Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: Room for Creativity Is Sandbox the Only Way?
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
With changes coming to several games, and the release of others like ArcheAge, I’ve been thinking about player-driven systems and the space a game’s story leaves for players in between. The ongoing debate between the pro-sandbox crowd and themepark players won’t go away anytime soon, but do things like story, scripted elements, and even predetermined politics necessarily stifle player involvement and fun? Is a sandbox the only way to give players room to feel in charge of their own destinies, or are there alternate paths to make this happen?
Read more of Christina Gonzalez's The Social Hub: Room for Creativity – Is Sandbox the Only Way?
)
Comments
thanks again for sharing your thoughts, christina ...
sandbox is about freedom, about choices and creating something. you can provide players with all this if you add the right features / game mechanics in a proper way into a gamedesign. yes, faction warfare or pvp are tools that can be used in a sandbox game, but they aren't mandatory.
there are three pillars that define a sandbox game:
player driven economy is the basic for everything and can provide crafters and non-crafters with so many player created content, if it is done right, but in the last decade especially meaningless crafting and (most) cashshop models conquered the mmorpgs and destroyed this part.
emergent gameplay is important to grand people longterm goals, but without throwing them into the boring treatmill of geargrinding nor without destroying the work they put in if they decide to change goals during the way. mmorpgs in the last years tend to be more solo rpgs with time limited content. maximum level in a week and then you can choose between leaving the game or jump on the geargrinding treatmill with nothing else to do as the same daily missions, dungeons or raids over and over again. many people in real life with jobs nearly dull and repetitive as the gear grinding treatmill go depressive, aggressive or are just empty shells. what brings us to the last pillar ...
the social/psychological aspects. the roots of mmorpgs are in the pen & paper games like dungeons & dragons. a good gamemaster never worked with modules and if, player never felt that they are pushed into boundaries, they always had a choice, they had freedom. p&p was about social dynamics and satisfying psychological needs. to clear the same dungeon over and over again to get 100 virtual insignias with which you can get one (!) piece of gear isn't satisfying, its frustrating and only (sorry to say) simple minds can find pleasure in it.
as said before, with these 3 pillars you can add so many features and additional content to a game that can please the majority of the players. do you need to invent these features? no, a lot of these features are just long forgotten. xlgames promised us with archeage a revival of those features, but it seams that they forgot to learn from the 'old games'. everquest next promises the same, but i do have serious thoughts if they can deliver. and why? cause the financial strategy (how to get a lot of money from a customer in a very short time) cripples the initial idea of sandbox,
Personally i feel we need more in the way of defining our characters than simple what faction i'm in. I was taking a look at project Gorgon and going through some of the stats and I noticed a few things. That there were stats and such which didn't relate to armor, what level I was, or what class i was. But rather define things like how clean I was/how clean i generally kept myself. If i tend to be a loner or be around people. If i cared for living things or not.
If we can go further in defining our characters and seeing these effects I believe this would help a lot in both creating a living world as you will see people either diverting to water for stats or actively avoiding it to avoid a stat loss. Also creating more interesting characters to see (beyond the NPCs). There is only so much a developer is going to be able to do but i feel they are starting to focus too much on the world and forgetting the characters. I want that character to represent a few of my ideas beyond just i'm a level 20 necromancer with the evil awesome alliance. Let me roll around in the mud and get something for doing that, let me avoid people because my character is like that, let me beat on thinking beings and possible get something for that. Let me see an NPC wave their hand at a smelly character or even people avoiding that character as it creates a temp stat loss (to say concentration) if they are around them. This creates a defined look and feel to both the characters, giving actions weight or boost a lot for roleplaying not to mention paying attention in the world. If they want to stay dirty they will seek shelter when it rains, maybe they like being clean and will come out during a storm, thus creating a intertwining effect and making you feel that your character is in that world and that world is affecting your character.
In that sense I feel SW:TOR (Yes i'm mentioning it) has a leg up here with it's alignment system Why? it allows me to define my character, just because I join the empire/republic doesn't immediately mean i'm a good or bad guy/gal. I choose that through my playstyle, I may be in the empire but i still wish to see a happier and peaceful empire because i believe that will stand longer than one rule by an iron fist or maybe i don't, maybe i don't care and just want power, i can choose that as well, am i the type that sees my companions as friends or just a tool to be used, again my choice. Granted it's predefined pathways but i choose which of these predefined pathways to go down. Also it helps that it affects your character, not only in what good/evil stuff they can wear but in their looks as well. I can usually tell a really evil character straight off, they don't have to do things like /emote kills a civilian. If i'm with them in a quests they show it there as well as in their looks.
In short I feel that worlds are fine, give us factions, give us open world, let us place buildings, theres not really much more to improve on in the open world. The characters though, theres where the much needed improvement is required in my opinion Look to games like Wurm/Gorgon/fable,mabinogi. These games allow you to define your characters in ways other than levels/factions/gear we need to see more defined characters in unique ways that are affected by what you do in the world because in most games they are starting to seem a bit sameish to each other.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Concur on World of Darkness. Not to cry rivers or spit anger, but more I think about it more I am sure that could be a place to stay for awhile. WoD roleplaying system is one of the best and setting is so vastly rich. They could really pull it off and create something next-level not because they implement something new, but rather because they make something that exist only in tabletop. Plus game could receive a lot of attention.
Well... Didn't happen means didn't happen. No hard feelings. But I see nothing similar on horizon - and that is kind of disappointing. What we had this year? Yeah.
The term "Player driven" is often used by many developers as a sales pitch and is NEVER fulfilled.
Factions,i like the idea but not like games are doing with 2-3 factions,that is a lazy effort.Also Factions is not being creative.
I honestly cannot believe that there is still EASY creative ideas but devs are not doing them,instead they continue to go for the easy approach,create linear questing and yellow hand holding markers ,even hand holding on maps.
The best most creative idea i have ever played was in FFXI>>>Besieged .Really it is not that hard,you already have the NPC's towns and creatures in the game,just put them on a different AI path and the fun for the entire server is unleashed.Yes i know FFXI used an instance city to pull it off but so what,any game can do it if a game designed for console could pull it off.
FFXI imo had the most creativity of any game,people who know or remember the various content and systems know what i am talking about.Now what i do in games is ONLY quests or Raids ,that is it that is all,really sad.
I decided to try a game called Gorgon and i continue to have,it's creativity is in it's skills/abilities/classes tons of cool ideas we just don't see in otehr games like playing as a Wolf or Cow or Spider.Well come to think of it FFXI created a system to play as the games NPC creatures,so ya FFXI is far ahead of the pack on creativity.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It really is a spectrum from sandbox to themepark. I'm not sure labeling is particularly useful other than to market the game. At one end you have something like Minecraft, and at the other end something like Wizard 101. I've played both, and both are fun. But only Minecraft has the long-term interest for me because of the free creative space.
To your question, then...yes, the more sandbox the more creative license given to the player. When you go to Disneyland, you are presented with entertainment options. There is little room for your own creativity. On the other hand, when you go camping out in the wilderness, you are much more free to create your own entertainment and fun. Or take Burning Man as an example with people and limited rules.
Sandparks or themeboxes are only rough terms to describe on which half of the spectrum a game lies. Sandparks being on the sandbox side; themeboxes being on the themepark side. I don't believe you can get much more definite in labeling a game. With that in mind, describing ArcheAge as a sandpark seems reasonable. But then again I'd also say EVE is a sandpark. EQ Landmark is more akin to Sandbox. Before Minecraft showed us what was possible, I would have labeled EVE and ArcheAge a Sandbox.
I agree. What bothers me the most is that CCP has a lock on the license, and if they're not going to make a WoD MMO, then nobody will for the foreseeable future.
Sandbox is not the only way to be creative but there are two basic paths.
1. Narration approach (aka story)
2. Player empowerment (player creates and explores etc)
The problem with number 1 is that this puts your game into the same general category of all the fictional books ever written, all the TV ever made, all the movies ever made. If you are trying to grab your players attention because he/she is looking for a story you have to ask yourself what will my game bring that something on Netflix or the bookstore will not bring.
In relation to stories that is a very tall order.
In a Sandbox approach however you are not competing with those factors like...at all..
There is a place for both types of MMORPGs... there are tons of people out there who like Themepark mmorpgs but also lots of like sandbox games then of course each group is then split even further to people who only like pve and only like pvp or a mix of both..
So I think there is room for all kinds of mmorpgs not everyone will like each one but we all like different things but thats a good thing.
For me its openworld sandbox full loot pvp games and I think always will be now.
It's because it's 2014, the game industry isn't creative anymore. Beside a few creative minds most games are just easy way made games. Everyone tries to copy that one game that sold big time. Within the shooter genre every shooter tries to be Call of Duty. With MMORPGs they try to be like WoW. Why is this? Cause the game industry is lead by people in suits who have one goal only...to please the boardmembers....more guys in suits with no knowledge about games what so ever other then that it can earn them millions and millions of dollars.
To sell more MMORPG's they stick to the easy made way cause that is also what the mainstream gamer prefers. Games are not made for core gamers, that is something of the past. The big money is with mainstream gamers. Mainstream gamers tend to dislike anything that is different. And god forbid you focus on the niche cause that will never earn you super amazing crazy profits.
Not to blame the mainstream gamer, it's just the publisher that put the focus on that group and forget all about other gamers.
Same thing for roleplayers. Roleplaying was seen as something that went hand in hand with MMORPG's. People didn't find RPers crazy and it often gave more immersion to MMORPG's. Now a days you hope as RPer that there will be RP servers. Just so you know that there will be RPers and that they aren't scattered around or that you have to feel weird for being RPer.
Not to mention that most MMORPG's hardly offer things for RPers anymore. WoW is as themepark as you can get, but atleast you could sit on chairs...it isn't much but many MMORPG's after offered even less. In Warhammer Online you couldn't even sit at all! Lord of the Rings Online gave some hope, you could do a lot more as RPer there, but that one was rare and i didn't like the rest of the game sadly.
MMORPG's feel less natural for RPers these day's. Sure its all about what you make it yourself, but there is only so much you can do when you don't have any buildings to play in, when you can't sit on chairs, there is just so much immersion breaking stuff going on that it isn't funny anymore.
I'm glad to see things like Kickstarter. I know many people hate it. But it gives hope. I really hope to see a game like SWG again where you didn't join a faction from the start but got to join up ingame by just doing things for that faction you wished to join. Or stay neutral what ever you liked. SWG wasn't the perfect game, but it had some great things going on that i would love to see return again. Be able to build where ever. Arche Age does have building but its so freaking limited. Why can't we have a real open world to build in? Without building zones? I can understand you can't build in cities without designated zones, but deep in the woods one should be able to build up a house.
Why can't we be free in who we join or remain neutral? It is a great feeling to know that you are just another person in the world. Not the super amazing hero who is saving the day...like thousands of others. I liked that about SWG where you joined the Imperial Army and would start at a lower rank. Would be great to see that again, make people more meaningless so they can really grow.
Give the feel of progression back without the need to have super raid gear. There are plenty of MMORPG's out there that offer what raiders look for. No need to have all the MMORPG's focus on that. And stop listening to people who think just because you don't have raid that you don't have a end game. Make the players having real influence on the world and you have your endgame with politics going on, wars between guilds, etc. Like in EVE for example.
There it is, the true definition of 1. themepark and 2. sandbox.
Too many are using the wrong definitions of these. It is not about pvp or pve, it is not about crafting and minecrafting, not about player driven economy.. These are just game features, and sure some are easier to work into either sandbox or themepark, but it is not the definition.
Themepark is narrative story like film or book where you follow the plot, experience the content as the content designers intended. Because it is a game, you are giving various illusions of choice, maybe several paths to take, but these are just strings of narrative within the bigger narrative.
Sandbox is Player empowerment and there are multiple ways to do that. Outside the standard open world, pvp and permanent changes to the world, there are so many options that are just not used. Defining your character yourself with various degree of roleplay, a world of choice to go where you wanted without getting walled too much by game, with consequence but freedom to act and define your character and your adventure with your play style. The key here is letting the player create the adventure, and this is what sandbox games should be about.. Freedom and player empowerment.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
How about an old Western MMO? An MMO where everyone is a fish in the ocean? An MMO with more than 3 factions? An MMO with land/air dragon combat?
How about an MMO with factions for each biome, like white = artic/snow, green = forest, blue = sea, yellow = desert, etc where the players could change the land around them to their factions.
Vampire MMO. Werewolf MMO.
Creativity is about more than sandbox or themepark, it's about reimagining what an MMO can be. There is a lot more that could be done with the entire genre.
How about an MMO where everyone plays as a pigeon?
How about an MMO that lets you have simulated enhanced senses of smell, sight, hearing?
In a sea of what I would call WoW clones with purple epics it's pretty sad how greed has turned this genre into an item shop, cash cow, with whales that support games made with no soul just to milk maximum profit.
I hope some actual creative people get out some new and interesting games. I feel like we are still on the tip of the iceberg...
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I think Ralph Koster was right concerning meta-place. You simply have a virtual space that can spawn different player-created, player-run "mini-worlds" which effectively all create a common community with sub-divisions in people's preferences...
Except it was as evidenced far too ambitious and possibly still is? IE being everything means everything is a bit cr@p?
=
>"It's a real shame we won't be seeing World of Darkness though. With the IP's rules and the promise of player-driven politics, economy, and other systems in society, there is a hole that I don't think any other announced game will be similar enough to fill."
Pathfinder Online = Game of Thrones / Fantasy EVE politics potentially that is if it grows sufficiently. Remember no matter how crude it looks now it still managed to beat WOD and get a release state even with a comparion of ~5m$ vs ~70m$ in budget. If you want the above then invest in PFO.
Here's a blog post on the subject:- Put It in Writing
I think world-building via systems to effect a simulation together with a coherent world rules that are player-driven is a very good way of creating an MMO- RPG- mix. I'd guess metaplace will have it's time in the future but right now, it's RPG merging with other genres eg RTS for example EVE and PFO that will see the current leap forwards in the genre. SC is another good eg albeit it links small game instances together coherently.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
If SWG was your thing take a look into The Repopulation
Co-Founder of Elder Moot
SotA Founder
agreed.
And as games develop over time and as players demand more if you take them on the path of narrative then with each iteration games will be getting closer and closer to other forms of narratives and the best kinds of narratives always come when the audience is sitting still paying attention to what is presented to them and for that movies and books will ALWAYS be better than games.
So it just makes sense from a business standpoint to steer away from that direction.
"Player driven" requires "player partisipation". You need enough of a player base willing to partisipate in that aspect of the games, in other words producers as well as consumers. I'm not sure how big of an available market there is for that. To have a player driven economy you need a way to remove items from the economy so you have demand as well as supply. That means losing equipment and many players don't like that. We see it in EVE but I don't see enough players leaving that game to make another one viable (which is why I said AVAILABLE market).
I think the ultimate problem in MMOs is that you can only really dedicate your energy to one at a time. Games like WoW and EVE which have a strong base are going to keep that base. If they players venture out to another game, they will come back to their earlier game if the new one doesn't work out. I'm not optimistic of any new MMO getting more than a niche market in the near future.
That seems true to the casual observer however Minecraft has servers without only 64 people on it.
Not sure how AA got in sandbox category. No much of sand and many possible choices put player at huge disadvantage. Not playing farmville part would make player poor and unhappy, being pure warrior or explorer is discouraged. With so few valid choices, game tilts more to themepark category.
Games, where creativity is possible in only one specific way are possible (like typical themepark but with rich crafting) but it would target some niche and if they make niche game, might as well make proper sandbox and cover few niches. So yea, sandbox is only one reasonable way.
Good article.
A themepark could offer a sandbox like experience given enough flexibility in character growth like providing the ability to switch skillsets and making equipment available to all not specific classes. For example, the rigid class structure proposed for EQNext just will not work.
The worst thing with the sandbox design, some clueless individuals attempt to associate a need for full loot pvp. Any game that includes that limits themselves to a very small subset of their potential audience. So many of these sandbox games that include such, doom themselves from the start.
A sandbox game should never be just for the hardcore.