I find the last post amusing because I was lectured by some 'MMO vets' on how vanilla EQ was a sandbox game and how they should do games more like that. Ha.
I've seen that stuff too. As someone who wants "Sandbox", I'm not amused at all.
As I like the themepark quests, it does get old just doing that .
I also like the open ended sandbox game because of the customization, but sometimes you just wanna do a quest to mix it up,
What I am looking for is a sandbox style game with a storyline, maybe a main quest storyline, but not run here kill x amount of mobs, go her collect x amount of things. A meaningful storyline based quest chain that will give a bit of background and lore to an open-ended game for you to build off of. Not one that ends in raiding over and over to get equipment.
Since 99.99% of the topics here are about sandbox and theme park/linear MMOs and the differences of these conceptions and misconceptions, I purpose we sticky this thread or a thread like it just to cut all the unnecessary threads that will be made in the future by frustrated so-called MMO veterans looking for a good sandbox MMO. Seriously, the number of discussions of, "linear vs sandbox" and "this is linear, this is sandbox" on this forum is mindnumbing and sickening.
Thats what I was hoping for for FFXI. All there other games had story, a purpose. Thats why I play Istaria, there is a purpose to the game.
I was so dissapointed in FF that way.
I want lots of choice in what to do and how I play (so sandbox), but I also want an overall goal/purpose for the game - be it an eternal war or save the world... something to give some meaning to why I'm bothering to level/skill...
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Well, if you read what I just posted, you'll there there is a definition, based on how a game is made to be played. The cases you site, I've seen them too. I cringe when I see them.
See? You just admitted people don't all agree. You can't blame me for being confused when I have 50 different people all saying they are sandbox fans, and that they have the right definition. You can't tell me 'Well, the difference is you can only listen to the real sandbox fans', because... well, you dont' have signs on your back.
Also, you didn't define sandbox.
You said that a theme park is a game with a level grind and questing to help guide the player to level appropriate areas...
... but does that mean you are defining sandbox as 'Games that are not that'? That's not a good way to define things. If I ask for what a cat is, you can't tell me what a dog is and say 'And a cat is not a dog'
I'm not trying to be too difficult, I just want your straightforward definition, and PLEASE don't tell me to look at the forum consensus, because I might as well just toss a bunch of random words together and do Sandbox Definition Mad Libs.
Sandbox MMORPGs that are not very well-known but definitely worth a look:
Ryzom, Haven and Hearth, Xsyon, The Repopulation, UO private shards, Mortal Online, Darkfall 1 remakes (New Dawn or Rise of Agon), RPG MO, Project Gorgon, EQ: Sanctuary (custom server)
Well, if you read what I just posted, you'll there there is a definition, based on how a game is made to be played. The cases you site, I've seen them too. I cringe when I see them.
See? You just admitted people don't all agree. You can't blame me for being confused when I have 50 different people all saying they are sandbox fans, and that they have the right definition. You can't tell me 'Well, the difference is you can only listen to the real sandbox fans', because... well, you dont' have signs on your back.
Also, you didn't define sandbox.
You said that a theme park is a game with a level grind and questing to help guide the player to level appropriate areas...
... but does that mean you are defining sandbox as 'Games that are not that'? That's not a good way to define things. If I ask for what a cat is, you can't tell me what a dog is and say 'And a cat is not a dog'
I'm not trying to be too difficult, I just want your straightforward definition, and PLEASE don't tell me to look at the forum consensus, because I might as well just toss a bunch of random words together and do Sandbox Definition Mad Libs.
Oh for the love of all that is holy. Will you just stop trying to be so dense? It's really pretty simple. Yes, Sandbox is "not Themepark". But that assumes you're talking about a game world. I'm only saying that so you don't come back with "So a potato is a Sandbox game?" And it doesn't address what a "good Sandbox" is.
You are indeed trying to be difficult. You and others are trying your best to be absolutely obtuse about all this.
Interesting, the number of pure sandbox or sandbox hybrid votes, btw.
I'm starting to see why themepark oriented MMO's or new MMO's that follow that design approach are so out-of-proportionately getting scorned and bashed on the mmorpg.com forums.
The percentage of sandbox oriented MMO gamers on these forums are far, far from being representative for the MMO market. Maybe it's because most themepark MMO gamers are just happily playing their games, and most sandbox oriented MMO gamers are still seeking for an MMO to satisfy them, and end up on sites like this one.
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Yes, Sandbox is "not Themepark".
? Right.
I wouldn't consider EQ, AC, AO, DAoC and Planetside all to be themepark MMO's, but neither are they all sandbox MMO's.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I'd definitely like a blend of themepark and sandbox. I wouldn't want all themepark because then the game becomes more of a chore than a source of entertainment. Always following a pre-determined path, do quests in this area, grind until you feel confident enough to enter the other higher level area, repeat. That's it. If I have friends playing or in a guild, I have to make sure I'm not falling behind so that I can quest with them at the very least, to enjoy company as I grind. Kind of like spending time with a co-worker on a project. In an all sandbox game, I wouldn't know what to do first; where to start. I look around and see EVERYTHING, players all doing their own thing, and as much as I would be appreciative, I wouldn't really know what direction I'm supposed to go, and at what junctures in my gaming would be a good idea to do this-and-that, and would miss out on a lot since I tend to concentrate on just a few gameplay elements if I'm not explicitly told when other elements become available to me.
In a hybrid game (although leaning a bit more toward sandbox), I would want enough direction and linear play to give me a good idea of what I'm supposed to do and the ways I can go about it, but enough freedom and sandbox elements to really feel like I have plenty of other things to do after I tire of my routine. I'd want it to be like another in-game life simulation. I go to "work" questing and raising my level, but after I get bored or tired of it, I can go "home" to my house or guild hall, talk to my friends and guild mates there, work on crafting certain things, check a vendor or two, customize my outfit or furniture, even explore places I've sped through, play minigames, go to a capital city or populated place with players, see what's for sale, hear any news about any real-time events going on elsewhere in the world, etc. It's very fulfilling after you've played and invested a while in the game to stand back and see all you've collected over your play time, not just a number next to your name or attractive gear that happens to be on your character, with the rest all stored away in an inventory slot or bank slot. I'd like to keep some of my old armor if I wasn't in desperate need of gold, maybe hang it up in my house next to all the other armor I deemed memorable, including items from events and gifts, decorated around my house.
I'd like to interact with other players not simply through themeparked quests and combat, but through inter-dependence that only a sandbox game knows how to execute properly. For example, if I wanted some high grade plate armor, I'd have to go see a player crafter who specializes in that armor, and go to him and strike up a bargain. If I wanted leather armor, I'd hit up a player who's been leatherworking for a long time. In SWG, i got discounts if I brought them some materials that they need to craft it. If I needed a buff, I would wait in line at the starports for the player doctor. I would tip him the amount he requested, then he would buff me and that would be it. In the cantina I would be entertained by the player entertainers there, have my fatigue reduced, and it was a live atmosphere, players talking to one another, making jokes, etc. Sure, some players were AFK but the point was, the cantinas were full, of entertainers and people who needed their services. I haven't played SWG since a little after the NGE hit but I do remember the cantinas being empty and not a single soul there.
Anyways, that's the kind of MMO that would best suit my play style. Where I have options that are worthwhile outside of combat, questing, grinding, and leveling, but that also had elements of linear play that allowed me to confidently know where I'm supposed to go and the ways to get there, and all the decisions I can make to complete that objective.
Oh for the love of all that is holy. Will you just stop trying to be so dense? It's really pretty simple. Yes, Sandbox is "not Themepark". But that assumes you're talking about a game world. I'm only saying that so you don't come back with "So a potato is a Sandbox game?" And it doesn't address what a "good Sandbox" is.
You are indeed trying to be difficult. You and others are trying your best to be absolutely obtuse about all this.
Absolutely not! I'm trying to be precise about it. My general person definition of sandbox has always been that it's basically measuring the freedom axis of a game. It is gameplay like a sandbox. You sit around with other kids, and do whatever. Unlike a themepark, it's not really directed. That is why open game world single player games get slapped with the 'sandbox' moniker, when that standard doesn't fly for an MMORPG... because it's relative within the genre.
I would like to gently suggest that even your definition of a themepark is inherently flawed. You described WHY a sandbox for WoW, not WHAT is a sandbox.
Leveling may change a game into a themepark, but leveling itself is not the quality of a themepark.
I will take Guild Wars for example. Yes, it is a CORPG, not an MMORPG, but let us imagine, for a brief moment, that Guild Wars had been an MMORPG. (It's not too hard to extrapolate what sort of changes would need to be done to do that)
With the ability to hit level 20 in less than a day of play, you could hardly argue the game is about leveling grind. Yet it is still definitely a themepark style game. You are led through the game by the story... not to take you to appropriate zones for your level (Since after the tutorial level in Factions or Nightfall, it was ALL level appropriate), but as a setting for the movement of the story.
The key to me for a themepark is that it is guided, that there are clear paths to take to get from A to B to C. Yes, you may be able to do one thing or another at various times (Just like in a real theme park, where you pick your ride), but the basis of it is an outlined path of progression one takes.
On the other hand, a sandbox MMORPG relies upon player-based decision making processes, with no clear goal other than to improve and/or amuse yourself. (In fact, I could see a sandbox MMORPG as having level grindingand not losing any real sandbox flavor... much like a vastly grind-intensified version of Elder Scrolls games, basically)
Any problems with my definition? Clarifications you'd wish to make? (What separates a sandbox MMORPG from a sandbox MMO would be that an MMORPG has a prebuilt game world and rules, generally, and you exist within them. Much like roleplaying within a D&D game.)
I'm not trying to be difficult (again), I'm trying to clearly delineate and define, and I was trying to see what you mean (Because the 'I know it when I see it' 'And it's not that' style of definition seems a little shaky and hard to base a meaningful discussion around) when you stated sandbox, since sometimes I THINK I know what somebody means, and it turns out they mean something totally different.
Anyways, that's the kind of MMO that would best suit my play style. Where I have options that are worthwhile outside of combat, questing, grinding, and leveling, but that also had elements of linear play that allowed me to confidently know where I'm supposed to go and the ways to get there, and all the decisions I can make to complete that objective.
Yep, I voted hybrid too, I think that's the way to go for success for MMORPG's: more choice is always better than less choice, being able to switch from themepark to sandbox-styled gameplay in 1 game keeps things refreshing and varied, and an MMORPG that can satisfy both types of gamers successfully is guaranteed to have both groups staying and playing it.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Anyways, that's the kind of MMO that would best suit my play style. Where I have options that are worthwhile outside of combat, questing, grinding, and leveling, but that also had elements of linear play that allowed me to confidently know where I'm supposed to go and the ways to get there, and all the decisions I can make to complete that objective.
Yep, I voted hybrid too, I think that's the way to go for success for MMORPG's: more choice is always better than less choice, being able to switch from themepark to sandbox-styled gameplay in 1 game keeps things refreshing and varied, and an MMORPG that can satisfy both types of gamers successfully is guaranteed to have both groups staying and playing it.
I agree to some extent,but too much can be just as bad.I don't like an all out put yoru own stats into your player,i like the game to have set racial stats and a set design.I don't liek having the choice of having every single ability on one player class,i think that removes the class design totally,i liek the class design better,makes you feel like you are actually role playing something,other than a morphling.
Something games have been lacking is "choice" of leveling.We need more types of mobs to suit each play style for each level.We also need more ways to level besides questing treadmills.I would lso like to see a questing system,where yo u"DO" have to make a choice as to what quests you do,ou cannot simply do them all.
Best of all,i would like to see a game that treats levels like real aging,yes that means your player will eventually age and die,XYSON is one of the few games that is actualkly trying to pull off aging.Actually ANY develoepr could take about 10 ideas from Xyson and there game will have more design qualities than any of the top 3 subbed games.This is not saying Xyson will master their ideas,buit at least the game has some to try and master .
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I picked "Other" since I'm tired of seeing the same 3 templates.
I favor Theme Park since I don't play game without goal, but I don't like the fact that there's only one way to reach that goal that it feels like I'm on a train track.
I favor Sandbox if the game really open everything, but I have yet to see a real Sandbox. EvE is close enough, but still not there for me. But in the end, when all there is to build are already built, it starts to feel like a Theme Park, since you can only build things one way.
I don't favor Hybrid since there are many conflicting aspects that makes the game really frustrating, and I don't think the games given as an example for this template is accurate either. FFXI is a hybrid IMO where there's a lot of frustrations from grifters and griefers. Not my favorite game template.
I would like to see another, a new, template for MMORPG. WoW is actually using a new template where they are using layered instances to make it seems like it's a hybrid game, which comes with its set of frustrations because hybrid always brings such negative quality.
Oh for the love of all that is holy. Will you just stop trying to be so dense? It's really pretty simple. Yes, Sandbox is "not Themepark". But that assumes you're talking about a game world. I'm only saying that so you don't come back with "So a potato is a Sandbox game?" And it doesn't address what a "good Sandbox" is.
You are indeed trying to be difficult. You and others are trying your best to be absolutely obtuse about all this.
Absolutely not! I'm trying to be precise about it. My general person definition of sandbox has always been that it's basically measuring the freedom axis of a game. It is gameplay like a sandbox. You sit around with other kids, and do whatever. Unlike a themepark, it's not really directed. That is why open game world single player games get slapped with the 'sandbox' moniker, when that standard doesn't fly for an MMORPG... because it's relative within the genre.
I would like to gently suggest that even your definition of a themepark is inherently flawed. You described WHY a sandbox for WoW, not WHAT is a sandbox.
Leveling may change a game into a themepark, but leveling itself is not the quality of a themepark.
I will take Guild Wars for example. Yes, it is a CORPG, not an MMORPG, but let us imagine, for a brief moment, that Guild Wars had been an MMORPG. (It's not too hard to extrapolate what sort of changes would need to be done to do that)
With the ability to hit level 20 in less than a day of play, you could hardly argue the game is about leveling grind. Yet it is still definitely a themepark style game. You are led through the game by the story... not to take you to appropriate zones for your level (Since after the tutorial level in Factions or Nightfall, it was ALL level appropriate), but as a setting for the movement of the story.
The key to me for a themepark is that it is guided, that there are clear paths to take to get from A to B to C. Yes, you may be able to do one thing or another at various times (Just like in a real theme park, where you pick your ride), but the basis of it is an outlined path of progression one takes.
On the other hand, a sandbox MMORPG relies upon player-based decision making processes, with no clear goal other than to improve and/or amuse yourself. (In fact, I could see a sandbox MMORPG as having level grindingand not losing any real sandbox flavor... much like a vastly grind-intensified version of Elder Scrolls games, basically)
Any problems with my definition? Clarifications you'd wish to make? (What separates a sandbox MMORPG from a sandbox MMO would be that an MMORPG has a prebuilt game world and rules, generally, and you exist within them. Much like roleplaying within a D&D game.)
I'm not trying to be difficult (again), I'm trying to clearly delineate and define, and I was trying to see what you mean (Because the 'I know it when I see it' 'And it's not that' style of definition seems a little shaky and hard to base a meaningful discussion around) when you stated sandbox, since sometimes I THINK I know what somebody means, and it turns out they mean something totally different.
Well, I tihnk you pretty well have it.
But it really is simple. It's the zoned content that you must go to in order. It deosn't really have to have quests directing you, you are still directed by the game's design. Therein lies the lack of "freedom".
Something I've often pointed out over the years, that gets lost in all the talk, is that "Class Based" alone doesn't define "Theme Park".
Lets take a little formula here:
Class based > Level grind > LargePower Gaps > Themepark
Now, you can substitute Skill based for Class based (and level grind is in relation to the skill's "level"), but that doesn't change the formula. You still have a Theme Park game. WoW would not play any differently if each class was further divided into separate skills from within that class, thus being a "skill Based" game. The key here is when you get to Large Power Gaps. That's where you have to divide the world up, and that's where it becomes a "Theme Park".
Remove that and substitute "Small Power Gaps", along with the "Skill Based", and you have UO's design. Recognized by all as a Sandbox. (Not talking about how UO had so much more that made it a great Sandbox here.)
Now, in UO you had separate skills that help eachother, and formed Classes. Fighters took a weapon skill, "Swords", plus "Anatomy" to do more damage, plus "Tactics" to improve your chances to hit. This formed a "true warrior (and it was even called) Class". The difference here is that you did get more freedom, as you could forgo a skill and substitute another at the cost of being a weaker fighter. But that's a different sort of freedom from what "Themepark" means. But it is another layer that's commonly accepted as part of it, even though it's not at it's core.
Now, lets take WoW as a Class Based Game. Remove the Large Power Gaps and add small enough power gaps that you no longer have to divide the game world up. Now you no longer have to add directions to the players. They can go to any zone, and play equally. They have freedom to do so. It's still a class based game, but it's lost that Theme Park element. It's become a basic Sandbox game.
True, it would be a better Sandbox if it were skill based with greater freedom there too. It would be a much better Sandbox if you had lot's of interaction with the world, starting with doors on the buildings that you could open and close and add the ability to enter those buildings that are sealed off now. But the point is, you can now drive your little Tonka anywhere you want, and play anywhere you want, in that Sandbox world.
Saying WOW has few, if any, sandbox elements exhibits a lack of understanding of the core of what sandbox is.
Sandbox is player freedom. When you choose between 4 starting zones and 2-3 zones at any given level to quest in, that's player freedom. When you choose to run dungeons or craft or PVP or socialize, that's player freedom. When you choose to switch specs, that's player freedom.
Overall WOW doesn't offer a completely blank slate for players to do anything they want, and it's certainly a themepark MMORPG. But to say it offers few sandbox elements is a gross oversimplification. Every MMORPG out there involves both linear and nonlinear elements. It's just an overall tilt that determines whether players label it themepark or sandbox.
People on this site should really pay attention to this quote
Really? I was just about to reply Axehilts post; This guy has no clue what 'player freedom' means. If your definition of player freedom is to choose on which zone you grind your exp, or when you choose to 'switch specs', you clearly have no idea what player freedom means.
No offense but if only game you have ever played is WoW, don't even bother to post about player freedom.
Edit:
Oh, forgot to tell I voted 'hybrid'. I'm not a total themepark hater but prefer some mix of themepark / sandbox.
I've played a great many other games. Sandboxes in particular always struck me as joke games to put one over on customers. ("You mean people pay money for these empty shells of games? What about content?") But my own opinion on that subject doesn't contribute much to discussion...
The truth of the matter is that all entertainment media exists on the line between Total Linearity and Total Freedom.
Games, by definition, only exist in the middle part of this line (without some choice, it's not a game; yet without rules, it's also not a game.)
MMORPGs fall within games, and due to their mechanics tend to fall on the freedom side of games. They're very feature rich, and you're able to choose which of those features to engage with.
Themepark and sandbox are therefore not terribly far apart in the grand scheme of things, because even though they're opposing ends of the MMORPG spectrum, that spectrum falls on the choice side of games.
Calling themeparks "linear" (or inferring they don't involve plenty of player freedom) is therefore laughably inaccurate.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not trying to be too difficult, I just want your straightforward definition, and PLEASE don't tell me to look at the forum consensus, because I might as well just toss a bunch of random words together and do Sandbox Definition Mad Libs.
Hey, before the MOD's lock this thread, would it be to much to ask those debating on what the definition of theme park and sandbox games are to a different thread. Thanks.
It's got to be hybrid, because sometimes I have lots of time to play, and sometimes I don't.
When I don't have much time to play, I just want to get a few quests in or do something that's easy on the brain. When I do have time to play, I want to be able to luxuriate, stretch out, take time over every little decision, explore, smell the roses, enact risky big plans, etc.
(I definitely don't have enough time for guilds and corps and stuff, but for the social side of my casual play I like to be able to PUG too, which is more of a theme-parky thing I guess.)
Saying WOW has few, if any, sandbox elements exhibits a lack of understanding of the core of what sandbox is.
Sandbox is player freedom. When you choose between 4 starting zones and 2-3 zones at any given level to quest in, that's player freedom. When you choose to run dungeons or craft or PVP or socialize, that's player freedom. When you choose to switch specs, that's player freedom.
Overall WOW doesn't offer a completely blank slate for players to do anything they want, and it's certainly a themepark MMORPG. But to say it offers few sandbox elements is a gross oversimplification. Every MMORPG out there involves both linear and nonlinear elements. It's just an overall tilt that determines whether players label it themepark or sandbox.
People on this site should really pay attention to this quote
Really? I was just about to reply Axehilts post; This guy has no clue what 'player freedom' means. If your definition of player freedom is to choose on which zone you grind your exp, or when you choose to 'switch specs', you clearly have no idea what player freedom means.
No offense but if only game you have ever played is WoW, don't even bother to post about player freedom.
Edit:
Oh, forgot to tell I voted 'hybrid'. I'm not a total themepark hater but prefer some mix of themepark / sandbox.
I've played a great many other games. Sandboxes in particular always struck me as joke games to put one over on customers. ("You mean people pay money for these empty shells of games? What about content?") But my own opinion on that subject doesn't contribute much to discussion...
The truth of the matter is that all entertainment media exists on the line between Total Linearity and Total Freedom.
Games, by definition, only exist in the middle part of this line (without some choice, it's not a game; yet without rules, it's also not a game.)
MMORPGs fall within games, and due to their mechanics tend to fall on the freedom side of games. They're very feature rich, and you're able to choose which of those features to engage with.
Themepark and sandbox are therefore not terribly far apart in the grand scheme of things, because even though they're opposing ends of the MMORPG spectrum, that spectrum falls on the choice side of games.
Calling themeparks "linear" (or inferring they don't involve plenty of player freedom) is therefore laughably inaccurate.
I'm aware you are an experienced gamer, but it looks to me you have had some bad encounters with sandbox games been released lately.
Games that are empty shells have nothing to do with a game being a sandbox or a themepark. These shells are incomplete games that have been forced to release due to lack of funding, or produced by an incompetent game studio. Unfortunately, most sandbox games have been like these for some time now, and I'm not surprised investors are not really excited to throw their money for a project that's doomed to fail.
I like your definition for a game. It's funny when someone always remember to mention 2nd Life when talking about sandboxes. By your definition 2nd Life is not really a game, even it is a sandbox. However, I'm positive a themepark can be very feature rich, just like a sandbox can be an empty shell of a game.
I also like your defintion of an MMORPG, but the growing trend in modern themeparks seems to be to cut player freedom, make it more linear in order to have it easier for a player to follow up, and decrease the amount of features that could be overwhelming for Average Joe. In my opinion, a great game should do the exact opposite than what I just described in this paragraph.
I really can't say all themeparks are linear or are lacking player freedom, but the fact is that many, if not all, of these post-WoW themeparks are fitting to this description. Even more, patch by patch are these older themeparks driven to fit into this 'new' mold, which is really sad.
By the definitions provided I said a hybrid is best because I like how players can control the economy and make guilds etc. but I can't stand games that have housing because it costs waaaaaaay too much.
Saying WOW has few, if any, sandbox elements exhibits a lack of understanding of the core of what sandbox is.
Sandbox is player freedom. When you choose between 4 starting zones and 2-3 zones at any given level to quest in, that's player freedom. When you choose to run dungeons or craft or PVP or socialize, that's player freedom. When you choose to switch specs, that's player freedom.
Overall WOW doesn't offer a completely blank slate for players to do anything they want, and it's certainly a themepark MMORPG. But to say it offers few sandbox elements is a gross oversimplification. Every MMORPG out there involves both linear and nonlinear elements. It's just an overall tilt that determines whether players label it themepark or sandbox.
People on this site should really pay attention to this quote
Really? I was just about to reply Axehilts post; This guy has no clue what 'player freedom' means. If your definition of player freedom is to choose on which zone you grind your exp, or when you choose to 'switch specs', you clearly have no idea what player freedom means.
No offense but if only game you have ever played is WoW, don't even bother to post about player freedom.
Edit:
Oh, forgot to tell I voted 'hybrid'. I'm not a total themepark hater but prefer some mix of themepark / sandbox.
I've played a great many other games. Sandboxes in particular always struck me as joke games to put one over on customers. ("You mean people pay money for these empty shells of games? What about content?") But my own opinion on that subject doesn't contribute much to discussion...
The truth of the matter is that all entertainment media exists on the line between Total Linearity and Total Freedom.
Games, by definition, only exist in the middle part of this line (without some choice, it's not a game; yet without rules, it's also not a game.)
MMORPGs fall within games, and due to their mechanics tend to fall on the freedom side of games. They're very feature rich, and you're able to choose which of those features to engage with.
Themepark and sandbox are therefore not terribly far apart in the grand scheme of things, because even though they're opposing ends of the MMORPG spectrum, that spectrum falls on the choice side of games.
Calling themeparks "linear" (or inferring they don't involve plenty of player freedom) is therefore laughably inaccurate.
I'm aware you are an experienced gamer, but it looks to me you have had some bad encounters with sandbox games been released lately.
Games that are empty shells have nothing to do with a game being a sandbox or a themepark. These shells are incomplete games that have been forced to release due to lack of funding, or produced by an incompetent game studio. Unfortunately, most sandbox games have been like these for some time now, and I'm not surprised investors are not really excited to throw their money for a project that's doomed to fail.
I like your definition for a game. It's funny when someone always remember to mention 2nd Life when talking about sandboxes. By your definition 2nd Life is not really a game, even it is a sandbox. However, I'm positive a themepark can be very feature rich, just like a sandbox can be an empty shell of a game.
I also like your defintion of an MMORPG, but the growing trend in modern themeparks seems to be to cut player freedom, make it more linear in order to have it easier for a player to follow up, and decrease the amount of features that could be overwhelming for Average Joe. In my opinion, a great game should do the exact opposite than what I just described in this paragraph.
I really can't say all themeparks are linear or are lacking player freedom, but the fact is that many, if not all, of these post-WoW themeparks are fitting to this description. Even more, patch by patch are these older themeparks driven to fit into this 'new' mold, which is really sad.
its seems to me that no one can really put there fingers on the definition of a themepark game and a sandbox game. I'm not saying all of you are wrong but all of you are right.
I think the definitions for both themepark and sandbox overlap and are extremely broad therefore no ONE definition is accurate enough.
I think that deniter is right by saying you may have had some bad experiences with sandbox games, but only by the way you have written axehilt.
I think that everyone can agree that themepark games are more linear than a sandbox game and a sandbox game has more freedom than a themepark game
Don't mind me, I'll just leave this link here to answer your question...
By the way, I don't think this is a very well done poll. For one thing, your explanation of a themepark sounded more like an explanation of what it means to be WoW.
There's lots of bias-laden phrasing overall. I mean, you really talk up the good points of sandboxes, and emphasize the negative parts of themeparks.
I think the poll would be more interesting (If not any more balanced) if you described themeparks as "Well designed, structured and easy to enjoy efficiently, lots of carefully crafted content", and described sandbox with terms like 'Aimless gameplay, lots of wasted space, low budget', and so on.
I fell for the trap-poll and voted hybrid. I mean, thats what all future MMORPGs are going to strive for anyway, right?
Class based > Level grind > LargePower Gaps > Themepark
In general this might be true, but in application it doesn't hold up so well. For WoW maybe but look at Istaria:
They have classes, 100 levels and therefore large powergaps but it is probably one of the most sandboxy games out right now. It lets you completely customize your character, crafting is real and significant and the player can make a significant and contribution and even alteration to the world.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I've seen that stuff too. As someone who wants "Sandbox", I'm not amused at all.
Once upon a time....
I chose hybrid themepark/sandbox.
As I like the themepark quests, it does get old just doing that .
I also like the open ended sandbox game because of the customization, but sometimes you just wanna do a quest to mix it up,
What I am looking for is a sandbox style game with a storyline, maybe a main quest storyline, but not run here kill x amount of mobs, go her collect x amount of things. A meaningful storyline based quest chain that will give a bit of background and lore to an open-ended game for you to build off of. Not one that ends in raiding over and over to get equipment.
At which point a child becomes an adult? Same thing with sandboxes and themeparks. Where you draw the line is completely arbitrary!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Since 99.99% of the topics here are about sandbox and theme park/linear MMOs and the differences of these conceptions and misconceptions, I purpose we sticky this thread or a thread like it just to cut all the unnecessary threads that will be made in the future by frustrated so-called MMO veterans looking for a good sandbox MMO. Seriously, the number of discussions of, "linear vs sandbox" and "this is linear, this is sandbox" on this forum is mindnumbing and sickening.
Thats what I was hoping for for FFXI. All there other games had story, a purpose. Thats why I play Istaria, there is a purpose to the game.
I was so dissapointed in FF that way.
I want lots of choice in what to do and how I play (so sandbox), but I also want an overall goal/purpose for the game - be it an eternal war or save the world... something to give some meaning to why I'm bothering to level/skill...
Venge
See? You just admitted people don't all agree. You can't blame me for being confused when I have 50 different people all saying they are sandbox fans, and that they have the right definition. You can't tell me 'Well, the difference is you can only listen to the real sandbox fans', because... well, you dont' have signs on your back.
Also, you didn't define sandbox.
You said that a theme park is a game with a level grind and questing to help guide the player to level appropriate areas...
... but does that mean you are defining sandbox as 'Games that are not that'? That's not a good way to define things. If I ask for what a cat is, you can't tell me what a dog is and say 'And a cat is not a dog'
I'm not trying to be too difficult, I just want your straightforward definition, and PLEASE don't tell me to look at the forum consensus, because I might as well just toss a bunch of random words together and do Sandbox Definition Mad Libs.
Sandbox for me.
Ryzom, Haven and Hearth, Xsyon, The Repopulation, UO private shards, Mortal Online, Darkfall 1 remakes (New Dawn or Rise of Agon), RPG MO, Project Gorgon, EQ: Sanctuary (custom server)
Oh for the love of all that is holy. Will you just stop trying to be so dense? It's really pretty simple. Yes, Sandbox is "not Themepark". But that assumes you're talking about a game world. I'm only saying that so you don't come back with "So a potato is a Sandbox game?" And it doesn't address what a "good Sandbox" is.
You are indeed trying to be difficult. You and others are trying your best to be absolutely obtuse about all this.
Once upon a time....
Interesting, the number of pure sandbox or sandbox hybrid votes, btw.
I'm starting to see why themepark oriented MMO's or new MMO's that follow that design approach are so out-of-proportionately getting scorned and bashed on the mmorpg.com forums.
The percentage of sandbox oriented MMO gamers on these forums are far, far from being representative for the MMO market. Maybe it's because most themepark MMO gamers are just happily playing their games, and most sandbox oriented MMO gamers are still seeking for an MMO to satisfy them, and end up on sites like this one.
? Right.
I wouldn't consider EQ, AC, AO, DAoC and Planetside all to be themepark MMO's, but neither are they all sandbox MMO's.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I'd definitely like a blend of themepark and sandbox. I wouldn't want all themepark because then the game becomes more of a chore than a source of entertainment. Always following a pre-determined path, do quests in this area, grind until you feel confident enough to enter the other higher level area, repeat. That's it. If I have friends playing or in a guild, I have to make sure I'm not falling behind so that I can quest with them at the very least, to enjoy company as I grind. Kind of like spending time with a co-worker on a project. In an all sandbox game, I wouldn't know what to do first; where to start. I look around and see EVERYTHING, players all doing their own thing, and as much as I would be appreciative, I wouldn't really know what direction I'm supposed to go, and at what junctures in my gaming would be a good idea to do this-and-that, and would miss out on a lot since I tend to concentrate on just a few gameplay elements if I'm not explicitly told when other elements become available to me.
In a hybrid game (although leaning a bit more toward sandbox), I would want enough direction and linear play to give me a good idea of what I'm supposed to do and the ways I can go about it, but enough freedom and sandbox elements to really feel like I have plenty of other things to do after I tire of my routine. I'd want it to be like another in-game life simulation. I go to "work" questing and raising my level, but after I get bored or tired of it, I can go "home" to my house or guild hall, talk to my friends and guild mates there, work on crafting certain things, check a vendor or two, customize my outfit or furniture, even explore places I've sped through, play minigames, go to a capital city or populated place with players, see what's for sale, hear any news about any real-time events going on elsewhere in the world, etc. It's very fulfilling after you've played and invested a while in the game to stand back and see all you've collected over your play time, not just a number next to your name or attractive gear that happens to be on your character, with the rest all stored away in an inventory slot or bank slot. I'd like to keep some of my old armor if I wasn't in desperate need of gold, maybe hang it up in my house next to all the other armor I deemed memorable, including items from events and gifts, decorated around my house.
I'd like to interact with other players not simply through themeparked quests and combat, but through inter-dependence that only a sandbox game knows how to execute properly. For example, if I wanted some high grade plate armor, I'd have to go see a player crafter who specializes in that armor, and go to him and strike up a bargain. If I wanted leather armor, I'd hit up a player who's been leatherworking for a long time. In SWG, i got discounts if I brought them some materials that they need to craft it. If I needed a buff, I would wait in line at the starports for the player doctor. I would tip him the amount he requested, then he would buff me and that would be it. In the cantina I would be entertained by the player entertainers there, have my fatigue reduced, and it was a live atmosphere, players talking to one another, making jokes, etc. Sure, some players were AFK but the point was, the cantinas were full, of entertainers and people who needed their services. I haven't played SWG since a little after the NGE hit but I do remember the cantinas being empty and not a single soul there.
Anyways, that's the kind of MMO that would best suit my play style. Where I have options that are worthwhile outside of combat, questing, grinding, and leveling, but that also had elements of linear play that allowed me to confidently know where I'm supposed to go and the ways to get there, and all the decisions I can make to complete that objective.
For me it doesn't really matter. Sandbox or Themepark doesn't matter squat. What matters is if the game is well made or not.
If you're good at what you're doing, themepark, sandbox, or hybrid, then your game will be fun and I will enjoy it.
Absolutely not! I'm trying to be precise about it. My general person definition of sandbox has always been that it's basically measuring the freedom axis of a game. It is gameplay like a sandbox. You sit around with other kids, and do whatever. Unlike a themepark, it's not really directed. That is why open game world single player games get slapped with the 'sandbox' moniker, when that standard doesn't fly for an MMORPG... because it's relative within the genre.
I would like to gently suggest that even your definition of a themepark is inherently flawed. You described WHY a sandbox for WoW, not WHAT is a sandbox.
Leveling may change a game into a themepark, but leveling itself is not the quality of a themepark.
I will take Guild Wars for example. Yes, it is a CORPG, not an MMORPG, but let us imagine, for a brief moment, that Guild Wars had been an MMORPG. (It's not too hard to extrapolate what sort of changes would need to be done to do that)
With the ability to hit level 20 in less than a day of play, you could hardly argue the game is about leveling grind. Yet it is still definitely a themepark style game. You are led through the game by the story... not to take you to appropriate zones for your level (Since after the tutorial level in Factions or Nightfall, it was ALL level appropriate), but as a setting for the movement of the story.
The key to me for a themepark is that it is guided, that there are clear paths to take to get from A to B to C. Yes, you may be able to do one thing or another at various times (Just like in a real theme park, where you pick your ride), but the basis of it is an outlined path of progression one takes.
On the other hand, a sandbox MMORPG relies upon player-based decision making processes, with no clear goal other than to improve and/or amuse yourself. (In fact, I could see a sandbox MMORPG as having level grindingand not losing any real sandbox flavor... much like a vastly grind-intensified version of Elder Scrolls games, basically)
Any problems with my definition? Clarifications you'd wish to make? (What separates a sandbox MMORPG from a sandbox MMO would be that an MMORPG has a prebuilt game world and rules, generally, and you exist within them. Much like roleplaying within a D&D game.)
I'm not trying to be difficult (again), I'm trying to clearly delineate and define, and I was trying to see what you mean (Because the 'I know it when I see it' 'And it's not that' style of definition seems a little shaky and hard to base a meaningful discussion around) when you stated sandbox, since sometimes I THINK I know what somebody means, and it turns out they mean something totally different.
Yep, I voted hybrid too, I think that's the way to go for success for MMORPG's: more choice is always better than less choice, being able to switch from themepark to sandbox-styled gameplay in 1 game keeps things refreshing and varied, and an MMORPG that can satisfy both types of gamers successfully is guaranteed to have both groups staying and playing it.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I agree to some extent,but too much can be just as bad.I don't like an all out put yoru own stats into your player,i like the game to have set racial stats and a set design.I don't liek having the choice of having every single ability on one player class,i think that removes the class design totally,i liek the class design better,makes you feel like you are actually role playing something,other than a morphling.
Something games have been lacking is "choice" of leveling.We need more types of mobs to suit each play style for each level.We also need more ways to level besides questing treadmills.I would lso like to see a questing system,where yo u"DO" have to make a choice as to what quests you do,ou cannot simply do them all.
Best of all,i would like to see a game that treats levels like real aging,yes that means your player will eventually age and die,XYSON is one of the few games that is actualkly trying to pull off aging.Actually ANY develoepr could take about 10 ideas from Xyson and there game will have more design qualities than any of the top 3 subbed games.This is not saying Xyson will master their ideas,buit at least the game has some to try and master
.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I picked "Other" since I'm tired of seeing the same 3 templates.
I favor Theme Park since I don't play game without goal, but I don't like the fact that there's only one way to reach that goal that it feels like I'm on a train track.
I favor Sandbox if the game really open everything, but I have yet to see a real Sandbox. EvE is close enough, but still not there for me. But in the end, when all there is to build are already built, it starts to feel like a Theme Park, since you can only build things one way.
I don't favor Hybrid since there are many conflicting aspects that makes the game really frustrating, and I don't think the games given as an example for this template is accurate either. FFXI is a hybrid IMO where there's a lot of frustrations from grifters and griefers. Not my favorite game template.
I would like to see another, a new, template for MMORPG. WoW is actually using a new template where they are using layered instances to make it seems like it's a hybrid game, which comes with its set of frustrations because hybrid always brings such negative quality.
Ready for GW2!!!
Well, I tihnk you pretty well have it.
But it really is simple. It's the zoned content that you must go to in order. It deosn't really have to have quests directing you, you are still directed by the game's design. Therein lies the lack of "freedom".
Something I've often pointed out over the years, that gets lost in all the talk, is that "Class Based" alone doesn't define "Theme Park".
Lets take a little formula here:
Class based > Level grind > LargePower Gaps > Themepark
Now, you can substitute Skill based for Class based (and level grind is in relation to the skill's "level"), but that doesn't change the formula. You still have a Theme Park game. WoW would not play any differently if each class was further divided into separate skills from within that class, thus being a "skill Based" game. The key here is when you get to Large Power Gaps. That's where you have to divide the world up, and that's where it becomes a "Theme Park".
Remove that and substitute "Small Power Gaps", along with the "Skill Based", and you have UO's design. Recognized by all as a Sandbox. (Not talking about how UO had so much more that made it a great Sandbox here.)
Now, in UO you had separate skills that help eachother, and formed Classes. Fighters took a weapon skill, "Swords", plus "Anatomy" to do more damage, plus "Tactics" to improve your chances to hit. This formed a "true warrior (and it was even called) Class". The difference here is that you did get more freedom, as you could forgo a skill and substitute another at the cost of being a weaker fighter. But that's a different sort of freedom from what "Themepark" means. But it is another layer that's commonly accepted as part of it, even though it's not at it's core.
Now, lets take WoW as a Class Based Game. Remove the Large Power Gaps and add small enough power gaps that you no longer have to divide the game world up. Now you no longer have to add directions to the players. They can go to any zone, and play equally. They have freedom to do so. It's still a class based game, but it's lost that Theme Park element. It's become a basic Sandbox game.
True, it would be a better Sandbox if it were skill based with greater freedom there too. It would be a much better Sandbox if you had lot's of interaction with the world, starting with doors on the buildings that you could open and close and add the ability to enter those buildings that are sealed off now. But the point is, you can now drive your little Tonka anywhere you want, and play anywhere you want, in that Sandbox world.
Once upon a time....
I've played a great many other games. Sandboxes in particular always struck me as joke games to put one over on customers. ("You mean people pay money for these empty shells of games? What about content?") But my own opinion on that subject doesn't contribute much to discussion...
The truth of the matter is that all entertainment media exists on the line between Total Linearity and Total Freedom.
Games, by definition, only exist in the middle part of this line (without some choice, it's not a game; yet without rules, it's also not a game.)
MMORPGs fall within games, and due to their mechanics tend to fall on the freedom side of games. They're very feature rich, and you're able to choose which of those features to engage with.
Themepark and sandbox are therefore not terribly far apart in the grand scheme of things, because even though they're opposing ends of the MMORPG spectrum, that spectrum falls on the choice side of games.
Calling themeparks "linear" (or inferring they don't involve plenty of player freedom) is therefore laughably inaccurate.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'M UP TO THAT CHALLENGE!
http://www.wordlibs.com/genre/libs/index.php?story=12929&name=This+is+what+a+typical+sandbox+MMO+is...
Somebody try it out and tell me what they think of it.
Hey, before the MOD's lock this thread, would it be to much to ask those debating on what the definition of theme park and sandbox games are to a different thread. Thanks.
It's got to be hybrid, because sometimes I have lots of time to play, and sometimes I don't.
When I don't have much time to play, I just want to get a few quests in or do something that's easy on the brain. When I do have time to play, I want to be able to luxuriate, stretch out, take time over every little decision, explore, smell the roses, enact risky big plans, etc.
(I definitely don't have enough time for guilds and corps and stuff, but for the social side of my casual play I like to be able to PUG too, which is more of a theme-parky thing I guess.)
I'm aware you are an experienced gamer, but it looks to me you have had some bad encounters with sandbox games been released lately.
Games that are empty shells have nothing to do with a game being a sandbox or a themepark. These shells are incomplete games that have been forced to release due to lack of funding, or produced by an incompetent game studio. Unfortunately, most sandbox games have been like these for some time now, and I'm not surprised investors are not really excited to throw their money for a project that's doomed to fail.
I like your definition for a game. It's funny when someone always remember to mention 2nd Life when talking about sandboxes. By your definition 2nd Life is not really a game, even it is a sandbox. However, I'm positive a themepark can be very feature rich, just like a sandbox can be an empty shell of a game.
I also like your defintion of an MMORPG, but the growing trend in modern themeparks seems to be to cut player freedom, make it more linear in order to have it easier for a player to follow up, and decrease the amount of features that could be overwhelming for Average Joe. In my opinion, a great game should do the exact opposite than what I just described in this paragraph.
I really can't say all themeparks are linear or are lacking player freedom, but the fact is that many, if not all, of these post-WoW themeparks are fitting to this description. Even more, patch by patch are these older themeparks driven to fit into this 'new' mold, which is really sad.
By the definitions provided I said a hybrid is best because I like how players can control the economy and make guilds etc. but I can't stand games that have housing because it costs waaaaaaay too much.
*Jesus te ama*
its seems to me that no one can really put there fingers on the definition of a themepark game and a sandbox game. I'm not saying all of you are wrong but all of you are right.
I think the definitions for both themepark and sandbox overlap and are extremely broad therefore no ONE definition is accurate enough.
I think that deniter is right by saying you may have had some bad experiences with sandbox games, but only by the way you have written axehilt.
I think that everyone can agree that themepark games are more linear than a sandbox game and a sandbox game has more freedom than a themepark game
*Jesus te ama*
I fell for the trap-poll and voted hybrid. I mean, thats what all future MMORPGs are going to strive for anyway, right?
In general this might be true, but in application it doesn't hold up so well. For WoW maybe but look at Istaria:
They have classes, 100 levels and therefore large powergaps but it is probably one of the most sandboxy games out right now. It lets you completely customize your character, crafting is real and significant and the player can make a significant and contribution and even alteration to the world.
Venge