That some choose to limit themselves within it dosent change the nature of it's design.
the game is obviously sandbox, because it allows the freedom to do so much more by it very nature.
i rest my case
On what grounds?
By agreeing that any given game is defined is by it's fundemental system design, no matter what the players choose to do within it?
because thats what i am saying.
The Game is a game only when it is played. the best system that is not played is not much of a game. different people play differently. and some people will take base system and add to it. that's sandbox. just following the rules is not enough. every system has a limit. you just can't design rules for every situation.
so, the system itself does not make a sandbox. if you played for 25 years, you should know rule zero: if something doesn't work, change it. that's a sandbox. but it requires players to do it. some systems can be changed more easily than others, but it requires players that make a difference.
That some choose to limit themselves within it dosent change the nature of it's design.
the game is obviously sandbox, because it allows the freedom to do so much more by it very nature.
i rest my case
On what grounds?
By agreeing that any given game is defined is by it's fundemental system design, no matter what the players choose to do within it?
because thats what i am saying.
The Game is a game only when it is played. the best system that is not played is not much of a game. different people play differently. and some people will take base system and add to it. that's sandbox. just following the rules is not enough. every system has a limit. you just can't design rules for every situation.
so, the system itself does not make a sandbox. if you played for 25 years, you should know rule zero: if something doesn't work, change it. that's a sandbox. but it requires players to do it. some systems can be changed more easily than others, but it requires players that make a difference.
I am sorry, I think I pulled a ninja edit on you.. I went on to say...
look, getting back to MMORPGs, which are a very different animal to tabletop games and what this thread is about, it dosent matter if a player stands around all day in Rift roleplaying in chat... that dosent make the game a sandbox. it means he is just roleplaying in a themepark.
it is the same as wearing elf ears when you go to Disneyland and telling everyone you meet your an elf... you don't change the designed nature of Disneyland by doing it (you just get some funny looks). Disneyland is still what it is built to be.
Some P&P GMs are forcing their groups to always do as his adventure say and that is no sandbox, but those GMs often have hard to get groups to play with. The main advantage to P&P compared to MMOs are usually total freedom, you can never make a MMO like that, at least not until you can connect your brain to the game directly.
Most people don't understand either that you can't transform - as such - a P&P game into a video game.
Sitting in front of a monitor for 10 hours to wait for a monster to spawn is not exactly a video game. In p&p the GM says ... 10 hours passes.
Imagining things is amust in P&P, if you have to imagine things in a video game it is a failed feature (remember the flying paths in War where you had to imagine you flew while watching an animated loading screen).
In fact 100 % sandboxes don't .... exist.
It was just the first generation of MMO's and MUD's that had sandboxed elements because their designers didn't have a CLUE about the new computer based on line role playing games.
No chat channel, no central build market, no control of boss fights, it all sounds groovy now, but in reality it was a first generation build kind of trial "kit" that wasn't adapted to the needs of SPECIFIC VIDEO GAME design.
We conveniantly forget UO had invisble walls and closed worlds everywhere. A testomony how badly developped they really were.
Video games have much other things to worry about: like fast paced combat, fluid animations, SHORTER playing sessions because ... it is not very healthy to sit non stop for 10 hours before a screen ... etc.
Sandboxes never existed and in its purest form it will never be.
Underdevelopped trash that lacks anything decent exists though ... in masses even in this industry.
Op, I don't need to give you bullet points on what makes a sandbox and themepark and what are the differences. All I have to do is direct you toward the games. The difference is how the games feel. Play EVE, UO, Ryzom, Perpetuum, MO or DF and then go play WoW, WAR, Aion, Lotro or AoC. Do that and you won't even need to ask that question.
I am sorry, I think I pulled a ninja edit on you.. I went on to say...
look, getting back to MMORPGs, which are a very different animal to tabletop games and what this thread is about, it dosent matter if a player stands around all day in Rift roleplaying in chat... that dosent make the game a sandbox. it means he is just roleplaying in a themepark.
it is the same as wearing elf ears when you go to Disneyland and telling everyone you meet your an elf... you don't change the designed nature of Disneyland by doing it (you just get some funny looks). Disneyland is still what it is built to be.
remove players from EVE. is it still a sandbox? more like a still picture.
remove visitors from Disneyland. is it still a themepark? again, still picture.
by your definition, only system that redesigns and plays itself is a sandbox.
by my definition, any system that has players adding to it is a sandbox, even if (actually, especially when) addition are not supported.
I am sorry, I think I pulled a ninja edit on you.. I went on to say...
look, getting back to MMORPGs, which are a very different animal to tabletop games and what this thread is about, it dosent matter if a player stands around all day in Rift roleplaying in chat... that dosent make the game a sandbox. it means he is just roleplaying in a themepark.
it is the same as wearing elf ears when you go to Disneyland and telling everyone you meet your an elf... you don't change the designed nature of Disneyland by doing it (you just get some funny looks). Disneyland is still what it is built to be.
remove players from EVE. is it still a sandbox? more like a still picture.
I would guess so, yeah.
remove visitors from Disneyland. is it still a themepark? again, still picture.
No, with the elctricity still turned on the rides keep moving.
waiting for folks to hop on.
by your definition, only system that redesigns and plays itself is a sandbox.
No, I am saying that games are what they are built to be, and a themepark is that by intention and design.
Just because you choose to roleplay within it dosen alter it's core systems. It remains a themepark, just one your pretending to be an elf in.
Like I say, it is the same as wearing elf ears when you go to Disneyland and telling everyone you meet your an elf... you don't change the designed nature of Disneyland by doing it (you just get some funny looks). Disneyland is still what it is built to be, it carries on without you and you havent changed anything.
But I have said all this already
by my definition, any system that has players adding to it is a sandbox, even if (actually, especially when) addition are not supported.
yep, I get you think anything with players is a sandbox, but I am saying that just isnt true. Choice of ride isnt what makes a sandbox.
The guy who invented the terms used them this way:
1. Theme park games are games like Mario Bros where your toon is actually on rails and can only move left to right. The content is highly scripted, in fact it's impossible to skip the next obsticle.
2. Sandbox games are any MMO or MUD where you have nearly infinite options on where you can move and you can skip content if you want.
Elitists have coopted these terms in an effort to make their MMO seem superior, even though few play those old MMOs any more.
The guy who invented the terms used them this way:
2. Sandbox games are any MMO or MUD where you have nearly infinite options on where you can move and you can skip content if you want.
Ignoring the flamebait, I would say the problem with this original defintion is that mainstream MMORPGs as games have evolved (for better or for worse) into where this is no longer true.
The guy who invented the terms used them this way:
2. Sandbox games are any MMO or MUD where you have nearly infinite options on where you can move and you can skip content if you want.
Ignoring the flamebait, I would say the problem with this original defintion is that mainstream MMORPGs as games have evolved (for better or for worse) into where this is no longer true.
No I think it's still true. They haven't changed that much.
Look at Rift, what i consider to be the distilled epitamy of this generation of themepark MMORPGs... were are my 'nearly infinite' options?
Yeah, i think this definition is now out of date.
The whole debate misses the mark though. Instead of asking what label to apply the question should be: Does anything I do in this game matter to anyone else? Can I make a difference in the context of the game? If the answer is no, and for the overwhelming majority of games it is, the game is ultimately just a series of time sinks to delay you inevitably quitting. The real holy grail would be a MMORPG where you could make a positive impact on the game world.
I dont think thats been missed at all.. several people have said the same thing in different words
by my definition, any system that has players adding to it is a sandbox, even if (actually, especially when) addition are not supported.
yep, I get you think anything with players is a sandbox, but I am saying that just isnt true. Choice of ride isnt what makes a sandbox.
not "anything with players". i said "players adding to it".
one example:
in EVE, players can run missions for NPC corporations, which is quite like WOW quests. you get a objective to complete, and get rewarded with money, loot and reputation. missions are straight forward, with very little random elements, and usually no PVP. for reputation you can buy other rewards.
classic themepark.
also, there is player corporation that gives out missions. some missions are hand-ins, some are simple couriers. they reward players with money, loot and reputation. for reputation you buy other rewards. quite like NPC corps. now, there is no way they actually make money on this. NPC mission rewards come from nowhere, but they have to cover it from their pocket. they have no extra support from game devs. only tools that are available to other players.
that's a sandbox. at least for players running a corp. for player doing missions, not much changes. except for role-play opportunity .
now, what stops players to do exact same thing in WOW? and if they do, does it make WOW a sandbox? and if doesn't, what makes EVE a sandbox?
it's not PVP, because then any FPS would be sandbox.
it's not crafting, because than any game where you can combine existing stuff into different existing stuff is a sandbox.
it's not open world, because any game system is by definition limited and closed.
it's not market, because than any game with trade is a sandbox.
it's not all of the above together and then some, neither. whatever system is added, there will be limit to it.
but what you can't add by design, are players. players make a difference. players chose to play EVE as sandbox. players chose to play WOW as themepark.
saying that WOW railroads you is an excuse. nothing stops you from going the hard way. you can create new factions, give out missions and collect hand-ins, rewarding people with your crafted items. you can play in certain area and claim as your own, kill opposed faction and, while you can't kill your faction, you can be a nuisance, within game rules.
and before you go on about rules defining a themepark, EVE has rules that prevent you from doing things that should be "naturally" possible. you can't steal from someone's hangar unless they let you to, even while there is Hacking skill in game.
so, again, it's not what you play, it's how you play it.
by my definition, any system that has players adding to it is a sandbox, even if (actually, especially when) addition are not supported.
yep, I get you think anything with players is a sandbox, but I am saying that just isnt true. Choice of ride isnt what makes a sandbox.
not "anything with players". i said "players adding to it".
one example:
in EVE, players can run missions for NPC corporations, which is quite like WOW quests. you get a objective to complete, and get rewarded with money, loot and reputation. missions are straight forward, with very little random elements, and usually no PVP. for reputation you can buy other rewards.
classic themepark.
I never gave EVE as a example of being a pure sandbox, and I also have said repeatedly that a lot of sandbox games have themepark elements and vice versa.
saying that WOW railroads you is an excuse. nothing stops you from going the hard way.
I never mentioned WoW...
and before you go on rules defning a themepark, EVE has rules that prevent you from doing things that should be "naturally" possible. you can't steal from someone's hangar unless they let you to, even while there is Hacking skill in game.
A sandbox isnt defined by allowing everyhting thats possible in the real world.
so, again, it's not what you play, it's how you play it.
I have responded to this enough I think, repeating why it isnt true isnt getting us far
For me, it helps to look at it as if you were a philosophy student. If you look at Platos' Theory of Forms, you get something useful. A Form (capital F) is kind of a universal idea...a template or absolute thing. There is an absolute Sandbox (capital S) and an absolute Themepark (capital T). There may be some discussion on what constitutes that universal or absolute Sandbox or Themepark, but there's probably going to be a lot of agreement as well. It's arbitrary...but whatever the majority of people agree on defines those universal Forms.
When a game is developed, it can take features from either or both a Sandbox and a Themepark. If a game gets over the 50% mark in features for a Sandbox, it can be classified as a Sandbox game, because it's convenient. It's not convenient to classify a game as an 80/20 Sandbox.
So Eve is a Sandbox game, even though it has quests, reputation grinding and npc factions that affect the game world through the players. World of Warcraft would still be a Themepark game, even if they implemented player housing or guild housing.
There are things that are not part of the definition of either though, like PvP. However, FFA PvP (not related to npc factions) is probably considered a Sandbox feature. The loss of your gear or some accumulated wealth when you die is considered a Sandbox feature. The lack of that loss is considered a Themepark feature. Being able to loot players is generally considered a Sandbox feature, but only if you can actually take their gear. In WoW you can loot some money and little novelty items from other players, but they will not lose their gear in PvP. And so on. You could probably get really in depth with this.
*addendum* There are also things that are not really features of a Sandbox or Themepark, but tend to result naturally from the games that follow either path. Sandbox games tend to result in more group play outside of specific group activities. Sandbox games tend towards FFA PvP and being in a group is safer. Grouping for non-group specific content isn't a Sandbox feature, because you could do the exact same thing in a Themepark by making the world such that a group is much safer and increases success significantly. It's more of a result than a cause (feature).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My definition of a sandbox is simple. Choice. If I decide that i dont like the build I have I can change it. [which you cant in themeparks]. If I want to focus on crafting and selling those goods I shoud be able to do that. [theoreticaly you could do it in themeparks but its not like you can focus completely on crafting. you have to pick a class]. If you dont want to do quests you shouldnt have to. There shouldnt be any restrictions based on level [mounts, equipment, etc.]. You get the idea.
Mind clarifying this?
Specs: In WOW you can freely respec *and* dual-spec. In DF or EVE you're stuck with a single character who cannot flexibly become something else without a lot of grinding or time.
Crafting: While focus on crafting is indisputably superior in EVE, WOW beats DF in terms of being able to commit to it fulltime. Granted in either WOW or DF the crafting isn't deep enough that you're gonna spend 100% of your time doing it (although players do in both, I'm sure.)
Quests: In WOW it's impossible to entirely avoid quests, but after level 15 it's possible to level completely in groups where quests are very rare.
Level Restrictions: Um, but EVE and DF have level restrictions. You can't pilot Ship W without Skill X, and you can't wear Armor Y without Strength Z. Certainly you'd get no argument from me that both of these games would benefit enormously from a Planetside-like progression and item system (they'd actually be PVP MMORPGs instead of...well, whatever they are now.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, sandboxes are defined by the systems the dev chooses to implement.
Like I keep saying, linear isnt the same as themepark... no one is sugessting it is. Going to a good themepark involves lots of choices, even in the real world.
It dosent make it a sandbox. You are still emtertained, rather then entertaining yourself.
tho, i would like to know: in your opinion, what are systems that define a sandbox?
Sandbox = go where ever you want, when ever you want, there's lots more to it than that though.
Themepark = a path designated to a string of quests/missions, basically if you wander off like you would in sandbox you wouldn't get very far (little to no xp or content outside of it).
The number of sandbox games has dropped dramatically in the past 5 years and is becoming a thing of the past. I consider City of Heroes/Villains a pseudo-sandbox, it has some open-ness and plenty of choices to go through, SWG lost all that with the NGE, PlanetSide is sort of a sandbox.
Sandbox = go where ever you want, when ever you want, there's lots more to it than that though.
Themepark = a path designated to a string of quests/missions, basically if you wander off like you would in sandbox you wouldn't get very far (little to no xp or content outside of it).
The number of sandbox games has dropped dramatically in the psat 5 years is becoming a thing of the past.
well, how does that differ from my definition that players define a sandbox? "you want" means "player wants", yes?
Originally posted by spinner_vis Originally posted by sookster54 Sandbox = go where ever you want, when ever you want, there's lots more to it than that though. Themepark = a path designated to a string of quests/missions, basically if you wander off like you would in sandbox you wouldn't get very far (little to no xp or content outside of it).
The number of sandbox games has dropped dramatically in the psat 5 years is becoming a thing of the past.
well, how does that differ from my definition that players define a sandbox? "you want" means "player wants", yes? Want what? I don't think it matters on what players want, the companies/devs obviously want to produce themepark games.
No, sandboxes are defined by the systems the dev chooses to implement.
Like I keep saying, linear isnt the same as themepark... no one is sugessting it is. Going to a good themepark involves lots of choices, even in the real world.
It dosent make it a sandbox. You are still emtertained, rather then entertaining yourself.
tho, i would like to know: in your opinion, what are systems that define a sandbox?
I would personally say that any system that allows me to define and direct my environment, and through that tell my own story, is a sandbox tool.
Love is a great little game that allows for a lot, and while I wouldnt expect it to click with the average player, not more then Minecraft will, both show exactly what is possible in this space in a lot of ways with a little ambition and imagination...
Sandbox = go where ever you want, when ever you want, there's lots more to it than that though.
Themepark = a path designated to a string of quests/missions, basically if you wander off like you would in sandbox you wouldn't get very far (little to no xp or content outside of it).
The number of sandbox games has dropped dramatically in the psat 5 years is becoming a thing of the past.
well, how does that differ from my definition that players define a sandbox? "you want" means "player wants", yes?
Want what? I don't think it matters on what players want, the companies/devs obviously want to produce themepark games.
that's not surprising at all. there will always be more players wanting themepark than sandbox. it's easier to consume than create. but it's also natural. if everyone would create at all times, why would they do it if none would ever take notice, because they would be busy doing their own thing.
tho, i would like to know: in your opinion, what are systems that define a sandbox?
I would personally say that any system that allows me to define and direct my environment, and through that tell my own story, is a sandbox tool.
...
lets say another player comes along. he builds nothing, he just watches other people building. does the game suddenly become a themepark? what if you could build a dungeon with customized NPCs (or even PCs) and other players could stomp through? it's obviously a themepark for them.
in other words, would player-built virtual Disneyland be a sandbox or a themepark?
Originally posted by spinner_vis ... tho, i would like to know: in your opinion, what are systems that define a sandbox?
I would personally say that any system that allows me to define and direct my environment, and through that tell my own story, is a sandbox tool. ...
lets say another player comes along. he builds nothing, he just watches other people building. does the game suddenly become a themepark? what if you could build a dungeon with customized NPCs (or even PCs) and other players could stomp through? it's obviously a themepark for them. in other words, would player-built virtual Disneyland be a sandbox or a themepark?
I wish there were games or at least the tools available for the average person to create at least a portion of an MMORPG (like a dungeon). There are many tools available, but they require such a time investment to get anything out of them. If you had a Sims style creation tool, at the very least you could create some pretty cool Diablo-esque dungeons.
*edit* The resulting game, like all MMORPG, would incorporate Sandbox and Themepark elements. It might be a 50/50 Sandbox or a 40/60 Sandbox (60/40 Themepark), but the only "pure" Sandbox game I can think of is Minecraft.
Linkrealms already does this. You can buy a plot of land and open it up to other players with a dungeon.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
The Game is a game only when it is played. the best system that is not played is not much of a game. different people play differently. and some people will take base system and add to it. that's sandbox. just following the rules is not enough. every system has a limit. you just can't design rules for every situation.
so, the system itself does not make a sandbox. if you played for 25 years, you should know rule zero: if something doesn't work, change it. that's a sandbox. but it requires players to do it. some systems can be changed more easily than others, but it requires players that make a difference.
I am sorry, I think I pulled a ninja edit on you.. I went on to say...
look, getting back to MMORPGs, which are a very different animal to tabletop games and what this thread is about, it dosent matter if a player stands around all day in Rift roleplaying in chat... that dosent make the game a sandbox. it means he is just roleplaying in a themepark.
it is the same as wearing elf ears when you go to Disneyland and telling everyone you meet your an elf... you don't change the designed nature of Disneyland by doing it (you just get some funny looks). Disneyland is still what it is built to be.
Most people don't understand either that you can't transform - as such - a P&P game into a video game.
Sitting in front of a monitor for 10 hours to wait for a monster to spawn is not exactly a video game. In p&p the GM says ... 10 hours passes.
Imagining things is amust in P&P, if you have to imagine things in a video game it is a failed feature (remember the flying paths in War where you had to imagine you flew while watching an animated loading screen).
In fact 100 % sandboxes don't .... exist.
It was just the first generation of MMO's and MUD's that had sandboxed elements because their designers didn't have a CLUE about the new computer based on line role playing games.
No chat channel, no central build market, no control of boss fights, it all sounds groovy now, but in reality it was a first generation build kind of trial "kit" that wasn't adapted to the needs of SPECIFIC VIDEO GAME design.
We conveniantly forget UO had invisble walls and closed worlds everywhere. A testomony how badly developped they really were.
Video games have much other things to worry about: like fast paced combat, fluid animations, SHORTER playing sessions because ... it is not very healthy to sit non stop for 10 hours before a screen ... etc.
Sandboxes never existed and in its purest form it will never be.
Underdevelopped trash that lacks anything decent exists though ... in masses even in this industry.
Some would call that sandboxy, well whatever.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
remove players from EVE. is it still a sandbox? more like a still picture.
remove visitors from Disneyland. is it still a themepark? again, still picture.
by your definition, only system that redesigns and plays itself is a sandbox.
by my definition, any system that has players adding to it is a sandbox, even if (actually, especially when) addition are not supported.
In a sandbox game we are given the tools to shape the world. In a themepark game we experience the world created by the developers.
The guy who invented the terms used them this way:
1. Theme park games are games like Mario Bros where your toon is actually on rails and can only move left to right. The content is highly scripted, in fact it's impossible to skip the next obsticle.
2. Sandbox games are any MMO or MUD where you have nearly infinite options on where you can move and you can skip content if you want.
Elitists have coopted these terms in an effort to make their MMO seem superior, even though few play those old MMOs any more.
Ignoring the flamebait, I would say the problem with this original defintion is that mainstream MMORPGs as games have evolved (for better or for worse) into where this is no longer true.
not "anything with players". i said "players adding to it".
one example:
in EVE, players can run missions for NPC corporations, which is quite like WOW quests. you get a objective to complete, and get rewarded with money, loot and reputation. missions are straight forward, with very little random elements, and usually no PVP. for reputation you can buy other rewards.
classic themepark.
also, there is player corporation that gives out missions. some missions are hand-ins, some are simple couriers. they reward players with money, loot and reputation. for reputation you buy other rewards. quite like NPC corps. now, there is no way they actually make money on this. NPC mission rewards come from nowhere, but they have to cover it from their pocket. they have no extra support from game devs. only tools that are available to other players.
that's a sandbox. at least for players running a corp. for player doing missions, not much changes. except for role-play opportunity .
now, what stops players to do exact same thing in WOW? and if they do, does it make WOW a sandbox? and if doesn't, what makes EVE a sandbox?
it's not PVP, because then any FPS would be sandbox.
it's not crafting, because than any game where you can combine existing stuff into different existing stuff is a sandbox.
it's not open world, because any game system is by definition limited and closed.
it's not market, because than any game with trade is a sandbox.
it's not all of the above together and then some, neither. whatever system is added, there will be limit to it.
but what you can't add by design, are players. players make a difference. players chose to play EVE as sandbox. players chose to play WOW as themepark.
saying that WOW railroads you is an excuse. nothing stops you from going the hard way. you can create new factions, give out missions and collect hand-ins, rewarding people with your crafted items. you can play in certain area and claim as your own, kill opposed faction and, while you can't kill your faction, you can be a nuisance, within game rules.
and before you go on about rules defining a themepark, EVE has rules that prevent you from doing things that should be "naturally" possible. you can't steal from someone's hangar unless they let you to, even while there is Hacking skill in game.
so, again, it's not what you play, it's how you play it.
Second Life is perfect sandbox by anyone's definition. All other games fall short.
There are zero quests in second life other than quests created by the player base.
There is practically zero created developer content. Nearly all the content is player created.
If a game has a quest or quests, it's a theme park game. This is self evident.
it wasn't aimed at you
it's what i call "pidgin english passive".
lol ok, fair enough
For me, it helps to look at it as if you were a philosophy student. If you look at Platos' Theory of Forms, you get something useful. A Form (capital F) is kind of a universal idea...a template or absolute thing. There is an absolute Sandbox (capital S) and an absolute Themepark (capital T). There may be some discussion on what constitutes that universal or absolute Sandbox or Themepark, but there's probably going to be a lot of agreement as well. It's arbitrary...but whatever the majority of people agree on defines those universal Forms.
When a game is developed, it can take features from either or both a Sandbox and a Themepark. If a game gets over the 50% mark in features for a Sandbox, it can be classified as a Sandbox game, because it's convenient. It's not convenient to classify a game as an 80/20 Sandbox.
So Eve is a Sandbox game, even though it has quests, reputation grinding and npc factions that affect the game world through the players. World of Warcraft would still be a Themepark game, even if they implemented player housing or guild housing.
There are things that are not part of the definition of either though, like PvP. However, FFA PvP (not related to npc factions) is probably considered a Sandbox feature. The loss of your gear or some accumulated wealth when you die is considered a Sandbox feature. The lack of that loss is considered a Themepark feature. Being able to loot players is generally considered a Sandbox feature, but only if you can actually take their gear. In WoW you can loot some money and little novelty items from other players, but they will not lose their gear in PvP. And so on. You could probably get really in depth with this.
*addendum* There are also things that are not really features of a Sandbox or Themepark, but tend to result naturally from the games that follow either path. Sandbox games tend to result in more group play outside of specific group activities. Sandbox games tend towards FFA PvP and being in a group is safer. Grouping for non-group specific content isn't a Sandbox feature, because you could do the exact same thing in a Themepark by making the world such that a group is much safer and increases success significantly. It's more of a result than a cause (feature).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Mind clarifying this?
Specs: In WOW you can freely respec *and* dual-spec. In DF or EVE you're stuck with a single character who cannot flexibly become something else without a lot of grinding or time.
Crafting: While focus on crafting is indisputably superior in EVE, WOW beats DF in terms of being able to commit to it fulltime. Granted in either WOW or DF the crafting isn't deep enough that you're gonna spend 100% of your time doing it (although players do in both, I'm sure.)
Quests: In WOW it's impossible to entirely avoid quests, but after level 15 it's possible to level completely in groups where quests are very rare.
Level Restrictions: Um, but EVE and DF have level restrictions. You can't pilot Ship W without Skill X, and you can't wear Armor Y without Strength Z. Certainly you'd get no argument from me that both of these games would benefit enormously from a Planetside-like progression and item system (they'd actually be PVP MMORPGs instead of...well, whatever they are now.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
tho, i would like to know: in your opinion, what are systems that define a sandbox?
Sandbox = go where ever you want, when ever you want, there's lots more to it than that though.
Themepark = a path designated to a string of quests/missions, basically if you wander off like you would in sandbox you wouldn't get very far (little to no xp or content outside of it).
The number of sandbox games has dropped dramatically in the past 5 years and is becoming a thing of the past. I consider City of Heroes/Villains a pseudo-sandbox, it has some open-ness and plenty of choices to go through, SWG lost all that with the NGE, PlanetSide is sort of a sandbox.
well, how does that differ from my definition that players define a sandbox? "you want" means "player wants", yes?
Want what? I don't think it matters on what players want, the companies/devs obviously want to produce themepark games.
I would personally say that any system that allows me to define and direct my environment, and through that tell my own story, is a sandbox tool.
Love is a great little game that allows for a lot, and while I wouldnt expect it to click with the average player, not more then Minecraft will, both show exactly what is possible in this space in a lot of ways with a little ambition and imagination...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRWSmHm1M7k
and, more in the tradtional MMORPG mainstream, ArcheAge seems intent on using different sandbox systems to open up play for the user...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6g82AupNM0&feature=fvsr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv5Sh3M2iP8
that's not surprising at all. there will always be more players wanting themepark than sandbox. it's easier to consume than create. but it's also natural. if everyone would create at all times, why would they do it if none would ever take notice, because they would be busy doing their own thing.
best bet is a good compromise.
lets say another player comes along. he builds nothing, he just watches other people building. does the game suddenly become a themepark? what if you could build a dungeon with customized NPCs (or even PCs) and other players could stomp through? it's obviously a themepark for them.
in other words, would player-built virtual Disneyland be a sandbox or a themepark?
I wish there were games or at least the tools available for the average person to create at least a portion of an MMORPG (like a dungeon). There are many tools available, but they require such a time investment to get anything out of them. If you had a Sims style creation tool, at the very least you could create some pretty cool Diablo-esque dungeons.
*edit* The resulting game, like all MMORPG, would incorporate Sandbox and Themepark elements. It might be a 50/50 Sandbox or a 40/60 Sandbox (60/40 Themepark), but the only "pure" Sandbox game I can think of is Minecraft.
Linkrealms already does this. You can buy a plot of land and open it up to other players with a dungeon.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.