Originally posted by pkpkpk These terms are nearly meaningless buzz words. The only definition I've seen of them is that a theme park uses levels and a sand box uses skills. The latter system has always been prone to macro users and so every game I've seen that uses it has been a disreputable playground for 'griefers', since the strongest people end up being those that have cheated. I haven't played a skill-based MMO and don't want to. Darkfall is a good example of the style: a monoculture of unethical players. For PvE a level-based game with forced grouping is clearly the best (FFXI, EQ, EQ2). For PvP level-based is still the best, but the rules should be much more complex. Magical gear should be extremely rare, levels should be limited and not difficult to gain, player accountability is the most important thing. Shadowbane has so far been the best that I've seen. Above all death should be meaningful. Cash or inventory loot or both at a minimum. GW2 and Warhammer and terrible PvP games because of the lack of meaningful deaths.
Well.. your definition of sandbox vs themepark isnt correct. It has nothing to do with skill vs. level per se. Even a class based game could be build up as a sandbox, even if i think that classes are to some degree against the principle of a sandbox.
And after all.. Shadowbane was a sandbox.
As i often said. basicly, a sandbox is, if you can change the world(simply put).
Or a little bit more specific:
If you can create, modify, destroy and interact with persistent objects in a persistent world. And as more objects you can do this as more is the sandbox value. Simpliest example.
Able to build a house, to modify it(decoration as example), to destroy it and to interact with it(lock up door, be able to decorate it, go in, lock in someone into it, and so forth). And with that emergent gameplay will be generated(or player driven content).
If a game has just that, and all the rest is themeparkish(levels, classes, heavy vertical progression, quest hubs) it is neverthelss some kind of sandbox, and you will be able to change(with a lot of houses, or the lack of) the world. By the way, if crafted items(armor, weapons) would be placeable in the persistent world, and would stay there(with other worlds if they would be persistent, which isnt the case in nowadays game with bind on equip, bind on pickup, and not be persistent, or dropable in the world) would also count as that.
But of course, it would be preferable if more objects would get this state(like trees, pets/mounts, or whatever). And the best or purest sandbox scenario would be, if any object in the world would behave like that.
And this is the point where classes come into play. With classes the player character(as one of those objects) dont behave like that.. he is no longer modifiable. He is bound to a certain path, you cant modify it, to be something completely different.
Levels or Skill Progression is basicly just a number, and it depends much more on how it is implemented, than the term alone. But of course the openness of a world, or character progression is also often referred to a sandbox. But in my mind it is much more the open world design pattern, which goes more often then not hand in hand with sandbox design, but is not necessarily correlated.
Of course, there is no 100% definition for sandbox gaming. But just think about the real sandbox, and my definition, and the way a open world is like. A real sandbox is very limited in space, with strict borders, but within you can more or less do whatever you can imagine. Like create, modify, destroy and somewhat interact with objects within the sandbox.
Another sidenote. FFA games like DayZ will be more often than not referred as sandbox gameplay. But you cannot create a lot of objects there, isnt? Well.. you can create, modify, destroy and interact with player characters. You can create, modify, destroy and interact with camp fires and a few other objects, and you can even with more objects modify, destroy and interact(like weapons, vehicles and so forth) persistently.
So and now took WoW as example:
Can you create any object persistently? Just your player characters(and mount as character extention, it can not be alone in the world persistently), and even player characters are not really persistently.(if you log out they are gone)
Can you modify any object persistently? Just your player character. (Again, items are not persistently, you can not drop them, you can a lot of them not even trade, like bind on equip or more restrictive bind on pickup)
Can you destroy any object persistently? No. (within a pvp server you could argue, that you can destroy other player characters.. but on the other side.. respawning is not really destroying, but argueable overall)
Can you interact with objects? With a few objects, but very limited. Like sitting on a chair. Open some doors. Attack mobs. In a few MMOs you can even just interact with Mobs at all. But overall.. well.. very limited.
So basicly you can not even do those 4 things with just one object in WoW.
Issue with sandbox is it tends to reflect capitalism where the players on top always will be on top and the players below are practically unable to get up to the top. This can be through skills or through wealth and its just a horrible experience, particularly with open pvp leading to griefing of players, the person focusing on those who stand no chance which to me, is just pathetic. If you gank someone, gank someone who is your level with your potential at the very least. Games like minecraft (I know, why that game) show a good example of how sandbox can work, providing the ability for servers to be made and created and the playing field given an easier time for players to catch up or simply move servers and find newer places to have a shot at the top.
Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top.
In my eyes, those below me will be below me, when it comes to MMORPG gaming. Why would I not abuse such power in an MMORPG environment? What truly pathetic is to me is the players who are afraid of competitive experience. Everything should be a non-challenging joyride. People give up way too easily these days, that's the issue.
So, you aren't the top dog on the server? Well, strife to be, if not, why play multiplayer games at all?
LOL...I don't play games to release my inner bully...or my inner Roman Gladiator...
= Content/Entertainment comes directly from the developers, mostly in terms of passively consumed content like dungeons, raids or quests
Sandbox
= Content/Entertainment comes directly from other players using tools and game mechanics developers made not knowing exactly how people will use them actively.
Additional
Theme Park: New content is mainly created by quest or dungeon designers adding new storys
Sandbox: New content is mainly created by developers adding new game mechanis or tools players can use
Best way to describe the two is with this analogy:
= Content/Entertainment comes directly from the developers, mostly in terms of passively consumed content like dungeons, raids or quests
Sandbox
= Content/Entertainment comes directly from other players using tools and game mechanics developers made not knowing exactly how people will use them actively.
Additional
Theme Park: New content is mainly created by quest or dungeon designers adding new storys
Sandbox: New content is mainly created by developers adding new game mechanis or tools players can use
Best way to describe the two is with this analogy:
Sandbox is to lego as Themepark is to legoland.
Nice analogy.
However I think the problem for the discussion is to clearly seperate between both, which is not possible.
Most of the time the question is how much themepark or sandbox elements does a game have.
Ultima Online I would describe as a Sandbox Game, however it has also theme park elements, just by having Quests.
Quests do not make a game part themepark. SWG was one of the best sandbox games ever and it had what you could call a quest system. Sandbox means an open world with open character development based on a skill system with a crafting system that defines the economy. Yeah there are other, anciliary things that add to a sandbox, but are not needed for a game to be one.
When does it stop being an MMO and start being a building platform?
...I am on second life, I have a partner, and land, and a business (that makes me rl money), I go to live concerts, roleplay, build, explore. None of this feels like a game to me, and it is generally accepted (as I have seen) that second life, IMVU, Active Worlds and others like them are building platforms...you can build a game on them but they are not games themselves.
Then there is something like minecraft...it has a combat system, some pretty fixed physics, and some basic rescources collection and application, even NPC enemies populated throughout the world. Yet you can build your house almost any way you like within the games limitations. Assign your own storyline etc. Is this an MMO (I don't actually play minecraft)?
I am not sure an MMO can escape being theme park and still bean MMO. I think it may be that an MMO is theme park by default and can incorperate some sandbox elements of building platforms. If it does it enough while clearly remaining a game, then it is a sandboxy game, imo...but to me that doesn't nescessarily have to make it any less theme park. As you can add to something without also taking something away.
Issue with sandbox is it tends to reflect capitalism where the players on top always will be on top and the players below are practically unable to get up to the top. This can be through skills or through wealth and its just a horrible experience, particularly with open pvp leading to griefing of players, the person focusing on those who stand no chance which to me, is just pathetic. If you gank someone, gank someone who is your level with your potential at the very least. Games like minecraft (I know, why that game) show a good example of how sandbox can work, providing the ability for servers to be made and created and the playing field given an easier time for players to catch up or simply move servers and find newer places to have a shot at the top.
Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top.
In my eyes, those below me will be below me, when it comes to MMORPG gaming. Why would I not abuse such power in an MMORPG environment? What truly pathetic is to me is the players who are afraid of competitive experience. Everything should be a non-challenging joyride. People give up way too easily these days, that's the issue.
So, you aren't the top dog on the server? Well, strife to be, if not, why play multiplayer games at all?
LOL...I don't play games to release my inner bully...or my inner Roman Gladiator...
I don't believe that was his point at all. In a competitive environment, there will always be a bigger fish. Be it sandbox, themepark, blah, blah, blah, there will always be a select few at the top. Whether it's because they're more organized, efficient, exploitative, have more time or are just overall better, they'll always be there. I understandthe concern, butdo you honestly believe this is exclusive to games that have sandbox-esque mechanics? Take a good luck at Guild Wars 2.
During the first few weeks, a lot of players made a lot of money from exploiting the game. ANet eventually patched these issues and those missed out, missed out. Though, to be fair, there were a decent amount of temporary bans. I believe some of the first few players to craft their legendary weapons happened to be alpha testers. They knew well in advance what they needed in order to craft them. Then there's the players who would glitch CoF and do speed runs, people who manipulate the Trading Post, etc. The list goes on and on. Hell, there was even a post on reddit by someone claiming to have found a new recipe for a precursor weapon. The recipe turned out to be bogus. He bought up a massive amount of a certain item, claimed you needed said item for the recipe, then sold the item in bulk for a huge profit. Needless to say, people "lost," a lot of gold.
This sort of behavior is seen in practically every game that involves humans. It's a bummer, but it's a human nature. I'm sure there are ways to alleviate these issues, but at what cost? How much freedom do you have to sacrifice in order to achieve equality for all? Is it even possible in an MMORPG?
"Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top."
I'm not so sure about that. I'd imagine most people who have checked out sandbox MMORPGs and left have done so because they're either underfunded, unpolished, lack exposure/support, littered with bugs, or all of the above. Can you name me a recent, AAA sandbox MMO?
"Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top."
I'm not so sure about that. I'd imagine most people who have checked out sandbox MMORPGs and left have done so because they're either underfunded, unpolished, lack exposure/support, littered with bugs, or all of the above. Can you name me a recent, AAA sandbox MMO?
Agree. I tried and left any sandbox games because of the reason listed above, plus there is non that has the suitable playstyle of sandbox I like to play. I want to walk and do activities with my character, not space ship in EVE Online, but that is not available. 3rd person control in Darkfall doesn't do justice. I prefer tab target. Mortal Online, no 3rd person view, littered with bugs and way too slow gameplay. Most of sandbox seems to be open world PvP, where I would much prefer PvE sandbox with PvP as an option. EVE Online does a good job at that with low sec and high sec seperate the heat, even though players still can start firing at anyone, but in high sec there could suffer the concequences more than within low sec. Economy and trading also important in sandbox game. Ryzom was good, but user interface need work. Character customization not good enough for today standard. There just no sandbox game up to my standard available in the market at the moment. EVE Online come at the top, Ryzom is second, but both has enough flaws that prevent me from continue playing it.
I posted this in the comments for the latest Wildstar article, however it is for wider discussion so I'll repost here to see what people think:
it seems that the term themepark is becoming synonym with bad game design, so developers are trying to sell their games based on anything that is NOT themepark no matter how small it is.
we are ourselves to blame. since there's a push for sandbox features (at least on this website), devs are picking up the term and running with it.
I'd suggest that we as players should not use themepark/sandbox general terms but rather specific game features that we want to see implemented (housing, free-form classes, weather/season/night/day cycles, resource depletion/migration etc). this way we get at least some features implemented in some mmos without resorting to name calling (sandbox vs themepark or hybrid).
I am sick of this generic arguments what makes a sandbox and what makes a themepark. specify the features and mechanics that will make a game interested. that's the way forward. otherwise we leave the interpretation to the devs and then argue in useless discussions about semantics that will not accomplish anything.
I don't believe that was his point at all. In a competitive environment, there will always be a bigger fish. Be it sandbox, themepark, blah, blah, blah, there will always be a select few at the top. Whether it's because they're more organized, efficient, exploitative, have more time or are just overall better, they'll always be there. I understandthe concern, butdo you honestly believe this is exclusive to games that have sandbox-esque mechanics? Take a good luck at Guild Wars 2.
During the first few weeks, a lot of players made a lot of money from exploiting the game. ANet eventually patched these issues and those missed out, missed out. Though, to be fair, there were a decent amount of temporary bans. I believe some of the first few players to craft their legendary weapons happened to be alpha testers. They knew well in advance what they needed in order to craft them. Then there's the players who would glitch CoF and do speed runs, people who manipulate the Trading Post, etc. The list goes on and on. Hell, there was even a post on reddit by someone claiming to have found a new recipe for a precursor weapon. The recipe turned out to be bogus. He bought up a massive amount of a certain item, claimed you needed said item for the recipe, then sold the item in bulk for a huge profit. Needless to say, people "lost," a lot of gold.
This sort of behavior is seen in practically every game that involves humans. It's a bummer, but it's a human nature. I'm sure there are ways to alleviate these issues, but at what cost? How much freedom do you have to sacrifice in order to achieve equality for all? Is it even possible in an MMORPG?
"Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top."
I'm not so sure about that. I'd imagine most people who have checked out sandbox MMORPGs and left have done so because they're either underfunded, unpolished, lack exposure/support, littered with bugs, or all of the above. Can you name me a recent, AAA sandbox MMO?
Yup, that wasn't my point at all. In all MMORPG's theres the bigger fish, and I don't understand those who really quit the game because "I cannot be #1".
Also, you are one hundred percent correct on Sandboxes these days, they are all small scale A only titles, and they obviously cannot compete with AAA titles.
I still meet people who say "Shadowbane had the best MMORPG concept ever, but the game itself sucked balls". And I agree to them, the game was about building cities, constructing nations, warring with other nations, politics and everything small scale between. It had a revolutionary class system, but the game was only good on paper. It was a buggy piece of troll garbage you just had to keep playing because the concept was so awesome. And that game wasn't a sandbox, it just offered something else than rince and repeat gameplay.
In a sandbox, you have a little plastic pail and shovel. In a themepark you have roller coasters and thrill rides. seems like a no brainer which is better
Originally posted by wrightstuf In a sandbox, you have a little plastic pail and shovel. In a themepark you have roller coasters and thrill rides. seems like a no brainer which is better
Hrhr.. hell yeah, the roller coaster and the thrill rides of course. Ähem stop. until you realize you can build up a roller coaster and even more trhilling rides with those little plastic pail and shovel and a castle a dungeon and whatever you like. Now you dont care as much about roller coaster.. rather bland arent they? I like the little plastic pail and my shovel.
Originally posted by wrightstuf In a sandbox, you have a little plastic pail and shovel. In a themepark you have roller coasters and thrill rides. seems like a no brainer which is better
Hrhr.. hell yeah, the roller coaster and the thrill rides of course. Ähem stop. until you realize you can build up a roller coaster and even more trhilling rides with those little plastic pail and shovel and a castle a dungeon and whatever you like. Now you dont care as much about roller coaster.. rather bland arent they? I like the little plastic pail and my shovel.
But is the roller coaster built by someone good at it that has done it 100 times or a first-time amateur roller-coaster builder? I'm sure the amateur builder would be pleased as punch building his first roller-coaster but I know which one I'd like to ride..
I think some people think that the rest of us would enjoy what they do with their pail and shovel...I'm not so sure.
Take player housing... do I really have to come over and look at your new re-decorated scheme? How many times do I have to say "ooh" and "ahh" before you'll agree to come help me kill the goddam troll eating my sheep? And by the way, a pink couch with green walls is just weird.
I'm there to kill trolls and maybe make some underwear with the wool from my sheep. I want an interior decorating simulator in my MMO about as much as I want a knitting simulator in it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by rungard even real life theme parks have more than 1 kind of ride.
And they were all built by theme park ride experts.... thank god!
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The quote did not show up in my post so had to add it manually. I am responding to MMOExposed.
Originally posted by sagil
Sandbox should actually have more content than themepark. Take this as an example of a feature: quests (i dont like seeing just terrain, i would like to go on missions and uncover the history of the world) that give fame to particular factions. Since in sandbox you skill up instead of going up in levels so you can freely choose what to be.
It's too bad only small budget developers are making sandbox games.
Not necessarily. I've been following Greed Monger with much interest. It certainly does not lack features, every item in the game will be player-crafted including buildings, yet it is a Sandbox in every respect.
Originally posted by wrightstuf In a sandbox, you have a little plastic pail and shovel. In a themepark you have roller coasters and thrill rides. seems like a no brainer which is better
Hrhr.. hell yeah, the roller coaster and the thrill rides of course. Ähem stop. until you realize you can build up a roller coaster and even more trhilling rides with those little plastic pail and shovel and a castle a dungeon and whatever you like. Now you dont care as much about roller coaster.. rather bland arent they? I like the little plastic pail and my shovel.
But is the roller coaster built by someone good at it that has done it 100 times or a first-time amateur roller-coaster builder? I'm sure the amateur builder would be pleased as punch building his first roller-coaster but I know which one I'd like to ride..
This made me laugh because I thought something along these lines yesterday.
My theory is the following:
You can't have Sanbox without Themepark. Every game must have some type of layout in place for the game already developed, tested, and implemented the correct way for it to be enjoyable. Because you can go to both extremes and say a game is completely "themepark" and its just the player going from one ride to another jsut sitting back enjoying what the developers created with minimal interactions. On the other side you can make your game totally "sanbox" and give you players a 3d engine and graphics tool and say "enjoy yourself". We all know both extremes will NOT work.
Just like in a themepark there could be an already layed out rollercoaster, there can also be a virtual coaster that has the tools for people to pick certain layouts and create their customized rollercoaster and ride it, creation is part of the player experience some people like it some people do not.
The trick is to take every game system that players are looking for and that mesh well together and create a frankenstein of a creation balancing out systems by deciding how "themepark" or "sandbox" they should be to make the game experience you and your team are trying to create come alive (pun intended). Sometimes game developers get it right and you have a game players enjoy for a while and most the time s**t hits the fan.
In the end of the day it all comes down to what audience you are looking to attract and the experience you want them to receive. The key to making a great game: Balance
Originally posted by wrightstuf In a sandbox, you have a little plastic pail and shovel. In a themepark you have roller coasters and thrill rides. seems like a no brainer which is better
Hrhr.. hell yeah, the roller coaster and the thrill rides of course. Ähem stop. until you realize you can build up a roller coaster and even more trhilling rides with those little plastic pail and shovel and a castle a dungeon and whatever you like. Now you dont care as much about roller coaster.. rather bland arent they? I like the little plastic pail and my shovel.
But is the roller coaster built by someone good at it that has done it 100 times or a first-time amateur roller-coaster builder? I'm sure the amateur builder would be pleased as punch building his first roller-coaster but I know which one I'd like to ride..
This made me laugh because I thought something along these lines yesterday.
My theory is the following:
You can't have Sanbox without Themepark. Every game must have some type of layout in place for the game already developed, tested, and implemented the correct way for it to be enjoyable. Because you can go to both extremes and say a game is completely "themepark" and its just the player going from one ride to another jsut sitting back enjoying what the developers created with minimal interactions. On the other side you can make your game totally "sanbox" and give you players a 3d engine and graphics tool and say "enjoy yourself". We all know both extremes will NOT work.
Just like in a themepark there could be an already layed out rollercoaster, there can also be a virtual coaster that has the tools for people to pick certain layouts and create their customized rollercoaster and ride it, creation is part of the player experience some people like it some people do not.
The trick is to take every game system that players are looking for and that mesh well together and create a frankenstein of a creation balancing out systems by deciding how "themepark" or "sandbox" they should be to make the game experience you and your team are trying to create come alive (pun intended). Sometimes game developers get it right and you have a game players enjoy for a while and most the time s**t hits the fan.
In the end of the day it all comes down to what audience you are looking to attract and the experience you want them to receive. The key to making a great game: Balance
I agree. Watching my own kids play in many real sandboxes, I know that the best ones are well supervised by good supervisors
balanced hybrids are best and the more possibilities they've anticipated and managed with the goal of having fun clearly in mind, the better the result.
i personally am watching they development of REPOP (the repopulation) with great interest. Their goal seems to be a well-managed and inclusive sandbox (it's really a hybrid but shhh! Don't tell the purists) with something for everyone. It has some of the core sandbox elements such as improving skills by using them, city building, etc., but also a highly customizable "mission" (quests with story arcs) system catering to individuals depending on their previous activities. I hope they manage to pull it off.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Um no. I'm almost entirely certain that the majority of people will play both, however they will play one or the other depending on their particular mood or what they want to accomplish.
Yes there are some people that are more imaginative. However there is very little difference in the population at large. Most people use their imagination a lot, whether they realize it or not.
To say that one type of visual interface game is better suited for someone with imagination vs another is the height of self aggrandizing ludicrous puffed up self-righteous elitist bs.
The question is simply what is their purpose for playing and what do they hope to accomplish.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It is pretty obvious with the current "lifespan" (for players) of themeparks that have come out recently, that players really want a change for longevity and a "world to live in" and we all know, the only real way to deliver that is sandbox.
WE wan't "EVE - DF - UO - AC"-baby on steroids on the ground with a relatable character avatar, fps/tps player skill based combat, freedom of building, player driven economy with a multitude of professions from trader, crafter, gatherer (aquisitioner) to full blown military combat spec, (sci-fi, fantasy, modern day), doesn't really even matter what genre.
FULL BLOWN SANDBOX with some scripted events, quests, stories to boost the experience and immersion is the way of the future, you can mark my words on that and quote me in the future.
themepark FTW(with few and limited sandbox elements)
sandbox will only get u the famous monoclegate from EVE,,or players scamming 50k$, and devs calling it
If you are stupid enough to fall for a someone scamming then it is your fault.A themepark will get you a shiney new "epic" rare that you'll have to trendmill grind for following the next update. Sometimes you'll get some half-arse attempt at territory control, but it usually offers nothing except visual pleasing rewards.
"metagaming"
SWG was sandbox too,,how did that work out?
Funny because I though SWG was a sucessful sandbox mmorpg until SOE ruined it with NGE and CU patches.
and lastly,,pandaland ,,the most successful MMO on the market,,themepark de luxe
sandbox does sound tempting, but seeing how some players will try to ruin others gaming experience,,
the devs would need a full gestapo force to control the bad apples,,and that prolly wont happen
This is why there are so many garbage mmo coming out for the past 7 years. WoW was extremely sucessful so lets make every game based upon their prinicipals. Lets not. It has made the genre stagnant and repeitive. There are no AAA companies that will make a great sandbox mmorpg because they don't want to take the risk. The only thing WoW has done right is making a smooth game with updates over the years.
Players should be the ones to weed out bad crops, except for hackers, not moderators.
The problem with Sandbox mmorpg is that they're a lot more difficult to do correctly. However, that doesn't change the fact that a well-designed sandbox mmorpg can be very fun, as opposed to a themepark mmorpg, which doesn't fully use the multiplayer aspect. The fact that so many people want a real sandbox mmorpg isn't just an illusion or a lie. It is just a matter of implementation.
Comments
Well.. your definition of sandbox vs themepark isnt correct. It has nothing to do with skill vs. level per se. Even a class based game could be build up as a sandbox, even if i think that classes are to some degree against the principle of a sandbox.
And after all.. Shadowbane was a sandbox.
As i often said. basicly, a sandbox is, if you can change the world(simply put).
Or a little bit more specific:
If you can create, modify, destroy and interact with persistent objects in a persistent world. And as more objects you can do this as more is the sandbox value. Simpliest example.
Able to build a house, to modify it(decoration as example), to destroy it and to interact with it(lock up door, be able to decorate it, go in, lock in someone into it, and so forth). And with that emergent gameplay will be generated(or player driven content).
If a game has just that, and all the rest is themeparkish(levels, classes, heavy vertical progression, quest hubs) it is neverthelss some kind of sandbox, and you will be able to change(with a lot of houses, or the lack of) the world. By the way, if crafted items(armor, weapons) would be placeable in the persistent world, and would stay there(with other worlds if they would be persistent, which isnt the case in nowadays game with bind on equip, bind on pickup, and not be persistent, or dropable in the world) would also count as that.
But of course, it would be preferable if more objects would get this state(like trees, pets/mounts, or whatever). And the best or purest sandbox scenario would be, if any object in the world would behave like that.
And this is the point where classes come into play. With classes the player character(as one of those objects) dont behave like that.. he is no longer modifiable. He is bound to a certain path, you cant modify it, to be something completely different.
Levels or Skill Progression is basicly just a number, and it depends much more on how it is implemented, than the term alone. But of course the openness of a world, or character progression is also often referred to a sandbox. But in my mind it is much more the open world design pattern, which goes more often then not hand in hand with sandbox design, but is not necessarily correlated.
Of course, there is no 100% definition for sandbox gaming. But just think about the real sandbox, and my definition, and the way a open world is like. A real sandbox is very limited in space, with strict borders, but within you can more or less do whatever you can imagine. Like create, modify, destroy and somewhat interact with objects within the sandbox.
Another sidenote. FFA games like DayZ will be more often than not referred as sandbox gameplay. But you cannot create a lot of objects there, isnt? Well.. you can create, modify, destroy and interact with player characters. You can create, modify, destroy and interact with camp fires and a few other objects, and you can even with more objects modify, destroy and interact(like weapons, vehicles and so forth) persistently.
So and now took WoW as example:
Can you create any object persistently? Just your player characters(and mount as character extention, it can not be alone in the world persistently), and even player characters are not really persistently.(if you log out they are gone)
Can you modify any object persistently? Just your player character. (Again, items are not persistently, you can not drop them, you can a lot of them not even trade, like bind on equip or more restrictive bind on pickup)
Can you destroy any object persistently? No. (within a pvp server you could argue, that you can destroy other player characters.. but on the other side.. respawning is not really destroying, but argueable overall)
Can you interact with objects? With a few objects, but very limited. Like sitting on a chair. Open some doors. Attack mobs. In a few MMOs you can even just interact with Mobs at all. But overall.. well.. very limited.
So basicly you can not even do those 4 things with just one object in WoW.
LOL...I don't play games to release my inner bully...or my inner Roman Gladiator...
Best way to describe the two is with this analogy:
Sandbox is to lego as Themepark is to legoland.
Nice analogy.
However I think the problem for the discussion is to clearly seperate between both, which is not possible.
Most of the time the question is how much themepark or sandbox elements does a game have.
Ultima Online I would describe as a Sandbox Game, however it has also theme park elements, just by having Quests.
A medieval sandbox MMO
http://www.facebook.com/albiononline/
Quests do not make a game part themepark. SWG was one of the best sandbox games ever and it had what you could call a quest system. Sandbox means an open world with open character development based on a skill system with a crafting system that defines the economy. Yeah there are other, anciliary things that add to a sandbox, but are not needed for a game to be one.
So yeah UO was a true sandbox as was SWG.
When does it stop being an MMO and start being a building platform?
...I am on second life, I have a partner, and land, and a business (that makes me rl money), I go to live concerts, roleplay, build, explore. None of this feels like a game to me, and it is generally accepted (as I have seen) that second life, IMVU, Active Worlds and others like them are building platforms...you can build a game on them but they are not games themselves.
Then there is something like minecraft...it has a combat system, some pretty fixed physics, and some basic rescources collection and application, even NPC enemies populated throughout the world. Yet you can build your house almost any way you like within the games limitations. Assign your own storyline etc. Is this an MMO (I don't actually play minecraft)?
I am not sure an MMO can escape being theme park and still bean MMO. I think it may be that an MMO is theme park by default and can incorperate some sandbox elements of building platforms. If it does it enough while clearly remaining a game, then it is a sandboxy game, imo...but to me that doesn't nescessarily have to make it any less theme park. As you can add to something without also taking something away.
I don't believe that was his point at all. In a competitive environment, there will always be a bigger fish. Be it sandbox, themepark, blah, blah, blah, there will always be a select few at the top. Whether it's because they're more organized, efficient, exploitative, have more time or are just overall better, they'll always be there. I understand the concern, but do you honestly believe this is exclusive to games that have sandbox-esque mechanics? Take a good luck at Guild Wars 2.
During the first few weeks, a lot of players made a lot of money from exploiting the game. ANet eventually patched these issues and those missed out, missed out. Though, to be fair, there were a decent amount of temporary bans. I believe some of the first few players to craft their legendary weapons happened to be alpha testers. They knew well in advance what they needed in order to craft them. Then there's the players who would glitch CoF and do speed runs, people who manipulate the Trading Post, etc. The list goes on and on. Hell, there was even a post on reddit by someone claiming to have found a new recipe for a precursor weapon. The recipe turned out to be bogus. He bought up a massive amount of a certain item, claimed you needed said item for the recipe, then sold the item in bulk for a huge profit. Needless to say, people "lost," a lot of gold.
This sort of behavior is seen in practically every game that involves humans. It's a bummer, but it's a human nature. I'm sure there are ways to alleviate these issues, but at what cost? How much freedom do you have to sacrifice in order to achieve equality for all? Is it even possible in an MMORPG?
"Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top."
I'm not so sure about that. I'd imagine most people who have checked out sandbox MMORPGs and left have done so because they're either underfunded, unpolished, lack exposure/support, littered with bugs, or all of the above. Can you name me a recent, AAA sandbox MMO?
Agree. I tried and left any sandbox games because of the reason listed above, plus there is non that has the suitable playstyle of sandbox I like to play. I want to walk and do activities with my character, not space ship in EVE Online, but that is not available. 3rd person control in Darkfall doesn't do justice. I prefer tab target. Mortal Online, no 3rd person view, littered with bugs and way too slow gameplay. Most of sandbox seems to be open world PvP, where I would much prefer PvE sandbox with PvP as an option. EVE Online does a good job at that with low sec and high sec seperate the heat, even though players still can start firing at anyone, but in high sec there could suffer the concequences more than within low sec. Economy and trading also important in sandbox game. Ryzom was good, but user interface need work. Character customization not good enough for today standard. There just no sandbox game up to my standard available in the market at the moment. EVE Online come at the top, Ryzom is second, but both has enough flaws that prevent me from continue playing it.
I posted this in the comments for the latest Wildstar article, however it is for wider discussion so I'll repost here to see what people think:
it seems that the term themepark is becoming synonym with bad game design, so developers are trying to sell their games based on anything that is NOT themepark no matter how small it is.
we are ourselves to blame. since there's a push for sandbox features (at least on this website), devs are picking up the term and running with it.I'd suggest that we as players should not use themepark/sandbox general terms but rather specific game features that we want to see implemented (housing, free-form classes, weather/season/night/day cycles, resource depletion/migration etc). this way we get at least some features implemented in some mmos without resorting to name calling (sandbox vs themepark or hybrid).
I am sick of this generic arguments what makes a sandbox and what makes a themepark. specify the features and mechanics that will make a game interested. that's the way forward. otherwise we leave the interpretation to the devs and then argue in useless discussions about semantics that will not accomplish anything.
Yup, that wasn't my point at all. In all MMORPG's theres the bigger fish, and I don't understand those who really quit the game because "I cannot be #1".
Also, you are one hundred percent correct on Sandboxes these days, they are all small scale A only titles, and they obviously cannot compete with AAA titles.
I still meet people who say "Shadowbane had the best MMORPG concept ever, but the game itself sucked balls". And I agree to them, the game was about building cities, constructing nations, warring with other nations, politics and everything small scale between. It had a revolutionary class system, but the game was only good on paper. It was a buggy piece of troll garbage you just had to keep playing because the concept was so awesome. And that game wasn't a sandbox, it just offered something else than rince and repeat gameplay.
Hrhr.. hell yeah, the roller coaster and the thrill rides of course. Ähem stop. until you realize you can build up a roller coaster and even more trhilling rides with those little plastic pail and shovel and a castle a dungeon and whatever you like. Now you dont care as much about roller coaster.. rather bland arent they? I like the little plastic pail and my shovel.
But is the roller coaster built by someone good at it that has done it 100 times or a first-time amateur roller-coaster builder? I'm sure the amateur builder would be pleased as punch building his first roller-coaster but I know which one I'd like to ride..
I think some people think that the rest of us would enjoy what they do with their pail and shovel...I'm not so sure.
Take player housing... do I really have to come over and look at your new re-decorated scheme? How many times do I have to say "ooh" and "ahh" before you'll agree to come help me kill the goddam troll eating my sheep? And by the way, a pink couch with green walls is just weird.
I'm there to kill trolls and maybe make some underwear with the wool from my sheep. I want an interior decorating simulator in my MMO about as much as I want a knitting simulator in it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
And they were all built by theme park ride experts.... thank god!
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The quote did not show up in my post so had to add it manually. I am responding to MMOExposed.
Originally posted by sagil
Sandbox should actually have more content than themepark. Take this as an example of a feature: quests (i dont like seeing just terrain, i would like to go on missions and uncover the history of the world) that give fame to particular factions. Since in sandbox you skill up instead of going up in levels so you can freely choose what to be.
It's too bad only small budget developers are making sandbox games.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandbox with lots of contents is a Theme Park
___________________________________________________________________________
Not necessarily. I've been following Greed Monger with much interest. It certainly does not lack features, every item in the game will be player-crafted including buildings, yet it is a Sandbox in every respect.
This made me laugh because I thought something along these lines yesterday.
My theory is the following:
You can't have Sanbox without Themepark. Every game must have some type of layout in place for the game already developed, tested, and implemented the correct way for it to be enjoyable. Because you can go to both extremes and say a game is completely "themepark" and its just the player going from one ride to another jsut sitting back enjoying what the developers created with minimal interactions. On the other side you can make your game totally "sanbox" and give you players a 3d engine and graphics tool and say "enjoy yourself". We all know both extremes will NOT work.
Just like in a themepark there could be an already layed out rollercoaster, there can also be a virtual coaster that has the tools for people to pick certain layouts and create their customized rollercoaster and ride it, creation is part of the player experience some people like it some people do not.
The trick is to take every game system that players are looking for and that mesh well together and create a frankenstein of a creation balancing out systems by deciding how "themepark" or "sandbox" they should be to make the game experience you and your team are trying to create come alive (pun intended). Sometimes game developers get it right and you have a game players enjoy for a while and most the time s**t hits the fan.
In the end of the day it all comes down to what audience you are looking to attract and the experience you want them to receive. The key to making a great game: Balance
I agree. Watching my own kids play in many real sandboxes, I know that the best ones are well supervised by good supervisors
balanced hybrids are best and the more possibilities they've anticipated and managed with the goal of having fun clearly in mind, the better the result.
i personally am watching they development of REPOP (the repopulation) with great interest. Their goal seems to be a well-managed and inclusive sandbox (it's really a hybrid but shhh! Don't tell the purists) with something for everyone. It has some of the core sandbox elements such as improving skills by using them, city building, etc., but also a highly customizable "mission" (quests with story arcs) system catering to individuals depending on their previous activities. I hope they manage to pull it off.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Um no. I'm almost entirely certain that the majority of people will play both, however they will play one or the other depending on their particular mood or what they want to accomplish.
Yes there are some people that are more imaginative. However there is very little difference in the population at large. Most people use their imagination a lot, whether they realize it or not.
To say that one type of visual interface game is better suited for someone with imagination vs another is the height of self aggrandizing ludicrous puffed up self-righteous elitist bs.
The question is simply what is their purpose for playing and what do they hope to accomplish.
It is pretty obvious with the current "lifespan" (for players) of themeparks that have come out recently, that players really want a change for longevity and a "world to live in" and we all know, the only real way to deliver that is sandbox.
WE wan't "EVE - DF - UO - AC"-baby on steroids on the ground with a relatable character avatar, fps/tps player skill based combat, freedom of building, player driven economy with a multitude of professions from trader, crafter, gatherer (aquisitioner) to full blown military combat spec, (sci-fi, fantasy, modern day), doesn't really even matter what genre.
FULL BLOWN SANDBOX with some scripted events, quests, stories to boost the experience and immersion is the way of the future, you can mark my words on that and quote me in the future.
These are relevant to the discussion:
Goblin Works BIog: Can See for Miles
Theme Park vs Sandbox MMOs
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
themepark FTW(with few and limited sandbox elements)
sandbox will only get u the famous monoclegate from EVE,,or players scamming 50k$, and devs calling it
"metagaming"
SWG was sandbox too,,how did that work out?
and lastly,,pandaland ,,the most successful MMO on the market,,themepark de luxe
sandbox does sound tempting, but seeing how some players will try to ruin others gaming experience,,
the devs would need a full gestapo force to control the bad apples,,and that prolly wont happen
MurderHerd