It sounds like you don't quite get the concept of sandbox. The features you are describing are just fluff. Sandbox is a style game where the objectives are not predefined by the developer, you are given a world with some minimal predefined rulesets and you make your own game in it. Like a childs sandbox, which is just a box of sand, the actual game comes from the childs imagination and doesn't have a set objective such as Ludo for instance.
I never heard of Ludo, so I can't comment about that.
But I think YOU are missing the point that people on this forum are looking for a sandbox GAME, not just a sandbox.
A Game has to have some objective, or it's not a game. Posters on MMORPG.Com aren't just looking for a box of sand. If that was the cause, they'd be happy with Second Life.
Players are looking for a GAME to play in the sandbox, not just a sandbox with no game.
Nah I'm sorry a sandbox game is exactly what Blodpls described. It has nothing to do about "having all the features you want" or "being the perfect game".
Then it already exists. It's called Second Life. But that has no appeal for me. If you can do ANYTHING, then there's no game.
Yes Second Life may be a sandbox but it doesn't allow you to kill monsters. It is impossible to swing a mace, to wield a dagger or to shoot arrows in a troll face. To use the words of Blodpls, the minimal predefined rulesets in a game like second life prevent players to use weapons and kill your enemies. SL is totally "sandbox style" yes... but it is not a sandbox I would play in.
The reason I like sandbox games is that they are several games in one. They combine the best features of the following formats:
1) They give you the character progression of RPG games.
2) They give you the gear aspect of Action/Adventure titles.
3) They give you the immersive world and puzzle aspect of games like Myst.
4) They give you the subtle character interplay and improvisational acting found in text-based MUSHs and MUDs.
5) They give you control over your own "fishbowl" like in The Sims.
6) They allow you to engage in worldbuilding like in Sim City.
In no other format can I get all these six aspects in one format. The problem with MMOs these days is that they basically only facilitate #1 and #2, forgetting about the other four that make an MMO more than just a multiplayer Xenosaga or a 3D Diablo II.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I think MY PERFECT GAME has become a term which now means, my own personal game design.
That's why people like MY PERFECT game, because when they use that term, they mean the game which has the features I like, and does not have the features I don't like.
For example, some people think a PERFECT game must have skills not levels. Others think a PERFECT game can just as easily have levels as skills. Neither one, skills or levels, makes a game a PERFECT, or precludes it from being PERFECT. Or, some people like games when you do something over and over and that increases your skill, like I swing my sword a million times, my sword swinging skill gets better. And THAT's what they mean by "MY PERFECT GAME". Other people think there should be FFA PvP everywhere, and THAT makes a PERFECT GAME. Others think it's about the ability to build a house anywhere, or craft everything in the game, or no NpC's and a completely player based economy. When someone says, I'm waiting on A PERFECT GAME because I like PERFECT GAMES, what they mean is this. PERFECT GAME doesn't describe any of it's game mechanics, and no one has ever played it, so you don't know what htey are.
So, if you like skills that increase with use, well, I'll just imagine MY PERFECT GAME has that. If you like skill points you can spend, I'll just imagine MY PERFECT GAME has that. If you like to be able to build a "tank mage" I'll just imagine MY PERFECT GAME has that. If you think you shouldn't be able to build a "tank Mage" I'll imagine there are game mechanics that prevent that. Basically, I'll just imagine whatever features I like, and I'll think they are in MY PERFECT GAME. Whatever features I personally don't like, I"ll imagine they are not in MY PERFECT GAME. Therefore, it's always going to be the perfect game, because it will always have whatever you like, and none of what you don't like. And that's what "MY PERFECT GAME" means now. A game that has everything I personally like, and nothing I personally don't like. Of course such a game is never coming out, because no game will ever have every feature you like, and none fo the features you don't like. Even if you design it yourself it's not going to be like that because of budget and technology constraints.
It sounds like you don't quite get the concept of sandbox. The features you are describing are just fluff. Sandbox is a style game where the objectives are not predefined by the developer, you are given a world with some minimal predefined rulesets and you make your own game in it. Like a childs sandbox, which is just a box of sand, the actual game comes from the childs imagination and doesn't have a set objective such as Ludo for instance.
This guy nailed it for me too. Hands down nailed it
Sandbox is what all MMORPGs should be. IMO its what makes the genre unique. When you log onto a server it should be completely different than the one you usually play on. The players should shape the environment. I think Oblivion is a good example of what a sandbox could be. You could have a linear path of quests and such like most games but you could also have fun and never even do one single quest.
Oblivion isn't a sandbox game.
You become leader of the mage guild, kill the necromancer leader and your effect on the world is zero and there are still necromancers running around oblivious to the fact that their great leader is dead.
If it were really a sandbox game, and you wanted to be the leader of the "mage's guild" you wouldn't have to do Quest A followed by Quest B followed by Quest C followed by Quest D E F G H I J K L... You could create an uprising among the necromancers to overthrow the mage's guild leader, or you could just go around killing mages until the mage's guild can't take it anymore and they accept you as leader.
It's a questing game. Sure the spell crafting is great, and the NPC scripting is better, and the graphics are beautiful but it is NOT a sandbox game.
I think this shows how people focus on different areas of gameplay, when referring to a "sandbox" game.
Some people focus on the world, and being able to change the world, like in this example overthrowing the Mages guild and becoming it's new leader, or destroying it, or making it the most powerful guild in the world, etc.
Other people focus on their character, which is why they think only games with "skills" are a sandbox, so they can shoot lightening spells, wear armor, wield a sword, turn invisible, fish, and build a boat.
But if you're focused on the world, obviously you could overturn the mages guild even if you couldn't turn invisible or fish.
And another little minor detail, a single player game can never be a "sandbox".
I think SANDBOX has become a term which now means, my own personal game design.
That's why people like sandbox games, because when they use that term, they mean the game which has the features I like, and does not have the features I don't like.
For example, some people think a sandbox game must have skills not levels. Others think a sandbox game can just as easily have levels as skills. Neither one, skills or levels, makes a game a sandbox, or precludes it from being a sandbox. Or, some people like games when you do something over and over and that increases your skill, like I swing my sword a million times, my sword swinging skill gets better. And THAT's what they mean by "sandbox". Other people think there should be FFA PvP everywhere, and THAT makes a sandbox. Others think it's about the ability to build a house anywhere, or craft everything in the game, or no NpC's and a completely player based economy. When someone says, I'm waiting on DarkFall because I like a Sandbox game, what they mean is this. Darkfall doesn't describe any of it's game mechanics, and no one has ever played it, so you don't know what htey are.
So, if you like skills that increase with use, well, I'll just imagine Darkfall has that. If you like skill points you can spend, I'll just imagine Darkfall has that. If you like to be able to build a "tank mage" I'll just imagine Darkfall has that. If you think you shouldn't be able to build a "tank Mage" I'll imagine there are game mechanics that prevent that. Basically, I'll just imagine whatever features I like, and I'll think they are in Darkfall. Whatever features I personally don't like, I"ll imagine they are not in Darkfall. Therefore, it's always going to be the perfect game, because it will always have whatever you like, and none of what you don't like. And that's what "sandbox" means now. A game that has everything I personally like, and nothing I personally don't like. Of course such a game is never coming out, because no game will ever have every feature you like, and none fo the features you don't like. Even if you design it yourself it's not going to be like that because of budget and technology constraints.
You kind of confuse me, considering the fact that there IS a list of things in Darkfall, and people HAVE played it....
Sandbox is what all MMORPGs should be. IMO its what makes the genre unique. When you log onto a server it should be completely different than the one you usually play on. The players should shape the environment. I think Oblivion is a good example of what a sandbox could be. You could have a linear path of quests and such like most games but you could also have fun and never even do one single quest.
Oblivion isn't a sandbox game.
You become leader of the mage guild, kill the necromancer leader and your effect on the world is zero and there are still necromancers running around oblivious to the fact that their great leader is dead.
If it were really a sandbox game, and you wanted to be the leader of the "mage's guild" you wouldn't have to do Quest A followed by Quest B followed by Quest C followed by Quest D E F G H I J K L... You could create an uprising among the necromancers to overthrow the mage's guild leader, or you could just go around killing mages until the mage's guild can't take it anymore and they accept you as leader.
It's a questing game. Sure the spell crafting is great, and the NPC scripting is better, and the graphics are beautiful but it is NOT a sandbox game.
I think this shows how people focus on different areas of gameplay, when referring to a "sandbox" game.
Some people focus on the world, and being able to change the world, like in this example overthrowing the Mages guild and becoming it's new leader, or destroying it, or making it the most powerful guild in the world, etc.
Other people focus on their character, which is why they think only games with "skills" are a sandbox, so they can shoot lightening spells, wear armor, wield a sword, turn invisible, fish, and build a boat.
But if you're focused on the world, obviously you could overturn the mages guild even if you couldn't turn invisible or fish.
And another little minor detail, a single player game can never be a "sandbox".
Single player games can be described as sandbox.
In fact the game that many people would consider to be the first sandbox video game "Elite" was only single player.
It seems to me that gillvane1 is more interested in a Socratic-method-style discussion on the nature of what a sandbox is. At the same time he takes a playful jab at the general forum population by pointing out the fairly flippant use of the term. So alright, I'll play.
What is a sandbox?
Speaking a bit generally, a sandbox is two things:
1) A world.
2) The physics to that world.
That's it. It's very simple, actually. Too much emphasis tends to go into what will constitute the physics, but that doesn't really have much to do with it.
The best example I can think of is a flight simulator. The world in such systems is usually some area of land with the space above it and the physics is a combination of the natural world and the plane's systems. Often the user of the flight simulator is given objectives by a trainer or commander, but the objectives are not built in or mandated by the flight simulator itself.
Second Life is the most often cited example of a sandbox on MMORPG forums, which certainly makes sense. The argument will inevitably arise that it isn't a game, despite being a massively multi-user sandbox. Valid point, I suppose.
Okay, then. What is a sandbox game?
Only for the meager needs of this discussion, we should get a narrow definition of game pinned down, if done kind of crudely. So let's paint in very broad strokes, even if it leaves some gray area, and say that a game is an activity with a primary objective of being fun. So a sandbox game is a sandbox that is first and foremost meant to be fun, even if it also happens to be enlightening, useful, or whatever else.
For the easiest example of a sandbox game, look no further than the genre of simulation games. SimCity, for example, is a blank chunk of world with physics that allow you to create cities and unleash disasters upon them.
Generally speaking, a simulation game will manage to be fun by using the same general sort of world and physics as a non-simulation game. For instance, Microsoft Flight Simulator is a flight simulator sold for home use. It is meant to be fun (hence profitable), which it accomplishes through various means including predefined missions (as well as an unnecessarily detailed world to give exploration appeal). That leads us to a very relevant question:
What is a sandbox MMORPG and what do people mean when they ask for one?
Very simply, a sandbox MMORPG is a sandbox whose world and physics resemble those found in a industry standard MMORPG. This most often means a fantasy or sci-fi setting with large numbers of players connected, and physics involving an avatar, combat, and character progression.
This is where the view on physics becomes subjective, but we can generalize.
Players asking for a sandbox MMORPG are often asking for a variant on their own mental image of a MMORPG but with either less or none of the features that make them feel herded, or with additional physics that contribute to them feeling less herded. Many players don't like feeling herded even when the herding is based on their own decisions, hence reversibility is often seen as a sandbox MMORPG necessity.
That second request for more features is the most subjective feature since no particular features are necessary for a sandbox, or even for a sandbox game. But what MMORPG features are necessary for a sandbox MMORPG to fit the definition? That's tricky.
With World of Warcraft being the 800 lb gorilla of the industry, commentators of the genre are often implicitly speaking relative to that. So a player stating that land ownership is necessary for a sandbox game is perhaps unconsciously asking for that aren't in WoW that were in some other game where they felt less herded. Or players asking for skill-based progression are perhaps thinking of other games where all abilities were available to a given class (or perhaps even where changing classes didn't mean ending your game and recreating your character).
Do most players truly want a sandbox MMORPG? Check the subscription numbers on Wurm and judge for yourself.
A software that manage how others programs contained inside the sandbox can interact with the outside, establishing limits to the main environment by giving a false sense of freedom to trapped softwares. Sandboxie is an example of a sandbox software.
Internet Explorer tried to install some malicious software, but it's process was contained inside Sandboxie.
Nothing was actually installed, and everything was written in the sandbox.
I think #3 is the one your looking for, basically a game that doesn't appear to have any order or structure on what to do first, you choose as you go. UO, while a great game lacking any quests at all was probably the sandboxiest game ever, maybe they added quests later but I'm talking about vintage, there wasn't even an option to quest, so the goal was to go wherever, wander wherever die and rez from the wandering healer, and then freaking banksit all day or camp at idocs all night, or slay dragons, or pk 24/7, it was a very open game, free feeling, I personally prefer *SOME* quests, and forced or not I don't care as long as they are fun and interesting and cause you to use your brain, most quests in mmorpgs today are so weak that I can basically accomplish them without reading a single word from the npc and aimlessly wander into the miniboss.
Comments
I never heard of Ludo, so I can't comment about that.
But I think YOU are missing the point that people on this forum are looking for a sandbox GAME, not just a sandbox.
A Game has to have some objective, or it's not a game. Posters on MMORPG.Com aren't just looking for a box of sand. If that was the cause, they'd be happy with Second Life.
Players are looking for a GAME to play in the sandbox, not just a sandbox with no game.
Nah I'm sorry a sandbox game is exactly what Blodpls described. It has nothing to do about "having all the features you want" or "being the perfect game".
Then it already exists. It's called Second Life. But that has no appeal for me. If you can do ANYTHING, then there's no game.
Yes Second Life may be a sandbox but it doesn't allow you to kill monsters. It is impossible to swing a mace, to wield a dagger or to shoot arrows in a troll face. To use the words of Blodpls, the minimal predefined rulesets in a game like second life prevent players to use weapons and kill your enemies. SL is totally "sandbox style" yes... but it is not a sandbox I would play in.
The reason I like sandbox games is that they are several games in one. They combine the best features of the following formats:
1) They give you the character progression of RPG games.
2) They give you the gear aspect of Action/Adventure titles.
3) They give you the immersive world and puzzle aspect of games like Myst.
4) They give you the subtle character interplay and improvisational acting found in text-based MUSHs and MUDs.
5) They give you control over your own "fishbowl" like in The Sims.
6) They allow you to engage in worldbuilding like in Sim City.
In no other format can I get all these six aspects in one format. The problem with MMOs these days is that they basically only facilitate #1 and #2, forgetting about the other four that make an MMO more than just a multiplayer Xenosaga or a 3D Diablo II.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
FIXED
This guy nailed it for me too. Hands down nailed it
Oblivion isn't a sandbox game.
You become leader of the mage guild, kill the necromancer leader and your effect on the world is zero and there are still necromancers running around oblivious to the fact that their great leader is dead.
If it were really a sandbox game, and you wanted to be the leader of the "mage's guild" you wouldn't have to do Quest A followed by Quest B followed by Quest C followed by Quest D E F G H I J K L... You could create an uprising among the necromancers to overthrow the mage's guild leader, or you could just go around killing mages until the mage's guild can't take it anymore and they accept you as leader.
It's a questing game. Sure the spell crafting is great, and the NPC scripting is better, and the graphics are beautiful but it is NOT a sandbox game.
I think this shows how people focus on different areas of gameplay, when referring to a "sandbox" game.
Some people focus on the world, and being able to change the world, like in this example overthrowing the Mages guild and becoming it's new leader, or destroying it, or making it the most powerful guild in the world, etc.
Other people focus on their character, which is why they think only games with "skills" are a sandbox, so they can shoot lightening spells, wear armor, wield a sword, turn invisible, fish, and build a boat.
But if you're focused on the world, obviously you could overturn the mages guild even if you couldn't turn invisible or fish.
And another little minor detail, a single player game can never be a "sandbox".
You kind of confuse me, considering the fact that there IS a list of things in Darkfall, and people HAVE played it....
Darkfall Travelogues!
Oblivion isn't a sandbox game.
You become leader of the mage guild, kill the necromancer leader and your effect on the world is zero and there are still necromancers running around oblivious to the fact that their great leader is dead.
If it were really a sandbox game, and you wanted to be the leader of the "mage's guild" you wouldn't have to do Quest A followed by Quest B followed by Quest C followed by Quest D E F G H I J K L... You could create an uprising among the necromancers to overthrow the mage's guild leader, or you could just go around killing mages until the mage's guild can't take it anymore and they accept you as leader.
It's a questing game. Sure the spell crafting is great, and the NPC scripting is better, and the graphics are beautiful but it is NOT a sandbox game.
I think this shows how people focus on different areas of gameplay, when referring to a "sandbox" game.
Some people focus on the world, and being able to change the world, like in this example overthrowing the Mages guild and becoming it's new leader, or destroying it, or making it the most powerful guild in the world, etc.
Other people focus on their character, which is why they think only games with "skills" are a sandbox, so they can shoot lightening spells, wear armor, wield a sword, turn invisible, fish, and build a boat.
But if you're focused on the world, obviously you could overturn the mages guild even if you couldn't turn invisible or fish.
And another little minor detail, a single player game can never be a "sandbox".
Single player games can be described as sandbox.
In fact the game that many people would consider to be the first sandbox video game "Elite" was only single player.
I like PvP games. It would be fun to see a design that works well, where the players determine the factions, instead of RvR.
I suppose they've done that already in EVE, but unfortunately I don't want to play a game as a spaceship.
I also don't like the idea of gaining power just for subscribing, like in EVE. I'd rather you only gained power when you played the game.
No argument from me on that, tried EVE also, but just couldn't get into it.
Now PreCU SWG is what i am talking about, i built my own toon/life, and did not have to follow a set path to my own personal greatness.
It seems to me that gillvane1 is more interested in a Socratic-method-style discussion on the nature of what a sandbox is. At the same time he takes a playful jab at the general forum population by pointing out the fairly flippant use of the term. So alright, I'll play.
What is a sandbox?
Speaking a bit generally, a sandbox is two things:
1) A world.
2) The physics to that world.
That's it. It's very simple, actually. Too much emphasis tends to go into what will constitute the physics, but that doesn't really have much to do with it.
The best example I can think of is a flight simulator. The world in such systems is usually some area of land with the space above it and the physics is a combination of the natural world and the plane's systems. Often the user of the flight simulator is given objectives by a trainer or commander, but the objectives are not built in or mandated by the flight simulator itself.
Second Life is the most often cited example of a sandbox on MMORPG forums, which certainly makes sense. The argument will inevitably arise that it isn't a game, despite being a massively multi-user sandbox. Valid point, I suppose.
Okay, then. What is a sandbox game?
Only for the meager needs of this discussion, we should get a narrow definition of game pinned down, if done kind of crudely. So let's paint in very broad strokes, even if it leaves some gray area, and say that a game is an activity with a primary objective of being fun. So a sandbox game is a sandbox that is first and foremost meant to be fun, even if it also happens to be enlightening, useful, or whatever else.
For the easiest example of a sandbox game, look no further than the genre of simulation games. SimCity, for example, is a blank chunk of world with physics that allow you to create cities and unleash disasters upon them.
Generally speaking, a simulation game will manage to be fun by using the same general sort of world and physics as a non-simulation game. For instance, Microsoft Flight Simulator is a flight simulator sold for home use. It is meant to be fun (hence profitable), which it accomplishes through various means including predefined missions (as well as an unnecessarily detailed world to give exploration appeal). That leads us to a very relevant question:
What is a sandbox MMORPG and what do people mean when they ask for one?
Very simply, a sandbox MMORPG is a sandbox whose world and physics resemble those found in a industry standard MMORPG. This most often means a fantasy or sci-fi setting with large numbers of players connected, and physics involving an avatar, combat, and character progression.
This is where the view on physics becomes subjective, but we can generalize.
Players asking for a sandbox MMORPG are often asking for a variant on their own mental image of a MMORPG but with either less or none of the features that make them feel herded, or with additional physics that contribute to them feeling less herded. Many players don't like feeling herded even when the herding is based on their own decisions, hence reversibility is often seen as a sandbox MMORPG necessity.
That second request for more features is the most subjective feature since no particular features are necessary for a sandbox, or even for a sandbox game. But what MMORPG features are necessary for a sandbox MMORPG to fit the definition? That's tricky.
With World of Warcraft being the 800 lb gorilla of the industry, commentators of the genre are often implicitly speaking relative to that. So a player stating that land ownership is necessary for a sandbox game is perhaps unconsciously asking for that aren't in WoW that were in some other game where they felt less herded. Or players asking for skill-based progression are perhaps thinking of other games where all abilities were available to a given class (or perhaps even where changing classes didn't mean ending your game and recreating your character).
Do most players truly want a sandbox MMORPG? Check the subscription numbers on Wurm and judge for yourself.
Don't sneeze near the sandbox; you'll get coke all over the floor!
Nothing was actually installed, and everything was written in the sandbox.
I think #3 is the one your looking for, basically a game that doesn't appear to have any order or structure on what to do first, you choose as you go. UO, while a great game lacking any quests at all was probably the sandboxiest game ever, maybe they added quests later but I'm talking about vintage, there wasn't even an option to quest, so the goal was to go wherever, wander wherever die and rez from the wandering healer, and then freaking banksit all day or camp at idocs all night, or slay dragons, or pk 24/7, it was a very open game, free feeling, I personally prefer *SOME* quests, and forced or not I don't care as long as they are fun and interesting and cause you to use your brain, most quests in mmorpgs today are so weak that I can basically accomplish them without reading a single word from the npc and aimlessly wander into the miniboss.