That apply to both Sandbox and Themepark games pal.
Sandbox is only the shell of a Themepark. this is why its easier to make a sandbox game, since Themepark requires addtional attention. I remember a developer saying this same thing awhile ago, as their reason for making a sandbox rather than themepark mmo. The game engine is a sandbox, that the themepark is run on top of. very few games are pure sandbox. Second Life is one of the few pure Sandbox MMO.
I'm just not convinced there is this giant blanket called themepark and games like WoW or RIFT actually fit under it.
The giant blanket is created by the individual person demanding everyone use what they deem the word to mean.
The ACTUAL word, either sandbox or themepark has a far broader meaning than many are willing to admit.
As for Skyrim being sandbox or not, all you have to do is a search for "is skrim a sandbox game" and look at the dozens of links to dozens of gaming websites calling it one....or go to one of several extremely popular TES modding sites with 100,000s of TES game players members of talking about how great the games sandbox features are.
No it doesn't.
The term sandbox was around long before any game ever allowed you to build anything, and even longer before there was ever anything called an MMO.
It was a feature in some very old RPG's, or released as a mod to others, that allowed you to disable the objectives of the game and still play it without limitation.
Sandbox MODE. That's were it comes from, that's what games like UO set out to do, and what the TES series entire development philosphy is based on.
NONobjective based gameplay. That is all it means, that's all it ever means. It's simply been forgotten or ignored, but it is the bases of every sandbox game ever made.
This is not what I THINK it means. This is what it has always meant, from the very first time I ever selected the option in a single player RPG to active sandbox mode. It is how every single sandbox game I've ever played since, has allowed me to play. Without any developer defined objectives.
I agree with you that linearity does not dictate whether the game is sandbox or themepark, but I disagree that every feature is either sandbox or themepark one. Handful yes, but everyone, definitely no. Its more about the combination of features and to some extent even implementation of those features.
I also agree that GTA and Skyrim are not sandboxes but non-linear RPGs.
Well you're right. Features aren't just player- or dev-driven, but in fact there's shades of grey. It's a spectrum. At the end of the day, someone is creating the rules and driving the experience, and it's either the player or the dev (and often a mix.)
But with concepts like this I feel the need to baby-step through the abstractions in a forum. First I need to get people to understand that a game being sandbox or themepark is based on that game's individual features being sandbox or themepark. After I communicate that, I can move on to describing how each individual feature falls somewhere along a spectrum between player- or dev-driven, and it's not just a binary "one or the other" thing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree with you that linearity does not dictate whether the game is sandbox or themepark, but I disagree that every feature is either sandbox or themepark one. Handful yes, but everyone, definitely no. Its more about the combination of features and to some extent even implementation of those features.
I also agree that GTA and Skyrim are not sandboxes but non-linear RPGs.
Well you're right. Features aren't just player- or dev-driven, but in fact there's shades of grey. It's a spectrum. At the end of the day, someone is creating the rules and driving the experience, and it's either the player or the dev (and often a mix.)
But with concepts like this I feel the need to baby-step through the abstractions in a forum. First I need to get people to understand that a game being sandbox or themepark is based on that game's individual features being sandbox or themepark. After I communicate that, I can move on to describing how each individual feature falls somewhere along a spectrum between player- or dev-driven, and it's not just a binary "one or the other" thing.
It's not that we don't understand what you are saying. It's that we just don't agree with your definition.
You could describe your definition in the most succint and clear way possible, and we still wouldn't agree with you.
The fact remains that there are many, many SP games out there that have always been classified as sandboxes, but don't fit into your definition. I, and I'm sure many others, are not going to change our understanding of what sandbox means because you guys decided that you weren't happy with the existing definition and made up your own.
The more options and playstyles there are the more sandboxy it is.
The more things in the world you can effect the more sandboxy it is.
The reason why free for all pvp is seen as sandboxy: Allowing players to severely impact the world in such a way is less developer control and more player control.
Themepark is set classes. Sandboxy is more freeform classes leveling system.
Themepark is set quests or only one way to level and cutscenes (you can only experience the world this way). Sandboxes will tell the story through lots of different ways.
Themepark- there is a set way to play (generally combat). Sandbox- there are multiple ways to try and play and be an asset. Examples- Dancing in Star Wars Galaxies. Mining/Pirating in EvE. Etc.
Giving power to players over other players is definately sandbox. Political sysetms such as Aika's elected guild that could PK its own nation.
Not everyone likes every sandbox element. Lots of people would like a SWG type game with lots of roles alternative to combat that meld together well but perhaps not the open world pvp aspect. Thats fine, but both of those ARE sandbox qualities.
I agree with you that linearity does not dictate whether the game is sandbox or themepark, but I disagree that every feature is either sandbox or themepark one. Handful yes, but everyone, definitely no. Its more about the combination of features and to some extent even implementation of those features.
I also agree that GTA and Skyrim are not sandboxes but non-linear RPGs.
Well you're right. Features aren't just player- or dev-driven, but in fact there's shades of grey. It's a spectrum. At the end of the day, someone is creating the rules and driving the experience, and it's either the player or the dev (and often a mix.)
But with concepts like this I feel the need to baby-step through the abstractions in a forum. First I need to get people to understand that a game being sandbox or themepark is based on that game's individual features being sandbox or themepark. After I communicate that, I can move on to describing how each individual feature falls somewhere along a spectrum between player- or dev-driven, and it's not just a binary "one or the other" thing.
It's not that we don't understand what you are saying. It's that we just don't agree with your definition.
You could describe your definition in the most succint and clear way possible, and we still wouldn't agree with you.
The fact remains that there are many, many SP games out there that have always been classified as sandboxes, but don't fit into your definition. I, and I'm sure many others, are not going to change our understanding of what sandbox means because you guys decided that you weren't happy with the existing definition and made up your own.
Please do not include the rest of the forum under "we". I have my own opinion. Others have their opinion too.
A game can have both kids of elements. Lets talk some specific single player games then.For example, Portal 2 has a decidely themepark campaign and a decidedly sandboxy custom level mode. I would like to see you argue that the game is sandbox or themepark since you seem to want to term games one way only.
A themepark can have sandbox elements. Talent trees give you a variety of ways to play your character and are a common sandbox elemnt found in themepark games.
A sandbox can have themepark elements. EvE has mission levels that restrict how hard of ships you face and a tutorial quest system that is very linear. These are themepark aspects present in a sandbox game.
Sandbox = sand = player-created (players create or manipulate the experience)
Themepark = rides = developer-created
Every feature is either a sandbox or themepark one, and the core game experience is going to engage in predominantly one type or the other: thus resulting in the term most players apply to that game.
Linearity has nothing to do with a game being a themepark, as real world themeparks don't involve linearity and you have themepark games like Skyrim and GTA which are non-linear.
^ This is the classification I use as well.
Sandbox = Content is primarily player-created.
Themepark = Content is primarly developer-created.
It's a very black and white classification, so I'm always surprised that there's this much controversy over it on these forums.
I think moving foward were going to have to use "sandbox" as a term describing parts of a game.
I love sandboxes, full frontal sandboxes with unrestricted full loot pvp...
However i think were going to start seeing more sandbox aspects added to themeparks...theres really no limit on what can be done in sandbox style.
What is sandbox? Well its player control of your characters builds / role / progression
I do like the questless true sandbox, where the point is to create a goal yourself and just go do it...but often that goal is to just skill up skills or level up or whatever...and most people are too ADD and need guidence and short "wins" that completing a brain-dead quest cant give.
Oh and sandbox isnt something new...its actually quite old...its what was done before mmorpg developers started hiring writers to give you a reason to kill a bunch of rats ect...where before you killed them to see what they dropped, or find an item that was known to be dropped from them. Then the korean games came and ruined "farming" which turned into grinding.
Like people say all there is to do in darkfall is grind...well i never grinded...i did however kill golems till my eyes bled farming mats, and other specific mobs, i enchanted with some of those mats and sold the rest...it was the reason i killed them and i enjoyed every second of it.
I dont consider games like EVE as sandboxes really because they are not mmorpgs they are something uniquely diffrent but close to mmorpg...more straegy than roleplay (in term of game mechanics not actually role playing)
Oh and theres nothing i hate more than someone being ignorant and saying a games a sandbox because theres player housing...not sure when that became the gold standard but i see it a lot on these days.
A themepark can have sandbox elements. Talent trees give you a variety of ways to play your character and are a common sandbox elemnt found in themepark games.
even if talent-trees are an instrument of character customization, they are also very limited and filled with restrictions and dependencies. this gives the devs a chance to estimate and plan, where you are along the given storyline and what power you have and should have at this point of time on the rails. so talent trees are also an instrument of micromanagment in order to steer and control the player. for me, most talent trees are the antichrist and clearly an element of theme-park design.
for a sandbox the more flat and rather unregulated open skill-systems are more appropriate. talent trees may exist in a sandbox, but it matters how they are designed and i would not call them typical sandbox per nature.
features like talent-trees are not the appropriate level of abstraction, in order to discuss about theme-park vs. sandbox. you can use them in both models. the design-pattern and the goal behind the feature matters. it is all about the way, the feature is implemented to fullfill these goals. the pure existance of a feature means nothing. for example, you have the housing feature in some terrible theme-parks and you could even implement terraforming in a theme-park without turning the game into a sandbox.
"The debate about definition of sandbox, and the extent to which something is a sandbox appears to me to be a massive distraction. (So allow me to distract myself for a second) In a broad sense I suppose it alludes to the extent of which players can change or manipulate the gameworld or landscape. Some people seem to yearn for a game where ANYTHING is possible. I dont quite get this.
In a literal sense, sandboxes (boxes with sand) have parimeters. The edges of the box. Or that fact that it only has sand in it. As malleable as sand can be, i'm no alchemist.
A complete sandbox would have no parimeters. I dont believe anyone really wants this. I think its far more a question of WHAT parimeters.
Therefore it seems more constructive to discuss the extent of, or indeed WHICH 'sandboxy elements' (tm), we would want in a game. Rather than this need to define exactly what a sandbox is, and whether a game is one."
To build upon what I said previously, ANY game could be considered a "theme park".
People seem highly concerned which defining games ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
This is nonsensical.
All games will have parimeters of some kind. Some line in the sand. Even if you have lots of this "player generated content", it will still be within the confines or ruleset of the developer in some way. People say a themepark is just a ride or some such, but you could quite argue that any aspect of a game is a ride no matter now open or contrived. Its just a different type of ride.
Ergo, its about the "sandboxy elements" (tm). Which I think usually go hand in hand with what people are calling non-linear.
So in the other thread,(how there is no sandbox crowd) several times in the discussion it has come up that Skyrim either is a sandbox...or isn't a sandbox.
So I guess my question is, what is a sandbox?
WoW has been forever labled a thempark MMO while games like SWG is labled a sandbox...and somehow Skyrim is in this weird middle... But at what point is it a themepark, and what point is it a sandbox?
WoW has quest, so does Skyrim
WoW has crafting, so does Skyrim
WoW you can travel all around the map, you can do this in skyrim
I'm just not convinced there is this giant blanket called themepark and games like WoW or RIFT actually fit under it.
Skyrim do have some themepark parts to it.
Typical sandbox features are player created content and a high degree of freedom.
Typical themepark behavior are quest chains you need to complete, quest hubs and generally a rail roaded story.
Generally you can say that the more player created content a game have the more sandbox it is but most themeparks have some sandbox features as well, stuff like crafting or guildcities.
It is really more of a slide between 0% sandbox and 100%. anything between 25% and 75% is usually called a "hybrid" like Vanguard.
I don't see how player created content really has anything to do with it being a sandbox. It can make a game more sandbox-like, but it is not required at all for a game to be a sandbox. There is very little to no creation in the GTA series and it is accepted as being a prime example of a sandbox. I agree with you that the majority of the games have both features.
What do you do in the sandbox as a child....you build your fun.
Look at the MMO sandboxes.....EVE/DF/SWG/UO. They all gave the player the ability to modify the landescape. Just like a sandbox in the backyard.
The themepark is the opposite.....the fun is already there....have at it. Which is what games like Read Dead Redemption, Fallout, Skyrim, and GTA have in common with WoW/EQ/TOR/etc. The majority of the game is in the dev created content. The users arent producing it ala the aforementioned MMO sandboxes.
You can play cards, or bowl, or race cars/horses as a side, but to get thru the game you are going thru the dev created path.
Those games gave you an openended playing experience that let you play as you wanted. The term "sandbox" applies to gameplay. The world itself is the sand. It doesn't require you to craft or modify the world. You play the game as you see fit. Type in the word "sandbox game" into Google and see how many times GTA and Skyrim come up. Look up the definition on wikipedia or the giantbomb. You can have your own definition of what you think it means, but the industry and society already has an accepted definition, and whether you agree with it or not, that is what the majority uses.
The term sandbox can't apply to gameplay, or else it leads to a self-contradictory definition. WoW RP servers are sandboxes if "playing the game as you see fit" is the measure of a sandbox.
In order for a definition to have any meaning, it has to be relatively consistent, and objectively measurable. "Player -modified worlds" (ala Second Life) is something you can verify. "Players playing the game how they want" is entirely subjective, and fairly arbitrary. Every game can be a sandbox by that definition.
A themepark can have sandbox elements. Talent trees give you a variety of ways to play your character and are a common sandbox elemnt found in themepark games.
even if talent-trees are an instrument of character customization, they are also very limited and filled with restrictions and dependencies. this gives the devs a chance to estimate and plan, where you are along the given storyline and what power you have and should have at this point of time on the rails. so talent trees are also an instrument of micromanagment in order to steer and control the player. for me, most talent trees are the antichrist and clearly an element of theme-park design.
for a sandbox the more flat and rather unregulated open skill-systems are more appropriate. talent trees may exist in a sandbox, but it matters how they are designed and i would not call them typical sandbox per nature.
features like talent-trees are not the appropriate level of abstraction, in order to discuss about theme-park vs. sandbox. you can use them in both models. the design-pattern and the goal behind the feature matters. it is all about the way, the feature is implemented to fullfill these goals. the pure existance of a feature means nothing. for example, you have the housing feature in some terrible theme-parks and you could even implement terraforming in a theme-park without turning the game into a sandbox.
Well sure you can have a talent system like WoW where it is very streamlined (and they are streamlining it even more in MoP so I hear). I agree it is very developer constrained but it is less constrained then everyone having a default class with no choices. I would argue that it is not very sandboxy, but it is a sandbox element found in a themepark game which I used because it is a popular example.
Compare it to the skill system in Asheron's Call where you spent your xp to level up each skill and your skill levels (and equipment) are what defined your character. These xp costs increased on a logorithmic scale and thus you had a heafty choice on what to level up. It was so freeform that you could gimp your characters permanently.
The more open the system the more sandboxy it is. The more SIGNIFICANT CHOICEs a PLAYER makes (as oppossed to the DEVELOPERS) the more sandboxy the design is.
Well if u wanna see or be part of one of the most ambitious sandbox projects ever check out my sig game then join us on the official forums,or check out the forum on this site and while your at it a Kickstarter pledge would be just peachy
I think the crux of the matter to so many of these debates is the very fact that so few definitions are agreed upon and people end up arguing apples and oranges when they might even aggree to the underlying principles involved but just dont agree on what particular words mean.
It would be nice to have an MMO centric dictionary in which various terms are defined with a sort of final authority. We wouldnt have to agree that the definition is correct only that when someone uses a certian word in the MMO world there is a specific agreed upon meaning. The might mean making up additional words to fill in the gaps where currently one word or phrase has multiple meanings to mulitple people.
examples are:
Themepark vrs Sandbox as demonstrated in this thread.
MMO vrs multiplayer
casual vrs hardcore
twitch based play(I bet there are hundreds of variations on what this means to people on this forum)
The list could go on and on.
So rather than simply relying on badly defined hot topic words that only start arguments - explain what you mean as specifically as you can and attempt to contain the arguments to the opinions the individual posters are trying to convey instead of what you think they are trying to say.
On the topic to hand as others have said -
Sandbox elements are pieces of content which are driven by player actions and the world is affected by them in some sort of permenant way.
Themepark elements are developer driven and likely to repeat over and over untill a dev changes them.
A game can have both elements inside of it. What makes a game "Themepark" or "Sandbox" or 3rd option "hybrid" is the degree to which these elements exist. If a game is dominated by themepark elements (WoW) it is a themepark game. If a game is dominated by sandbox elements (Eve) it is a sandbox. If a game has near equal amounts of these elements it should be considered a sort of hybrid. Example - static hunting zones that characters progress through from lvl 1 to 50 with a political system that can change the ownership of these zones and the ability to add forts and defenses to a zone would be a sort of hybrid.
GW2 would be a primarily themepark MMO that is attempting to morph themepark elements into a more sandbox feel. I would consider it a hybrid overall. The game has static zones which dont change. The overall feel of the zones stay the same, however, Dynamic events within each zone can change the character and flavor of the zone depending on player interaction. Thus the devs still maintain control of 80% of the overall content(themepark) - while the players can influence the details of the content(sandbox). The reason it is still more themepark than sandbox is the fact that the DE's will have a tendancy to return to nuetral and repeat themselves overtime and the changes do not appear to be permenant based solely on player interaction(IE the devs and npcs still control most of the flow over the longterm).
Sandbox = sand = player-created (players create or manipulate the experience)
Themepark = rides = developer-created
Every feature is either a sandbox or themepark one, and the core game experience is going to engage in predominantly one type or the other: thus resulting in the term most players apply to that game.
Linearity has nothing to do with a game being a themepark, as real world themeparks don't involve linearity and you have themepark games like Skyrim and GTA which are non-linear.
^ This is the classification I use as well.
Sandbox = Content is primarily player-created.
Themepark = Content is primarly developer-created.
It's a very black and white classification, so I'm always surprised that there's this much controversy over it on these forums.
Agreed.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Comments
There is no sand in a sandbox.... unless it's Wurm Online.
The simple fact is this; Mommy left you there and walked away to flirt with other single parents.
You are left in a pit with other kids and a total lack of direction. Have fun, or cry for mommy.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Go read Goblin Works blog posts for Pathfinder Online if you want to know what makes a Sandbox!
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes
That apply to both Sandbox and Themepark games pal.
Sandbox is only the shell of a Themepark. this is why its easier to make a sandbox game, since Themepark requires addtional attention. I remember a developer saying this same thing awhile ago, as their reason for making a sandbox rather than themepark mmo. The game engine is a sandbox, that the themepark is run on top of. very few games are pure sandbox. Second Life is one of the few pure Sandbox MMO.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
No it doesn't.
The term sandbox was around long before any game ever allowed you to build anything, and even longer before there was ever anything called an MMO.
It was a feature in some very old RPG's, or released as a mod to others, that allowed you to disable the objectives of the game and still play it without limitation.
Sandbox MODE. That's were it comes from, that's what games like UO set out to do, and what the TES series entire development philosphy is based on.
NONobjective based gameplay. That is all it means, that's all it ever means. It's simply been forgotten or ignored, but it is the bases of every sandbox game ever made.
This is not what I THINK it means. This is what it has always meant, from the very first time I ever selected the option in a single player RPG to active sandbox mode. It is how every single sandbox game I've ever played since, has allowed me to play. Without any developer defined objectives.
Well you're right. Features aren't just player- or dev-driven, but in fact there's shades of grey. It's a spectrum. At the end of the day, someone is creating the rules and driving the experience, and it's either the player or the dev (and often a mix.)
But with concepts like this I feel the need to baby-step through the abstractions in a forum. First I need to get people to understand that a game being sandbox or themepark is based on that game's individual features being sandbox or themepark. After I communicate that, I can move on to describing how each individual feature falls somewhere along a spectrum between player- or dev-driven, and it's not just a binary "one or the other" thing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
for me it is freedom of choice to advance (not level up) my char whichever way i want with few rules as possible
It's not that we don't understand what you are saying. It's that we just don't agree with your definition.
You could describe your definition in the most succint and clear way possible, and we still wouldn't agree with you.
The fact remains that there are many, many SP games out there that have always been classified as sandboxes, but don't fit into your definition. I, and I'm sure many others, are not going to change our understanding of what sandbox means because you guys decided that you weren't happy with the existing definition and made up your own.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The less set path the more sandboxy it is.
The more options and playstyles there are the more sandboxy it is.
The more things in the world you can effect the more sandboxy it is.
The reason why free for all pvp is seen as sandboxy: Allowing players to severely impact the world in such a way is less developer control and more player control.
Themepark is set classes. Sandboxy is more freeform classes leveling system.
Themepark is set quests or only one way to level and cutscenes (you can only experience the world this way). Sandboxes will tell the story through lots of different ways.
Themepark- there is a set way to play (generally combat). Sandbox- there are multiple ways to try and play and be an asset. Examples- Dancing in Star Wars Galaxies. Mining/Pirating in EvE. Etc.
Giving power to players over other players is definately sandbox. Political sysetms such as Aika's elected guild that could PK its own nation.
Not everyone likes every sandbox element. Lots of people would like a SWG type game with lots of roles alternative to combat that meld together well but perhaps not the open world pvp aspect. Thats fine, but both of those ARE sandbox qualities.
Please do not include the rest of the forum under "we". I have my own opinion. Others have their opinion too.
A game can have both kids of elements. Lets talk some specific single player games then.For example, Portal 2 has a decidely themepark campaign and a decidedly sandboxy custom level mode. I would like to see you argue that the game is sandbox or themepark since you seem to want to term games one way only.
A themepark can have sandbox elements. Talent trees give you a variety of ways to play your character and are a common sandbox elemnt found in themepark games.
A sandbox can have themepark elements. EvE has mission levels that restrict how hard of ships you face and a tutorial quest system that is very linear. These are themepark aspects present in a sandbox game.
^ This is the classification I use as well.
Sandbox = Content is primarily player-created.
Themepark = Content is primarly developer-created.
It's a very black and white classification, so I'm always surprised that there's this much controversy over it on these forums.
I think moving foward were going to have to use "sandbox" as a term describing parts of a game.
I love sandboxes, full frontal sandboxes with unrestricted full loot pvp...
However i think were going to start seeing more sandbox aspects added to themeparks...theres really no limit on what can be done in sandbox style.
What is sandbox? Well its player control of your characters builds / role / progression
I do like the questless true sandbox, where the point is to create a goal yourself and just go do it...but often that goal is to just skill up skills or level up or whatever...and most people are too ADD and need guidence and short "wins" that completing a brain-dead quest cant give.
Oh and sandbox isnt something new...its actually quite old...its what was done before mmorpg developers started hiring writers to give you a reason to kill a bunch of rats ect...where before you killed them to see what they dropped, or find an item that was known to be dropped from them. Then the korean games came and ruined "farming" which turned into grinding.
Like people say all there is to do in darkfall is grind...well i never grinded...i did however kill golems till my eyes bled farming mats, and other specific mobs, i enchanted with some of those mats and sold the rest...it was the reason i killed them and i enjoyed every second of it.
I dont consider games like EVE as sandboxes really because they are not mmorpgs they are something uniquely diffrent but close to mmorpg...more straegy than roleplay (in term of game mechanics not actually role playing)
Oh and theres nothing i hate more than someone being ignorant and saying a games a sandbox because theres player housing...not sure when that became the gold standard but i see it a lot on these days.
even if talent-trees are an instrument of character customization, they are also very limited and filled with restrictions and dependencies. this gives the devs a chance to estimate and plan, where you are along the given storyline and what power you have and should have at this point of time on the rails. so talent trees are also an instrument of micromanagment in order to steer and control the player. for me, most talent trees are the antichrist and clearly an element of theme-park design.
for a sandbox the more flat and rather unregulated open skill-systems are more appropriate. talent trees may exist in a sandbox, but it matters how they are designed and i would not call them typical sandbox per nature.
features like talent-trees are not the appropriate level of abstraction, in order to discuss about theme-park vs. sandbox. you can use them in both models. the design-pattern and the goal behind the feature matters. it is all about the way, the feature is implemented to fullfill these goals. the pure existance of a feature means nothing. for example, you have the housing feature in some terrible theme-parks and you could even implement terraforming in a theme-park without turning the game into a sandbox.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
"The debate about definition of sandbox, and the extent to which something is a sandbox appears to me to be a massive distraction. (So allow me to distract myself for a second) In a broad sense I suppose it alludes to the extent of which players can change or manipulate the gameworld or landscape. Some people seem to yearn for a game where ANYTHING is possible. I dont quite get this.
In a literal sense, sandboxes (boxes with sand) have parimeters. The edges of the box. Or that fact that it only has sand in it. As malleable as sand can be, i'm no alchemist.
A complete sandbox would have no parimeters. I dont believe anyone really wants this. I think its far more a question of WHAT parimeters.
Therefore it seems more constructive to discuss the extent of, or indeed WHICH 'sandboxy elements' (tm), we would want in a game. Rather than this need to define exactly what a sandbox is, and whether a game is one."
To build upon what I said previously, ANY game could be considered a "theme park".
People seem highly concerned which defining games ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
This is nonsensical.
All games will have parimeters of some kind. Some line in the sand. Even if you have lots of this "player generated content", it will still be within the confines or ruleset of the developer in some way. People say a themepark is just a ride or some such, but you could quite argue that any aspect of a game is a ride no matter now open or contrived. Its just a different type of ride.
Ergo, its about the "sandboxy elements" (tm). Which I think usually go hand in hand with what people are calling non-linear.
The term sandbox can't apply to gameplay, or else it leads to a self-contradictory definition. WoW RP servers are sandboxes if "playing the game as you see fit" is the measure of a sandbox.
In order for a definition to have any meaning, it has to be relatively consistent, and objectively measurable. "Player -modified worlds" (ala Second Life) is something you can verify. "Players playing the game how they want" is entirely subjective, and fairly arbitrary. Every game can be a sandbox by that definition.
Well sure you can have a talent system like WoW where it is very streamlined (and they are streamlining it even more in MoP so I hear). I agree it is very developer constrained but it is less constrained then everyone having a default class with no choices. I would argue that it is not very sandboxy, but it is a sandbox element found in a themepark game which I used because it is a popular example.
Compare it to the skill system in Asheron's Call where you spent your xp to level up each skill and your skill levels (and equipment) are what defined your character. These xp costs increased on a logorithmic scale and thus you had a heafty choice on what to level up. It was so freeform that you could gimp your characters permanently.
The more open the system the more sandboxy it is. The more SIGNIFICANT CHOICEs a PLAYER makes (as oppossed to the DEVELOPERS) the more sandboxy the design is.
Well if u wanna see or be part of one of the most ambitious sandbox projects ever check out my sig game then join us on the official forums,or check out the forum on this site and while your at it a Kickstarter pledge would be just peachy
Repopulation main site
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/therepopulation/the-repopulation
or join in the convo on these forums.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/353042/page/1
I think the crux of the matter to so many of these debates is the very fact that so few definitions are agreed upon and people end up arguing apples and oranges when they might even aggree to the underlying principles involved but just dont agree on what particular words mean.
It would be nice to have an MMO centric dictionary in which various terms are defined with a sort of final authority. We wouldnt have to agree that the definition is correct only that when someone uses a certian word in the MMO world there is a specific agreed upon meaning. The might mean making up additional words to fill in the gaps where currently one word or phrase has multiple meanings to mulitple people.
examples are:
Agreed.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.