Then it could be back to combat skills by taking Caldari Cruisers. Some skills have rank prerequisites from other skills, some don't. Bottom line is you do not go up a defined path, but rather select skills you want in many cases in the order you want them. Very much not linear.
2. Instancing isolates you from the rest of the world. That is the aspect that runs counter to "sandbox" based on how the term has traditionally been applied. If you feel that three grains of sand constitutes a "sandbox", you are entitled to your opinion, but I suspect most would not. You will note, however, my point that while over instancing would generally not be considered "sandbox", the mechanic should not be treated as a purely pass/fail for "sandbox".
3. You state that: "Just because the developers wish to shape the over all events of the game, story, world what have you doesn't make it any less of a open world.", and I would agree. Story does not make it less "open world". Again, as I previously posted, a themepark game can be an "open world". What developers wishing to shape the over all events of the game, story, and world does impact is whether the game would then be considered a sandbox. A sandbox game's most defining trait is that players shape the overall events, story and world.
Lastly, your comments on WoW. While I appreciate your directing me to stop using it, fortunately I do not follow your orders. I use it, as many other do, as it is the one game that virtually all gamers are familiar with, and thus can understand the comparisons. If I use games such as Dark & Light, Tabula Rasa, etc to give examples, it is lost on most people as those games low populations necesarily mean that most gamers have not played them. And regarding the differences on different population servers, I don't understand your point. I played on Illidan, which had a higher horde population. The only thing about that which effected the experience as far as I could tell was that BG que's where longer for Horde than Alliance. Once I was in AB, for example, it was still a 15 v 15 fight, irregardless of the population disparity.
As with all good themeparks, WoW has different kinds of rides to ride (BG, Raids, Daily's, etc), but it is not a sandbox.
time for another poll....how much sandbox/themepark do you want: 100% SB 0% theme...75%SB 25% theme etc
;P