Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What is a sandbox?
Bladin
Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
What is a sandbox?
I ask this because it is no longer a true type of game. The fact simply is, sandbox can no longer be used as a descriptive word for games anymore.
The meaning "Sandbox" has been so convoluted by the desperate people who don't know what they want, that it is now 100 different things.
For some a sandbox is open pvp.
For some a sandbox is skill based instead of class
For some a sandbox has no levels
For some a sandbox allows you to change the world
For some a sandbox allows you to craft everything
For some a sandbox allows you to travel to any part of the world from day one, no restrictions(be they mount, boat or anything)
For some a sandbox doesn't have any pve
For some a sandbox doesn't have gear
For some a sandbox doesn't have instances
For some a sandbox doesn't have quests
The list goes on.
But when used in context of someones post, it can mean anything of the above. but not necessarily everything.
A sandbox is simply a game with a large landmass, that you can play in, that's truely all a sandbox is. Does it mean a sandbox isnt the things listed above? no, it can be that.
Heck if you were to compare it to a real life sandbox(which is the point of its name, that you can do anything in it you want). It's just like it, in that what you can do in the sandbox, is dependant on the tools given to you, the amount of sand in it, the shape of the sandbox, and what's underneath the sand.
The problem is the assumption that thats what it is now. as i read on another post before. The term sandbox has been so corrupted that now it means "whatever style mmorpg i personally want"
So i'd like to ask everyone here, please don't use the term sandbox as if it was your personally mmorpg dream. And that every single quality you like is a base sandbox.
Comments
I agree, somewhat. Sandbox as a term tends to be twisted and curved into meaning whatever a given party needs it to mean. However, when I think of it personally, I think that Sandbox means a world in which player activities have some effect on the world, be it for the better or for the worse.
...a quick warning, this post is a bit on the long side.
For instance, say you have your typical fantasy setting. You walk over to a farmer's house and, in an act of douchebaggyness or while trying to kill a mob, set the fields on fire. The farmer would be visibly upset if he were to catch you, and may even attack you. If he doesn't catch you, finding him a short time later would reveal that he's quite depressed, possibly even sobbing. Eventually he may get his fields back, or he may simply lose his farm.
Say you kill that farmer, but don't bother to check his house. It would be entirely within the realm of possibility that his family members may try to track you down with vengeance in mind. Say you do kill that family, it is still possible that they may be found, and the town will talk about "The Tragedy at the Old Moore Farm" for some time after. On top of that, if you are caught red-handed, a bounty could be placed on your character's head, and you may have players coming after you.
Animals could get wise to the fact that people are hunting and killing them for their meat and skins if they stay so close to the front gates of the fortress, so they may move someplace farther or simply run when they see a player. This could be done specifically for a given player, and while some people would be able to walk right up and pet the wild wolves, others would draw their ire, and still others would cause them to flee in fear. It may well be a tell of a player's character.
Chopping down a tree for lumber is all well and good, but dropping one in the middle of a trade route could be horrible for trade between the towns, causing the prices of goods to skyrocket as supply takes a nosedive. Likewise, clearcutting entire sections of a forest while farming for lumber could result in less of it being available, and that now treeless area becoming a plain, and over time, a desert.
Now, say you have yourself a Paladin, only kills hostile or evil creatures, regularly plants flowers and occasionally carries old ladies across puddles in the street, and the world is going to love him for it. Townspeople will happily let him rest in their homes and will give him food if asked, he would get discounts on weapons and armor from decent, hardworking venders, bear cubs will walk up and nussle his ankles... the good folk of the world will basically view him as it's hero. The opposite would be true for a character that only lashes out toward good. The most vile of creatures and peoples would think him their champion, and treat him thusly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Playing: Nothing
Played: Champions Online, CoX, STO, PSO, WoW, lots of free-to-play crap
Looking Forward To: DC Universe Online, Blade and Soul
I'm not sure it solves the problem to simply ask people not to use the term sandbox. I do agree with you that I think people's definitions vary, as I've mentioned on other threads. But I also think it is a valuable concept.
To borrow from another thread, I believe that the problem with definitions of "sandbox" has to do with...
The term "sandbox" as it applies to mmorpgs is not clearly defined
But...I think there are a constellation of features that could be seen as being prototypical of a "sandbox" mmorpg and I believe there are a handful of concepts that could be seen as being the motivating factors for developing / playing a "sandbox" mmorpg such as "freedom of choice"
"Sandbox" mmorpgs do not have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features
I do not believe that they have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features because there is not a rule-based definition. Some may put forth a series of "necessary" features, and some would argue that they are missing a necessary feature, or others would argue that one of the features was not "truly necessary". I believe arriving at a consensus about features that would be "sufficient" would likely be hopeless.
"Sandbox" mmorpg is not a concrete concept, but is an aspirational concept
I think that there are a set of features of a prototypical sandbox mmorpg that serve an aspirational purpose. I am skeptical about how much of a broad appeal it has as an aspirational concept (not everyone agrees that "sandbox" is "better" than linear / themepark. I am skeptical about how much of a mass market appeal a "sandbox" mmorpg would have given competition from more "linear" mmorpgs.
"Sandbox" is a matter of degree - not a "type" or "kind" of game or mmorpg
I believe that "sandbox" lies on a continuum - it is a matter of degree. I see a mmorpg such as EVE Online as being more sandbox than a mmorpg like WoW - but I wouldn't say that EVE is the epitome of sandbox and WoW is the antithesis of sandbox. Rather I would think there is a continuum where neither of these mmorpgs would be at the "end points".
But that being said, I do think there is a "constellation of features" that can be used to describe an "sandbox" exemplar. Reaching a consensus on which of these features should be included may be difficult, but I believe such a set of features the exemplar would contain some of the following:
A playing environment that:
Character design and advancement that:
Gameplay that:
A sandbox MMORPG = The Saga of Ryzom.
I was recently able to get a new account for this resurrected game, and it is both liberating and a lot of fun.
Large gameworld, about equal in size to WoW before Burning Crusades.
Decent graphics, acceptable animations, and rich, complex skill-based gameplay.
But most importantly lots and lots of freedom to become what you want to become without any class restrictions. Seriously, if you are looking for a decent fantasy type sandbox game, with up to date graphics, this is it, at least for the time being. Although its a fantasy type game, you wont find any orcs, dwarves, or elves here. Everything from the races to the mobs are completely unique.
The best items--in fact virtually all of the items--are player made. The only things that drop from mobs are crafting components. And I have never seen a more intuitive, yet complex crafting system, where the quality and grade of a huge variety of crafting components directly impact the crafted item, resulting in an almost endless variety of highly customizable crafted goods.
The same thing applies to your attacks and spells. Each player has the potential to customize their attacks and spells using the highly innovative stanza system.
Moreover, you can master any skill that you want, without any mutual exclusivity. For example, this means that a tank can also cast some offensive spells, and heal himself as well as others.
However, there are some 42 different skill branches, and for each of those you can earn a total of 2500 skill points = 250 skill levels. No one has ever come close to maxing them all. After a year or so of play, a player 'might' max out one or two branches. Having a fully maxed character would take years of constant play, and is unlikely to happen ever.
So there is plenty of diversity with respect to player skills, according to what you choose to focus upon. Some players focus on spell casting, others on melee dps, others on healing, others on tanking--still others focus on crafting, and others on harvesting. In principle, a given character could do it all---but in practice there will always be some better at one thing than another. That means highly customized characters--where almost everyone is unique. You are free to become what you want to become, without any restrictions.
The game world is also unique. Each zone has its own seasons. In one season the zone might be covered in snow, in another season it might be covered with lush vegetation waving in the wind. In one season, migrating herds of animals might be passing through. In another season, those animals are not to be found. In one season, certain harvestables might be present, in another you cant find them anywhere. Some harvestables are present or absent according to the day/night cycle. And the best harvestables cant be found by mere visible inspection. You have to 'prospect' for them, luring them to the surface from deep beneath the ground--and each type of harvestable (of which there are thousands) have unique stats, that directly affect the item created from them. In addition, the best harvestables come from the free for all pvp zones, where you have to fight for the 'good stuff'
This is not a static game world filled with static node and mob placement. This is a living game world, filled with excellent AI, where the nodes and mobs have their own behaviors that shift from time to time.
Beyond the tutorials in the newbie zone, there are very few actual quests in the game. People dont form groups to do quests. They form groups to do 'treks' or 'walkabouts' in the living world, exploring, harvesting, crafting, and fighting both mobs and other players along the way. And this is no 'walk in the park'. The mobs in Ryzom are tough, and most of the boss mobs are non-soloable.
This is an amazingly rich sandbox if you ask me. After just a few days of play, Ive been sold.
You are true to an extent.
The core of all these debates and discussion is freedom.
This is a sandbox. go make an account while they last, full game is free right now until they decide on a payment plan and get the billing system back up.
http://www.ryzom.com/en/
I think what is behind the recent popularity of the term is a desire to play a game that isn't just a quest-grind.
Since it seems more directly appropriate here, I'll repost my response to this thread: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2241642#2241642
What is a sandbox?
Speaking a bit generally, a sandbox is two things:
1) A world.
2) The physics to that world.
That's it. It's very simple, actually. Too much emphasis tends to go into what will constitute the physics, but that doesn't really have much to do with it.
The best example I can think of is a flight simulator. The world in such systems is usually some area of land with the space above it and the physics is a combination of the natural world and the plane's systems. Often the user of the flight simulator is given objectives by a trainer or commander, but the objectives are not built in or mandated by the flight simulator itself.
Second Life is the most often cited example of a sandbox on MMORPG forums, which certainly makes sense. The argument will inevitably arise that it isn't a game, despite being a massively multi-user sandbox. Valid point, I suppose.
Okay, then. What is a sandbox game?
Only for the meager needs of this discussion, we should get a narrow definition of game pinned down, if done kind of crudely. So let's paint in very broad strokes, even if it leaves some gray area, and say that a game is an activity with a primary objective of being fun. So a sandbox game is a sandbox that is first and foremost meant to be fun, even if it also happens to be enlightening, useful, or whatever else.
For the easiest example of a sandbox game, look no further than the genre of simulation games. SimCity, for example, is a blank chunk of world with physics that allow you to create cities and unleash disasters upon them.
Generally speaking, a simulation game will manage to be fun by using the same general sort of world and physics as a non-simulation game. For instance, Microsoft Flight Simulator is a flight simulator sold for home use. It is meant to be fun (hence profitable), which it accomplishes through various means including predefined missions (as well as an unnecessarily detailed world to give exploration appeal). That leads us to a very relevant question:
What is a sandbox MMORPG and what do people mean when they ask for one?
Very simply, a sandbox MMORPG is a sandbox whose world and physics resemble those found in a industry standard MMORPG. This most often means a fantasy or sci-fi setting with large numbers of players connected, and physics involving an avatar, combat, and character progression.
This is where the view on physics becomes subjective, but we can generalize.
Players asking for a sandbox MMORPG are often asking for a variant on their own mental image of a MMORPG but with either less or none of the features that make them feel herded, or with additional physics that contribute to them feeling less herded. Many players don't like feeling herded even when the herding is based on their own decisions, hence reversibility is often seen as a sandbox MMORPG necessity.
That second request for more features is the most subjective feature since no particular features are necessary for a sandbox, or even for a sandbox game. But what MMORPG features are necessary for a sandbox MMORPG to fit the definition? That's tricky.
With World of Warcraft being the 800 lb gorilla of the industry, commentators of the genre are often implicitly speaking relative to that. So a player stating that land ownership is necessary for a sandbox game is perhaps unconsciously asking for that aren't in WoW that were in some other game where they felt less herded. Or players asking for skill-based progression are perhaps thinking of other games where all abilities were available to a given class (or perhaps even where changing classes didn't mean ending your game and recreating your character).
Do most players truly want a sandbox MMORPG? Check the subscription numbers on Wurm and judge for yourself.
To me a Sandbox MMO is a game that is not setting your Destiny for you it is a game that is played out the way you want it to be played out, so basically you do as you want to do.
The best description about "Sandbox" and opposing style "Theme Park" I have found is:
There are two main categories in the MMORPG genre which are often referred to as “Theme Park” and “Sandbox” respectively.
The overwhelming majority of MMORPG’s today belong to the Theme Park category. A Theme Park is often carefully planned and can deliver some very unique attractions. On the other hand, the attractions usually require you to be of a certain age or length to ride them, you have to stand in line, and none or minimal interaction is needed from your part. Like a real theme park it always looks the same and chances are you grow tired of the rides after 20 times or so, unless the theme park creates new exiting rides to keep the park entertaining.
In a Sandbox game you are able to create your own rides, and you interact with other players most of the time instead of NPCs. Every time you play will be a unique experience as the player interactions determine the outcome, and the world changes and reacts dynamically to their actions. This type of game typically lasts longer, but requires more involvement by the players.
Thats quote from www.mortalonline.com/faq
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration
______\m/_____
LordOfDarkDesire
Excellent topic by the OP and many intelligent replies by others. This won't be one of those.
But I agree, Sandbox isn't really a game type, but rather a set of features that allow a player a lot of flexibility in how they develop their character and play the game.
All games probably have some number of sandbox elements if you will, however games like Saga of Ryzom has many of them in contrast with more restrictive games such as WOW or LotRO which have fewer and tend to guide characters more.
I've come to appreciate the Sandbox feature heavy games as of late, I love playing EVE (which also is strong in sandbox elements) and have been looking hard at Ryzom. (just got a new acccount)
Now, one issue I have with Ryzom is it looks at first as if players really can't influence the game world that much, pvp is mostly consensual and restricted to duals, arena areas and guild wars. That's a bit of a negative for me, however that doesn't take away from the fact Ryzom has an amazing amount of flexibility and really was ahead of its time when released four years ago. I may still end up playing it despite the missing PVP/world control features that I normally prefer in my games.
There's no single answer of course, it all depends on player preference. I've seen people argue that WOW's a sandbox game, and perhaps from their perspective or playstyle it is. To me its much more of a guided experience by design, which does not detract from its ability to be fun, unless of course you are like me, and looking for a game with more freedom of choice and less assistance from the game.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I highly disagree with your definition. Sandbox has nothing to do with a large world, what it does have to do with is unrestricted character development. Hence classes definitely have no place in a sandbox game as they restrict character development.
i love the post and replies. i came to this post looking for ansers and got more question.
so lets use some game (mmo) that we thing have a close to sandbox style
first game
1) SWG pre nge
I agree with the OP.
I do get tired of reading posts that say OMG! A Sandbox game has Skillz not levels!
I think a sanbox game could have no skills, no levels, and no combat. Just characters and costumes, and that's it.
100% totally wrong.
Sandbox to YOU means that. But that's not what a sandbox is. For example, gta games are generally regarded as a sandbox, but you don't develop yourself at all.
Also UO, it is(was) a sandbox game, and guess what? you are restricted in character development, you can only have so many skills and stats.
You proved my OP thank you very much.
Everyone look at this post, it's a big example of what i meant by sandbox being corrupted.
and just p.s. I wasn't saying don't say sandbox, just don't assume everything what you want in a mmo is called a sandbox.
100% totally wrong.
Sandbox to YOU means that. But that's not what a sandbox is. For example, gta games are generally regarded as a sandbox, but you don't develop yourself at all.
Also UO, it is(was) a sandbox game, and guess what? you are restricted in character development, you can only have so many skills and stats.
You proved my OP thank you very much.
Everyone look at this post, it's a big example of what i meant by sandbox being corrupted.
and just p.s. I wasn't saying don't say sandbox, just don't assume everything what you want in a mmo is called a sandbox.
23% somewhat wrong?
You're making the assumption when you say that [the definition for] sandbox has been corrupted that there ever was a clear (or universally accepted) definition.
You're also making the assertion that others are using the term sandbox to mean "everything you want in a mmo", and I disagree with that. I like what I consider to be sandbox games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, and I enjoy aspects of sandbox gameplay in some mmorpgs (for example, I'm playing Ryzom again since it has been resurrected). But while I consider a game like EVE Online to have many sandbox elements, I personally don't like some of the mmorpg mechanics and I don't find it fun to play. I acknowledge that it is very sandboxy and that it is a mmorpg, but it certainly is not what I want in a mmorpg.
I believe there is inherent tension between the "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components in sandbox mmorpgs - and I would suggest that a sandbox mmorpg cannot be solely defined by whether there are restrictions on character advancement (classes and levels or skills, etc.) as every rpg will likely have some mechanics that restrict character development for the sake of gameplay.
It seems odd (hypocritical) that you are criticizing others for using a term that you have not defined yourself but still have used (in your assertion that UO is (was) a sandbox game. In doing so, you support my reply (that the term is not well defined), thank you very much (I guess, it isn't that important to me that you support my reply to be honest).
It seems to me that if you want to be helpful you could help to build a consensus definition through discussion rather than simply complaining that others aren't using the word "sandbox" correctly (or to your liking).
100% totally wrong.
Sandbox to YOU means that. But that's not what a sandbox is. For example, gta games are generally regarded as a sandbox, but you don't develop yourself at all.
Also UO, it is(was) a sandbox game, and guess what? you are restricted in character development, you can only have so many skills and stats.
You proved my OP thank you very much.
Everyone look at this post, it's a big example of what i meant by sandbox being corrupted.
and just p.s. I wasn't saying don't say sandbox, just don't assume everything what you want in a mmo is called a sandbox.
23% somewhat wrong?
You're making the assumption when you say that [the definition for] sandbox has been corrupted that there ever was a clear (or universally accepted) definition.
The fact is, in the beginning sandbox just applied to games that were player driven in a open world. rather then linear progression. Now it has game mechanics tied onto it.
You're also making the assertion that others are using the term sandbox to mean "everything you want in a mmo", and I disagree with that. I like what I consider to be sandbox games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, and I enjoy aspects of sandbox gameplay in some mmorpgs (for example, I'm playing Ryzom again since it has been resurrected). But while I consider a game like EVE Online to have many sandbox elements, I personally don't like some of the mmorpg mechanics and I don't find it fun to play. I acknowledge that it is very sandboxy and that it is a mmorpg, but it certainly is not what I want in a mmorpg.
See heres the thing, yes GTA is a sandbox game. But does that mean that every console sandbox has to be stealing cars, killing people, and and doing mini games? No, the thing about mmorpgs is that while UO is(was) a sandbox, that doesn't mean other sandboxes have to emulate exactly UO's setup to still be a sandbox.
I believe there is inherent tension between the "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components in sandbox mmorpgs - and I would suggest that a sandbox mmorpg cannot be solely defined by whether there are restrictions on character advancement (classes and levels or skills, etc.) as every rpg will likely have some mechanics that restrict character development for the sake of gameplay.
I would agree, and was the point of my post you quoted. The individual i quoted to begin with was implying that sandboxes are unrestricted character advancement, i simply meant that, that's not a default part of the base sandbox structure, but rather a element that can be added on.
It seems odd (hypocritical) that you are criticizing others for using a term that you have not defined yourself but still have used (in your assertion that UO is (was) a sandbox game. In doing so, you support my reply (that the term is not well defined), thank you very much (I guess, it isn't that important to me that you support my reply to be honest).
The thing about sandbox is that it includes a ton of features and gameplay, but at the same time it is NOT all of the features and gameplay. It merely can incoporate them. This post is merely in regards to the fact that people have forgotten sandbox is simply a WIDE genre, not a set of rules. I can't define it because of that.
The reason i can't call UO a sandbox now, is not because of the pvp changes(it doesn't mean it's not a sandbox) but because i simply don't know the state of the game as it stands, it's had a bunch of xpacs and i've never followed up on them. So it would be unfair for me to still call it a sandbox when for all i know it has changed into a instanced battlegrounds game.(which I know it hasn't)
I agree that that the term isn't well defined, and as i will restate again. Because it's a genre(like saying third person shooter, and assuming it has a cover system, squad team mates, and online death match). Assuming a sandbox has the features you personally like in it, and then just saying "i want a sandbox, which is _______" when really it should be "I want a game with _______ in a sandbox world".
to me a sandbox game exemplifies freedom, freedom to carve my own little niche in a world. to do what i want when i want and how i want. there are no set goals, no one to lead you by the hand or funnel you into zones.
I want a game where I can use a shovel and a bucket and make castles out of a grainy substance restricted by five or so planes... wait... oh now I get it...
:P
In any case, I think trying to fit sandbox games into a category is hilariously ridiculous in the first place. There are lots of different things that can be called sandbox, but the idea is to allow the players decide, so there can not be a strict description, and a general description would just be tedious, I think as this post points out!
23% somewhat wrong?
You're making the assumption when you say that [the definition for] sandbox has been corrupted that there ever was a clear (or universally accepted) definition.
The fact is, in the beginning sandbox just applied to games that were player driven in a open world. rather then linear progression. Now it has game mechanics tied onto it.
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics. If you are standing by your assertion that the definition has been corrupted by claiming it is "fact", some evidence of a clear (and universally accepted) definition would provide a basis for your claim.
You're also making the assertion that others are using the term sandbox to mean "everything you want in a mmo", and I disagree with that. I like what I consider to be sandbox games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, and I enjoy aspects of sandbox gameplay in some mmorpgs (for example, I'm playing Ryzom again since it has been resurrected). But while I consider a game like EVE Online to have many sandbox elements, I personally don't like some of the mmorpg mechanics and I don't find it fun to play. I acknowledge that it is very sandboxy and that it is a mmorpg, but it certainly is not what I want in a mmorpg.
See heres the thing, yes GTA is a sandbox game.
If that is indeed "the thing", then why? I agree that the GTA series has sandbox features, but you are making the claim that others are using the term "sandbox" incorrectly. While criticizing others for their misuse, are simply asserting certain games are sandbox because you consider them to be "sandbox"? Why couldn't someone make the argument that "sandbox" has been corrupted in this thread to mean "whatever features Bladin wants it to be"? How can you (in good conscience) educate others as to what you believe a sandbox game (or sandbox mmorpg) to be without offering a definition yourself?
But does that mean that every console sandbox has to be stealing cars, killing people, and and doing mini games? No, the thing about mmorpgs is that while UO is(was) a sandbox, that doesn't mean other sandboxes have to emulate exactly UO's setup to still be a sandbox.
To reiterate, you made the suggestion that others were using the term in "sandbox" in error. Specifically, you made the assertion that people are using the term incorrectly in that the definition has become something specific - a list of all features in an mmo that they like. I demonstrated that was not true for me, and gave an example of something I considered a sandbox mmorpg which is not "everything I want in an mmo". Where you make the argument that the definition has been made specific and incorrect, I am suggesting the definition has never been clear, still is not clear, and is not universally accepted. In my view, it is no wonder that others use the term "sandbox" in regards to a mmorpg in ways that would not match my concept of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
I would agree with you that it is not specific game mechanics that "make" a game sandbox or not. But again:
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics.
I believe there is inherent tension between the "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components in sandbox mmorpgs - and I would suggest that a sandbox mmorpg cannot be solely defined by whether there are restrictions on character advancement (classes and levels or skills, etc.) as every rpg will likely have some mechanics that restrict character development for the sake of gameplay.
I would agree, and was the point of my post you quoted.
My point (given the context of the rest of my post, which may have become lost in this paragraph by paragraph reply) was that this inherent tension between "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components leads to an amorphous concept (or set of prototypical features) for a "sandbox mmorpg" - I'm suggesting the term may be "fuzzy" or ill-defined for good reason (because of the tension between the components).
The individual i quoted to begin with was implying that sandboxes are unrestricted character advancement, i simply meant that, that's not a default part of the base sandbox structure, but rather a element that can be added on.
It seems odd (hypocritical) that you are criticizing others for using a term that you have not defined yourself but still have used (in your assertion that UO is (was) a sandbox game. In doing so, you support my reply (that the term is not well defined), thank you very much (I guess, it isn't that important to me that you support my reply to be honest).
The thing about sandbox is that it includes a ton of features and gameplay, but at the same time it is NOT all of the features and gameplay.
I'm saying it is hypocritical for you to criticize others for the use of the term when you have not defined it yourself. Saying what it is NOT does not tell others what you think it IS.
It merely can incoporate them. This post is merely in regards to the fact that people have forgotten sandbox is simply a WIDE genre, not a set of rules.
As I previously said, I believe that the term "sandbox" never had a clear definition, so there's nothing to "forget".
I can't define it because of that.
You can't define it, but it's okay to to tell others that they are using it incorrectly.
What if someone would have replied to your OP by saying that "you are wrong - I can't tell you what is right, but believe me you are wrong"...
Surely you can add more to the discussion than that. You don't even need to have your own clear definition of "sandbox mmorpg" right now, just openly discussing it and considering the views of others may add to a better understanding.
The reason i can't call UO a sandbox now, is not because of the pvp changes(it doesn't mean it's not a sandbox) but because i simply don't know the state of the game as it stands, it's had a bunch of xpacs and i've never followed up on them. So it would be unfair for me to still call it a sandbox when for all i know it has changed into a instanced battlegrounds game.(which I know it hasn't)
You have not offered the rationale why at any point in the past you would have considered UO to be a sandbox game.
I agree that that the term isn't well defined, and as i will restate again.
And that's why it seems very hypocritical to me that you would criticize others for the use of the term rather than trying to build a consensus definition through a discussion with other mmorpg enthusiasts.
Because it's a genre(like saying third person shooter, and assuming it has a cover system, squad team mates, and online death match).
Assuming a sandbox has the features you personally like in it, and then just saying "i want a sandbox, which is _______" when really it should be "I want a game with _______ in a sandbox world".
Are you suggesting that there is some other motivation or goal behind the (perceived) misuse of "sandbox" such as some type of advocacy? I believe any (real or imagined) "misuse" of the term is because the definition is unclear. Why you are making the assertion that the definition has become specific (a list of desired features) rather than ambiguous, as you have offered no evidence to support that assertion at all?
23% somewhat wrong?
You're making the assumption when you say that [the definition for] sandbox has been corrupted that there ever was a clear (or universally accepted) definition.
The fact is, in the beginning sandbox just applied to games that were player driven in a open world. rather then linear progression. Now it has game mechanics tied onto it.
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics. If you are standing by your assertion that the definition has been corrupted by claiming it is "fact", some evidence of a clear (and universally accepted) definition would provide a basis for your claim.
You're also making the assertion that others are using the term sandbox to mean "everything you want in a mmo", and I disagree with that. I like what I consider to be sandbox games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, and I enjoy aspects of sandbox gameplay in some mmorpgs (for example, I'm playing Ryzom again since it has been resurrected). But while I consider a game like EVE Online to have many sandbox elements, I personally don't like some of the mmorpg mechanics and I don't find it fun to play. I acknowledge that it is very sandboxy and that it is a mmorpg, but it certainly is not what I want in a mmorpg.
See heres the thing, yes GTA is a sandbox game.
If that is indeed "the thing", then why? I agree that the GTA series has sandbox features, but you are making the claim that others are using the term "sandbox" incorrectly. While criticizing others for their misuse, are simply asserting certain games are sandbox because you consider them to be "sandbox"? Why couldn't someone make the argument that "sandbox" has been corrupted in this thread to mean "whatever features Bladin wants it to be"? How can you (in good conscience) educate others as to what you believe a sandbox game (or sandbox mmorpg) to be without offering a definition yourself?
What you are missing, is that I have said that games are a sandbox, yet not everything in the games is sandbox dependant(or a requirement). I'm never said I want anything in a sandbox, beyond a world with a character in it. You are missing(at a guess i'd say willfully) that I am merely trying to avocate that people are operating under a assumption that sandbox has required features suitable to them.
But does that mean that every console sandbox has to be stealing cars, killing people, and and doing mini games? No, the thing about mmorpgs is that while UO is(was) a sandbox, that doesn't mean other sandboxes have to emulate exactly UO's setup to still be a sandbox.
To reiterate, you made the suggestion that others were using the term in "sandbox" in error. Specifically, you made the assertion that people are using the term incorrectly in that the definition has become something specific - a list of all features in an mmo that they like. I demonstrated that was not true for me, and gave an example of something I considered a sandbox mmorpg which is not "everything I want in an mmo". Where you make the argument that the definition has been made specific and incorrect, I am suggesting the definition has never been clear, still is not clear, and is not universally accepted. In my view, it is no wonder that others use the term "sandbox" in regards to a mmorpg in ways that would not match my concept of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
I never stated(or at least intended to) imply that you yourself were operating with the assumption that sandboxes had required rules.
The defininition isn't clear, but it is what it is. I'm not trying to label sandbox as a game with certain features, i'm argueing against a sandbox having a requirement for features assigned to it by the person using it.
I would agree with you that it is not specific game mechanics that "make" a game sandbox or not. But again:
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics.
I'll agree with you
I believe there is inherent tension between the "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components in sandbox mmorpgs - and I would suggest that a sandbox mmorpg cannot be solely defined by whether there are restrictions on character advancement (classes and levels or skills, etc.) as every rpg will likely have some mechanics that restrict character development for the sake of gameplay.
I would agree, and was the point of my post you quoted.
My point (given the context of the rest of my post, which may have become lost in this paragraph by paragraph reply) was that this inherent tension between "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components leads to an amorphous concept (or set of prototypical features) for a "sandbox mmorpg" - I'm suggesting the term may be "fuzzy" or ill-defined for good reason (because of the tension between the components).
Yes, when trying to combine two things into one, generally one loses it's identity or gain properties of the other. Such as mixing ketchup and mayo, you get a new sauce which tastes different then both but retains what it was originally. But it still has ketchup in it, and the ketchup is still ketchup, the new mixture is not ketchup. To use this example to fit my arguement. After the mix was made, someone would point at it, and say, that's ketchup. Another person replaces the mayo with mustard, and says, no that's ketchup. repeat for various sauces.
Yes it was ketchup to begin with, but what it is now, is no longer ketchup, and is not a requirement for it to be ketchup
The individual i quoted to begin with was implying that sandboxes are unrestricted character advancement, i simply meant that, that's not a default part of the base sandbox structure, but rather a element that can be added on.
It seems odd (hypocritical) that you are criticizing others for using a term that you have not defined yourself but still have used (in your assertion that UO is (was) a sandbox game. In doing so, you support my reply (that the term is not well defined), thank you very much (I guess, it isn't that important to me that you support my reply to be honest).
The thing about sandbox is that it includes a ton of features and gameplay, but at the same time it is NOT all of the features and gameplay.
I'm saying it is hypocritical for you to criticize others for the use of the term when you have not defined it yourself. Saying what it is NOT does not tell others what you think it IS.
Like i said you can't define it beyond a character in a world, so if you wanted a definition from me, i'd say a world with a character. Since the game doesn't have to have combat, it doesn't have to have crafting, it doesn't have to have much of anything. So how can i define it?
It merely can incoporate them. This post is merely in regards to the fact that people have forgotten sandbox is simply a WIDE genre, not a set of rules.
As I previously said, I believe that the term "sandbox" never had a clear definition, so there's nothing to "forget".
Just because something doesn't have a clear definition, doesn't mean you can create definition of it to suit you.
I can't define it because of that.
You can't define it, but it's okay to to tell others that they are using it incorrectly.
What if someone would have replied to your OP by saying that "you are wrong - I can't tell you what is right, but believe me you are wrong"...
Surely you can add more to the discussion than that. You don't even need to have your own clear definition of "sandbox mmorpg" right now, just openly discussing it and considering the views of others may add to a better understanding.
This arguement is the same as people who go "you can't make a mmorpg who are you tell them how to make one". And it still doesn't hold water. I said i can't define it, because it doesn't have a definition. Just that you can't call it something you want it to be just because you feel it should be that way.
The reason i can't call UO a sandbox now, is not because of the pvp changes(it doesn't mean it's not a sandbox) but because i simply don't know the state of the game as it stands, it's had a bunch of xpacs and i've never followed up on them. So it would be unfair for me to still call it a sandbox when for all i know it has changed into a instanced battlegrounds game.(which I know it hasn't)
You have not offered the rationale why at any point in the past you would have considered UO to be a sandbox game.
Your in a world, and you do things you want to do. That's a base definition, i could have listed other games.
I agree that that the term isn't well defined, and as i will restate again.
And that's why it seems very hypocritical to me that you would criticize others for the use of the term rather than trying to build a consensus definition through a discussion with other mmorpg enthusiasts.
The problem with this, no mmorpg fan will ever share his opinions with anyone else. Trying to define something with a group of people who all have different opinions is impossible. Especially online where backing down shows your weakness, but I would be interested in seeing how a discussion such as that would go along. If you were to start a topic regarding it, send me the link and i will take a look at it.
Because it's a genre(like saying third person shooter, and assuming it has a cover system, squad team mates, and online death match).
Assuming a sandbox has the features you personally like in it, and then just saying "i want a sandbox, which is _______" when really it should be "I want a game with _______ in a sandbox world".
Are you suggesting that there is some other motivation or goal behind the (perceived) misuse of "sandbox" such as some type of advocacy? I believe any (real or imagined) "misuse" of the term is because the definition is unclear. Why you are making the assertion that the definition has become specific (a list of desired features) rather than ambiguous, as you have offered no evidence to support that assertion at all?
Sandbox is becoming the new carebear and pvp'r arguement. Of "true mmo" and "console game" instead of the previous pvp and carebear.
But if you follow threads, see where sandbox is used, and see how people relate it to everything they personally want "i want a true sandbox game with palyers crafting everything" Which is assuming that a true sandbox is player crafting heavy.
23% somewhat wrong?
I've adjusted this to 75% wrong.
You're making the assumption when you say that [the definition for] sandbox has been corrupted that there ever was a clear (or universally accepted) definition.
The fact is, in the beginning sandbox just applied to games that were player driven in a open world. rather then linear progression. Now it has game mechanics tied onto it.
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics. If you are standing by your assertion that the definition has been corrupted by claiming it is "fact", some evidence of a clear (and universally accepted) definition would provide a basis for your claim.
And I still believe this to be the heart of the issue - that because the term "sandbox" and "sandbox mmorpg" did not have a clear definition, it has led to people making subjective definitions. Due to the fact that there still is no clear (and universally accepted) definition, when people use the term they often have to propose their own definition when they do so (what you are calling "everything they want in a mmo").
I'd have to agree with that, and it does seem silly to make claims about whether some else's definition is correct without offering a definition. Moreover, if one were to criticize someone else's definition for a specific reason, you would think that they would want to be sure that their own definition was subject to the same criticism.
That makes the assumption that such a critic would offer their own definition, and that definition their definition be concrete enough to be subject to meaningful analysis.
Do you mean something other than "a sandbox game is one where you have freedom"?
Precisely, not a definition that is so vague that it is rendered meaningless.
You're also making the assertion that others are using the term sandbox to mean "everything you want in a mmo", and I disagree with that. I like what I consider to be sandbox games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, and I enjoy aspects of sandbox gameplay in some mmorpgs (for example, I'm playing Ryzom again since it has been resurrected). But while I consider a game like EVE Online to have many sandbox elements, I personally don't like some of the mmorpg mechanics and I don't find it fun to play. I acknowledge that it is very sandboxy and that it is a mmorpg, but it certainly is not what I want in a mmorpg.
See heres the thing, yes GTA is a sandbox game.
If that is indeed "the thing", then why? I agree that the GTA series has sandbox features, but you are making the claim that others are using the term "sandbox" incorrectly. While criticizing others for their misuse, are simply asserting certain games are sandbox because you consider them to be "sandbox"? Why couldn't someone make the argument that "sandbox" has been corrupted in this thread to mean "whatever features Bladin wants it to be"? How can you (in good conscience) educate others as to what you believe a sandbox game (or sandbox mmorpg) to be without offering a definition yourself?
What you are missing, is that I have said that games are a sandbox, yet not everything in the games is sandbox dependant(or a requirement). I'm never said I want anything in a sandbox, beyond a world with a character in it. You are missing(at a guess i'd say willfully) that I am merely trying to avocate that people are operating under a assumption that sandbox has required features suitable to them.
I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I made the claim that you said "everything in the games is sandbox dependent". Likewise, I never said you did want anything in a sandbox.
In an attempt to make it clearer for you:
I am saying that you are criticizing others for proposing a definition when you have not offered your own definition. You are saying they are wrong but not saying how they are wrong. You are saying they are wrong without saying what is right.
I am saying that you have criticized others for having a subjective opinion about what a sandbox mmorpg is (whatever they want it to be) but you do not seem to want to acknowledge that your opinion about what is a sandbox mmorpg can be seen as just as subjective (your definition could seem to be whatever you want it to be).
I do understand that you are trying to suggest that others are operating under incorrect assumptions. What you have not done is clarify in any way what you believe would be "correct" for others to say in regards to the definition of a sandbox mmorpg.
Did anyone notice that when asked why GTA was a sandbox game, there was no reply? Was this a willful exclusion or just an error on the part of the respondent?
Ah, I did notice that, thanks - hopefully there will be some clarification on this.
But does that mean that every console sandbox has to be stealing cars, killing people, and and doing mini games? No, the thing about mmorpgs is that while UO is(was) a sandbox, that doesn't mean other sandboxes have to emulate exactly UO's setup to still be a sandbox.
To reiterate, you made the suggestion that others were using the term in "sandbox" in error. Specifically, you made the assertion that people are using the term incorrectly in that the definition has become something specific - a list of all features in an mmo that they like. I demonstrated that was not true for me, and gave an example of something I considered a sandbox mmorpg which is not "everything I want in an mmo". Where you make the argument that the definition has been made specific and incorrect, I am suggesting the definition has never been clear, still is not clear, and is not universally accepted. In my view, it is no wonder that others use the term "sandbox" in regards to a mmorpg in ways that would not match my concept of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
I never stated(or at least intended to) imply that you yourself were operating with the assumption that sandboxes had required rules.
I was not sure if I would be subject to the blanket generalization implicit in your OP.
The defininition isn't clear, but it is what it is.
It is what it is? What does that mean? I haven't seen a definition from you at all. And while you are making the argument that other people are wrong in how they define sandbox, since you haven't offer a clear definition of sandbox mmorpg I believe that would support my suggestion that there has not and is not a clear definition, and that any such "fuzzy" definition is not universally accepted.
In the case that there is not a clear and universally accepted definition, wouldn't it make sense for others to offer varying definitions that included different subsets of features of (subjective) exemplars of sandbox mmorpgs.
I'm not trying to label sandbox as a game with certain features, i'm argueing against a sandbox having a requirement for features assigned to it by the person using it.
It seems like you are reluctant to label what would make a mmorpg a "sandbox" at all. At the same time, you are arguing that since your (personal, secret) definition of sandbox mmorpg does not match certain other people's definition, they must be wrong (and should not share their views).
I would agree with you that it is not specific game mechanics that "make" a game sandbox or not. But again:
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics.
I'll agree with you
Then it would be impossible for the term to be "corrupted" as you claimed in the OP. And I would think that if you realized that the term "sandbox" never had a clear defintion, and that it was this lack of clear definition that had led to others making associations between game mechanics and the term "sandbox mmorpg", that you would not be so critical of those associations.
I believe there is inherent tension between the "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components in sandbox mmorpgs - and I would suggest that a sandbox mmorpg cannot be solely defined by whether there are restrictions on character advancement (classes and levels or skills, etc.) as every rpg will likely have some mechanics that restrict character development for the sake of gameplay.
I would agree, and was the point of my post you quoted.
My point (given the context of the rest of my post, which may have become lost in this paragraph by paragraph reply) was that this inherent tension between "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components leads to an amorphous concept (or set of prototypical features) for a "sandbox mmorpg" - I'm suggesting the term may be "fuzzy" or ill-defined for good reason (because of the tension between the components).
Yes, when trying to combine two things into one, generally one loses it's identity or gain properties of the other. Such as mixing ketchup and mayo, you get a new sauce which tastes different then both but retains what it was originally. But it still has ketchup in it, and the ketchup is still ketchup, the new mixture is not ketchup. To use this example to fit my arguement. After the mix was made, someone would point at it, and say, that's ketchup. Another person replaces the mayo with mustard, and says, no that's ketchup. repeat for various sauces.
Yes it was ketchup to begin with, but what it is now, is no longer ketchup, and is not a requirement for it to be ketchup
Instead of a condiment metaphor, I prefer oil and water. They are difficult to mix, but they can be mixed through thoughtful action (emulsification).
The individual i quoted to begin with was implying that sandboxes are unrestricted character advancement, i simply meant that, that's not a default part of the base sandbox structure, but rather a element that can be added on.
It seems odd (hypocritical) that you are criticizing others for using a term that you have not defined yourself but still have used (in your assertion that UO is (was) a sandbox game. In doing so, you support my reply (that the term is not well defined), thank you very much (I guess, it isn't that important to me that you support my reply to be honest).
The thing about sandbox is that it includes a ton of features and gameplay, but at the same time it is NOT all of the features and gameplay.
I'm saying it is hypocritical for you to criticize others for the use of the term when you have not defined it yourself. Saying what it is NOT does not tell others what you think it IS.
Like i said you can't define it beyond a character in a world, so if you wanted a definition from me, i'd say a world with a character. Since the game doesn't have to have combat, it doesn't have to have crafting, it doesn't have to have much of anything.
And you still don't see where it would be hypocritical for you to criticize others definitions as being subjective when your own definition seems to be equally subjective?
A world with a character is no definition at all, sandbox or otherwise.
So how can i define it?
I tried to offer some suggestions in my original reply for how a sandbox mmorpg could be defined (as a constellation of features driven by developer motivations to offer freedom of choice while minimizing character and gameplay restrictions). In addition, I suggested that "sandbox" could be seen as not as "either-or" (ie., UO is / was not a sandbox game (as a category), it is *more* sandboxy than others).
Honestly, I'm getting skeptical that you could define it, at least to your own satisfaction (that is to say, in a way that is not subject to your own criticism).
It merely can incoporate them. This post is merely in regards to the fact that people have forgotten sandbox is simply a WIDE genre, not a set of rules.
As I previously said, I believe that the term "sandbox" never had a clear definition, so there's nothing to "forget".
Just because something doesn't have a clear definition, doesn't mean you can create definition of it to suit you.
Isn't that what you did in your response above (a world with a character)???
Just because something doesn't have a clear definition doesn't mean you shouldn't work with people to build a consensus defintion.
You mean instead of just criticizing them for offering their own views on what they feels makes a "sandbox mmorpg"?
Precisely.
I can't define it because of that.
But you did define it (world with a character).
You can't define it, but it's okay to to tell others that they are using it incorrectly.
What if someone would have replied to your OP by saying that "you are wrong - I can't tell you what is right, but believe me you are wrong"...
Surely you can add more to the discussion than that. You don't even need to have your own clear definition of "sandbox mmorpg" right now, just openly discussing it and considering the views of others may add to a better understanding.
This arguement is the same as people who go "you can't make a mmorpg who are you tell them how to make one".
Not at all, let me try to help you understand.
The argument is "you can't tell someone they are wrong (about a definition) when you don't know the definition yourself without being hypocritical"
Game players can give advice to developers?
Yes, developers actually seek feedback from game players, in various ways (qualitative and quantitative).
And it still doesn't hold water.
That may be because it is leaking, I'm sure it was holding water for a while.
Sarcastically: Amusing. Nope, you are right it wasn't holding water. But that was never the argument. It wasnt about building games at all.
I said i can't define it, because it doesn't have a definition. Just that you can't call it something you want it to be just because you feel it should be that way.
So you are saying it doesn't have a definition, but others are not correct in offering their views on how it should be defined.
Wait, didn't you call GTA and UO a sandbox, even while you are saying there is no definition? Are they just sandboxes because you say they are?
No, you wait, didn't you say there WAS a definition (a world with a character)?
The reason i can't call UO a sandbox now, is not because of the pvp changes(it doesn't mean it's not a sandbox) but because i simply don't know the state of the game as it stands, it's had a bunch of xpacs and i've never followed up on them. So it would be unfair for me to still call it a sandbox when for all i know it has changed into a instanced battlegrounds game.(which I know it hasn't)
You have not offered the rationale why at any point in the past you would have considered UO to be a sandbox game.
Your in a world, and you do things you want to do. That's a base definition, i could have listed other games.
You do realize how many mmorpgs could meet that definition. I'm sure that there are a lot of WoW players that would say that they are in a wrold doing the things they want to do.
You are suggesting that WoW is a sandbox game, but you are critical of other people's definitions of sandbox mmorpgs.
For shame!
I agree that that the term isn't well defined, and as i will restate again.
And that's why it seems very hypocritical to me that you would criticize others for the use of the term rather than trying to build a consensus definition through a discussion with other mmorpg enthusiasts.
The problem with this, no mmorpg fan will ever share his opinions with anyone else.
An interesting psychological analysis. However, I've found most mmorpg fan to be very vocal with their opinions.
Trying to define something with a group of people who all have different opinions is impossible.
Especially if you do not try!
Especially online where backing down shows your weakness, but I would be interested in seeing how a discussion such as that would go along.
It's not a weakness to be a party to a rational conversation.
It shows far more weakness to continue to be willfully ignorant or not make any concessions.
If you were to start a topic regarding it, send me the link and i will take a look at it.
Oh there have already been some crazy discussions
Because it's a genre(like saying third person shooter, and assuming it has a cover system, squad team mates, and online death match).
Assuming a sandbox has the features you personally like in it, and then just saying "i want a sandbox, which is _______" when really it should be "I want a game with _______ in a sandbox world".
Are you suggesting that there is some other motivation or goal behind the (perceived) misuse of "sandbox" such as some type of advocacy? I believe any (real or imagined) "misuse" of the term is because the definition is unclear. Why you are making the assertion that the definition has become specific (a list of desired features) rather than ambiguous, as you have offered no evidence to support that assertion at all?
Sandbox is becoming the new carebear and pvp'r arguement. Of "true mmo" and "console game" instead of the previous pvp and carebear.
But if you follow threads, see where sandbox is used, and see how people relate it to everything they personally want "i want a true sandbox game with palyers crafting everything" Which is assuming that a true sandbox is player crafting heavy.
Normally, if you make these kind of paragraph-by-paragraph responses, you would actually respond to the paragraph above. Instead, you seemed to have ignored my suggestion that you claimed in your OP that the definition has become specific (features of the subjectivelly optimum mmorpg) rather than ambiguous (as you agreed above).
You mean the point of these insertions is to provide a direct response to an individual component of a discussion?
That would be correct, in theory.
But doesn't it completely destroy the context of the discussion?
That it does, I'm afraid that is part of the downside. It can become nearly impossible to have a meaningful conversation as each sentence gets taken on its own instead of in context.
What are other methods for reading and responding to someone else's comments?
Well, you could take the time to read the entire comment as a whole, and contemplate what the "big picture" might be. Then you could take the time to determine whether you agree or disagree with this "big picture", and provide a cohesive reply rather than getting bogged down in individual details.
It's a novel idea, but I'm doubtful that it would catch on.
Have faith, my friend.
I can't read that post lol well let's just say we agree to disagree
Sandbox is where my cat leaves her poo, and any game that would fit the sandbox label would be poo too. You can claim open ended all you want, but when it comes down to it there's always one right way to do something. I'd rather have that right way defined up front than to learn about it half way through the game when it's too late.
Everyone else has a definition so I'll add mine.
A sandbox style game is one in which you are given as many options as the creators of the game want and then tell you nothing about what you should do with those options.
They create a world. You do whatever you want within it. You're in a sandbox--build castles, dig tunnels, toss sand in the air, eat it, move it from one place to another. Largely sandbox's content is player driven. The creators may setup a story but where you take it is up to you. You create your own meaning.
Stop Bladin and Mahni, your psychedelic colors are giving me a headache