Therefore, I do feel entierly qualified to say that it is simply not a sandbox game, excepting the idea that all MMO's are sandbox to some extent, in which case it is far, far less sandbox than the genre examples that are generally considered by common consensus to be 'true' sandbox MMO's.
What especially confuses me is WHY you are so determined to prove WoW is a sandbox mmo? Sandbox is a preference, a style, but itøs not a statement of quality.
Why?
Because I showed and to some extend I proved that indeed almost every MMORPG out there is more or less a sandbox game, because ... PURE sandbox games are in fact 'thin air" ideas. Loose ideas, to serve ones purpose....
The answer you will find in my very first post of this thread. I showed that to have a GOOD and polished MMORPG these days you need to have COMPLETE designer control of every aspect of the game.
Lack of these millions of data analysis and testings (read the first thread) result in games like Age of Conan and the numerous OLD MMORPG techniques we had to endure.
Amateurish, broken systems.
Sandbox is a hype and a "myth". Seen by old grognards who think they can stand above the masses by looking back at HOW good those old days were.
It's normal: they consider themselves the upper upper classes of MMORPG players.
In society they are the cricket players of modern sports (Eve). A game hard to play and hard to explain.
While football is for the masses with little education, cricket is for the elite.
No matter how laggy and compressed you have to play EVE in PvP (rather like to look at a spreadsheet when battles did take place). It is CHIQUE to say to play EVE and stating it is a sandbox game.
Truth is : every good MMORPG out there is to a certain degree a sandbox game.
And the best are those with decent analysed data designs with a big gameplay value and LOTS of options in their end game playing styles.
Well, this is a different arguement isn't it, aside from the semantics. From a semantic point of view, we're simply disagreed on what the term 'sandbox' defines, or if it indeed truely defines anything, and I can accept that.
Regarding the second half of your post, I would like to ask you a favour. I realise that many people are anti-WoW, and let their dislike of the game taint their presentation of their views and lend bias to their point of view. So please, I ask you to realise that I am a huge fan of WoW, a current player, a defiante purchase or the next expansion, and that nothing I say is because I think WoW is bad, or does things wrong.
With that in mind, I take exception to this: I showed that to have a GOOD and polished MMORPG these days you need to have COMPLETE designer control of every aspect of the game. I believe it is this opinion that is causing argument, more so than the definition of ‘sandbox’.
The problem here is that there are MMO game systems that can only exist outside of COMPLETE designer control, and you are telling people that enjoy these systems that they are wrong to do so. What I would ask is why you feel you are qualified to tell people that for a game to have a feature that they enjoy, it must be a ‘worse’ game than WoW. I suppose some examples would be stuff like:
· - Having quested in Tanaris, I would like to purge the south of the zone of the ogres and found a desert city there. This city would be free of political affiliations to either the horde or alliance directly, but may have some kind of trading agreement with the Steamwheedle Cartel.
Okay, it’s a very simplistic example, not designed to cover all the potential offered by a free world, but hopefully enough to illustrate the point. Using that example, we would need the following features that could NOT be directly controlled by the design team:
1) - The ability to found a city, and build player structures, with a degree of freedom. Ideally this would be total freedom but even the biggest sandbox snob would probably accept that some limitations are required.
2) - The ability to form new factions, or have some kind of political influence outside of the pre-structured factions, whilst not having to permanently subscribe to the racial reactions to traditional enemies.
Now, of course, WoW as we know it would have to compromise some features for this:
1) The gameworld would have to lose some if it’s carefully sculptured style and layout. Freeform structure building doesn’t work very well in a heavy-sculpted landscape.
2) - Questlines designed for faction-specific character progression are compromised and may possibly have to lose some of their great focus and detail.
3)- - PvP flagging is simply more complicated, it’s not enough for the game to know that a player is horde or alliance, it has to track their current affiliation.
I think this example highlights the tradeoff: The more power you put in the player’s hands (and away from the designers) the less specific detail (and of course balance) can be achieved with the designer-provided content. This will be the same in other facets, for example the more control a player has over the uniqueness of an item, the less time the developers will have to be able to give each possible item a unique and interesting look.
Now here’s my problem:
The way you present your opinion suggests that you think that only the “WoW” approach is the ‘good’ way to do it. And well, it is A good way. I know I enjoy it.
But I also know that I and many others LOVE the other way. We WILL happily sacrifice a highly-sculpted landscape, easier to maintain, highly-balanced, scripted and polished system for a game where we have a lot of freedom to change the world independently of highly specific designs by the designers. I’m not saying it’s better, or worse, it’s just two different styles or preferences. Can you understand why people find it slightly offensive that you’re basically saying an MMO can’t provide what they want without being worse than a designer-fixed world like WoW (and of course you are quite entitled to feel offended by the opposite implication, that a WoW-style implementation is inherently worse than a freeform one?)
Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members.
Systems of categories are not objectively "out there" in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world — meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience". A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture.
In WoW the game starts at 70? WoW is like a sanbox after 70? You sir are an idiot. In SWG the game started the minute you loaded into Cnet, or Nabbo, or whichever destination you chose. That game never had a ending. You didnt need to max a combat proffesion to have any fun. SWG was the last of a TRUE MMORPG. WoW fans have no idea on what they missed. I just wish a really good, polished Sanbox game would be released and give all those poor mmorpg players (who have only ever played WoW etc) a real taste of what an mmorpg should look like.
I bet about 2699 players will not agree with you that SWG was a sand box.
It just shows that sandbox is a "hype" that doen't exist. A word without meaning.
This comment is a joke right? SWG wasn't a sandbox style game? What, were you one of those that started a year AFTER the NGE hit?
I NEVER said SWG wasn't a sandbox. I say all good MMORPG's these days have sandbox elements.
Zorndoff, does anything you do in WoW affect the game world or just other players and yourself?
You were the guy that wanted to prove Wow was not a sandbox because you couldn't craft ... let's see ...saddles and zeppelins that would "change the world".
Well I answered that I have a crafted saddle and make helicopters
Still waiting for your answer....
I gave up trying to reason with you, silly person. You ignored 99% of what I wrote and replied with "HEY I CAN DO HELICOPTER OMG"
You can believe whatever you want little fanboy, if WoW is a sandbox for you, good for you. But for the rest of us (sane guys), it simply isn't. Anyway thanks for quoting the lovely picture of Sid Haig again.
And I bet if you link this to the WoW's forum (may it be US or EU side), you'll get laughed at due to the fact that people who play WoW understand that it is NOT a sandbox game, and they are ok with it. They like WoW as it is - a good, polished game with linear character progression... And I'm pretty sure if you ask whoever played SWG (Pre-CU) and WoW which is a sandbox game, most if not all would say SWG.
As long as you say that EVE is a true FREEDOM sandbox game, ..
EVE = A game you can't even exit from your spacehip.
and Wow it is totally not, while I even C R A F T my own transports like helicopters...
This discussion is closed and I win, because lack of foundation in YOUR definitions.
Nope. As someone else said, you are compare apple and orange here.
I keep saying, compare the core system, then you'll see the difference.
I already gave the definition of core elements of sandbox and elements associate and/or derived from the core, you offer NOTHING... so you, sir, won nothing and lost all sense of logic...
You can CRAFT!!! We know, but can you be a PURE CRAFTER???
----------------------------------
I say Wotlk will have constructable (grouped) keeps and siege engines
YOU answer with "... and is this over the whole world or only there and there..."
For the N+1 time, ANSWER ALL THE DAMN QUESTIONS!!! If you want to nit-pick them, I can do that too.
And my question regard to WoTLK's constructable keeps are simple, is it in the open-world?(the whole game world, not just the area created for the expansion) If it is not, then even though it is element derived from the sandbox core Dynamic world, it is still not a true dynamic world system (because it is limited to just the new expansion area...) So you didn't proof anything here...
it just shows you are adepting the term "sandbox" to your own definitions.
Again, I gave the basic definition of a sandbox game, you don't pay attention, and when ask you to show example of why WoW is a sandbox game, you gave no concrete proof other than biased opinion. I didn't "adapt" sandbox to my definition, I define the term with the universal accepted standard of sandbox game design. Are you a game designer? I am learning to be one, and guess what? I have to know each genre and style and know the definition of them in order to know how to design them and why they are such way.
Everyone does. i don't even care.
I like my sandbox character in Wow with more freedom than handling a spaceship.
You still haven't prove WoW as sandbox. You may have the allusion that it is, but it isn't. You statement is an opinion, a preference, which belongs to you alone, and it doesn't make it correct.
Very very good post and at least someone who understands WHAT I am trying to say ... for how many pages...now (of course being dutch/french doesn't help either. )) Yes I CAN understand why they are angry about letting the balloon "explode" of wishfull thinking. And yes you were about the only one to understand what I wanted to explain from my VERY first post in this thread (meaning the POLISHED and ANALYSED games). And yes - and I have the COMMERCIAL facts behind me - I really really think that from the gaming standpoint these "ideal open ended sandbox world" games would be terrific but complete failures in sales. But yea I am also convinced they would NOT be playable ... game play value wise. UNLESS you had perhaps super super development teams with 100X more resources even Blizzard has to develop them AND make them playable in BALANCED forms. Then you are missing the point here. From game design perspective, sandbox game design is not based on the resources of the developers alone, but the systems which are designed into the game. With the right systems designed and functioned in the correct way (which include polishing and whatnot...), sandbox games are viable and capable of being huge successes. The reason why there aren't that many sandbox design is due to most of the developers had only experience linear game play and they enjoyed it. So it become their own preference and it will affect their design. So when there are more developers who have the experience with sandbox games, then there will be more and better polished games around. Just look at what happend to Age of XXX. That's ALSO WHY I stated somewhere "sandbox" is the new hyped word, it used to be "world pvp". Both are great and both are as hollow as can be. Because HOW can you EVER have gameplay (meaning polished balanced VALUE of play) in there. So I am letting the ballon burst: according to the reactions--- far too many dream on. Resulting in ....complete failure of EVERY new MMORPG being launched these last years. Why do you think ? ))
You are not "letting the balloon burst," but you are just using your preference and opinion and stating it as if it is the universal truth. Unfortunately, that's never the case. By the way, the idea of "balance" can also be stated as "myth." Even WoW is not as balanced as people might think. But that's besides the point. The point is that you cannot use your opinion and preference and make it seem as if it is the only truth.
Well, this is a different arguement isn't it, aside from the semantics. From a semantic point of view, we're simply disagreed on what the term 'sandbox' defines, or if it indeed truely defines anything, and I can accept that. Regarding the second half of your post, I would like to ask you a favour. I realise that many people are anti-WoW, and let their dislike of the game taint their presentation of their views and lend bias to their point of view. So please, I ask you to realise that I am a huge fan of WoW, a current player, a defiante purchase or the next expansion, and that nothing I say is because I think WoW is bad, or does things wrong. With that in mind, I take exception to this: I showed that to have a GOOD and polished MMORPG these days you need to have COMPLETE designer control of every aspect of the game. I believe it is this opinion that is causing argument, more so than the definition of ‘sandbox’. The problem here is that there are MMO game systems that can only exist outside of COMPLETE designer control, and you are telling people that enjoy these systems that they are wrong to do so. What I would ask is why you feel you are qualified to tell people that for a game to have a feature that they enjoy, it must be a ‘worse’ game than WoW. I suppose some examples would be stuff like: · - Having quested in Tanaris, I would like to purge the south of the zone of the ogres and found a desert city there. This city would be free of political affiliations to either the horde or alliance directly, but may have some kind of trading agreement with the Steamwheedle Cartel. Okay, it’s a very simplistic example, not designed to cover all the potential offered by a free world, but hopefully enough to illustrate the point. Using that example, we would need the following features that could NOT be directly controlled by the design team: 1) - The ability to found a city, and build player structures, with a degree of freedom. Ideally this would be total freedom but even the biggest sandbox snob would probably accept that some limitations are required. 2) - The ability to form new factions, or have some kind of political influence outside of the pre-structured factions, whilst not having to permanently subscribe to the racial reactions to traditional enemies. Now, of course, WoW as we know it would have to compromise some features for this: 1) The gameworld would have to lose some if it’s carefully sculptured style and layout. Freeform structure building doesn’t work very well in a heavy-sculpted landscape. 2) - Questlines designed for faction-specific character progression are compromised and may possibly have to lose some of their great focus and detail. 3)- - PvP flagging is simply more complicated, it’s not enough for the game to know that a player is horde or alliance, it has to track their current affiliation. I think this example highlights the tradeoff: The more power you put in the player’s hands (and away from the designers) the less specific detail (and of course balance) can be achieved with the designer-provided content. This will be the same in other facets, for example the more control a player has over the uniqueness of an item, the less time the developers will have to be able to give each possible item a unique and interesting look. Now here’s my problem: The way you present your opinion suggests that you think that only the “WoW” approach is the ‘good’ way to do it. And well, it is A good way. I know I enjoy it. But I also know that I and many others LOVE the other way. We WILL happily sacrifice a highly-sculpted landscape, easier to maintain, highly-balanced, scripted and polished system for a game where we have a lot of freedom to change the world independently of highly specific designs by the designers. I’m not saying it’s better, or worse, it’s just two different styles or preferences. Can you understand why people find it slightly offensive that you’re basically saying an MMO can’t provide what they want without being worse than a designer-fixed world like WoW (and of course you are quite entitled to feel offended by the opposite implication, that a WoW-style implementation is inherently worse than a freeform one?)
Very very good post and at least someone who understands WHAT I am trying to say ... for how many pages...now (of course being dutch/french doesn't help either. ))
Yes I CAN understand why they are angry about letting the balloon "explode" of wishfull thinking.
And yes you were about the only one to understand what I wanted to explain from my VERY first post in this thread (meaning the POLISHED and ANALYSED games).
And yes - and I have the COMMERCIAL facts behind me - I really really think that from the gaming standpoint these "ideal open ended sandbox world" games would be terrific but complete failures in sales.
But yea I am also convinced they would NOT be playable ... game play value wise.
UNLESS you had perhaps super super development teams with 100X more resources even Blizzard has to develop them AND make them playable in BALANCED forms.
Just look at what happend to Age of XXX.
That's ALSO WHY I stated somewhere "sandbox" is the new hyped word, it used to be "world pvp". Both are great and both are as hollow as can be.
Because HOW can you EVER have gameplay (meaning polished balanced VALUE of play) in there.
So I am letting the ballon burst: according to the reactions--- far too many dream on.
Resulting in ....complete failure of EVERY new MMORPG being launched these last years.
Why do you think ? ))
Well, at least we know what we're arguing about now
Ah, but Zorndorf, these failed new MMO's usually aren't trying to be 'freeform', sandbox, whatever you want to call it, they're usually trying to be "WoW but a bit different" and just balls it up. AoC certainly sin't what most of us would consider "true sandbox" either, although the keep sieges are certainly a feature of freeform mmo's.
Anyway, here's what we agree on (I think) based on your last post:
The further an MMO goes from entirely desginer-controlled features, the more problematic it becomes for 3 key reasons:
- easy of development and stability, because every feature that is under player control is a hotbed of potential for scrappy implementation and bug hell, in addition to increased database requirements and thus potentially a performance issue.
- Balance and polish, because the more control a player has over the individual aspects of their character (as would be seen in skill system rather than a level system) makes it harder to reach a fair balance between characters.
- perceived commerical viability, because the people with the big money want to invest in a proven approach to MMO (in other words, WoW makes a lot of money, they want some.)
Here then, are the points we seem to disagree on, and my view on them:
- Is it worth trying? Clearly you don't believe so. I disagree. While you are correct that attempts to release freeform MMO's have not gone well thus far, individual features have in themselves worked incredibly well. It will be hard, but we've seen the features work and we know that they're doable, they just need the right game built around them!
- and here's the big one: commerical viability. And I belive it is commerically viable, for the following reason: What WoW does, it does best (and I know you'll agree with that) so investors are going to realise that they cannot possibly dislodge WoW fans by producing MMO's that try to be the same sort of game, because in direct comparison they will look inferior. Therefore, more complex (freeformy!) features are the only realistic way to offer something that WoW doesn't. In terms of designer-controlled content, WoW will not be beaten. Player-driven content is the only avenue through which MMO's other than WoW can really compete. They still won't be WoW beaters, another fact I think investors are finally coming to terms with.
A final consideration is this: Maybe WoW's strength is not truely in the designer-led style, but in the fact that they never work to deadlines and make whatever they do very polished, no matter the time cost. If you look at some of the 'nearly made it' freeform MMO's, their fate was as much to do with shareholder pressure, corporate idiocy and such as it was to do with the style of the game.
At the end of the day though, any MMO that isn't trying to avoid total designer-controlled content is trying to beat Wow at itøs own game, surely nothing that a design team does could be more stupid than that? ^^
Is a "sandbox" mmorpg clearly defined in your opinion?
Do "sandbox" mmorpgs have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features?
Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a concrete concept or an aspirational concept?
Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a matter of type/kind or a matter of degree?
Is EVE a true "sandbox" mmorpg?
I ask because some people in the thread treat these matters as if they are black and white, where I think of them as open for a worthwhile debate between gamers who may or may not like sandbox mmorpgs
Ok Zorndorf lets compare your precious WoW with the king of sandboxes Ultima online.
In WoW you pick your race and class, start level 1 in a starting area for your race get quests, kill things, get rewards + exp. Level up. Repeat untill 70. You may also break this up with running a few instances to get more exp and better gear. You may also do some crafting/gathering. Or you may do some instanced PvP. All your gear is level based and most of it once worn and to low level for you is either sold or disenchanted if you have the skill. The whole path to 70 is a linear set of different zones with level ranges you have to go to a level apporaite area to "level" you cant go to a level 60 area to level your level 20 toon. Once you get to level 70 the Engame begins, you can either do PvE raiding, heroic dungeons all for the purpose of getting"Epic Gear" once you have the very best Epic gear in the game its game over for PvE. PvP is again all about instanced battlegrounds that have no bearing on the world, once you get all your epic gear whats the point in PvP in BG? Arena is just another grinding excerise for PvP gear, but at least you can play on to get a better team score. You can craft, but you can craft in nearly every MMO, doesnt make it a sandbox because it has a auction house, infact auction houses detract from sandboxes as theres no player interaction. You get mounts only at 40,60 and flying ones at 70. So ineffect you can beat the game, theres no reason to visit any off the other low level zones in the world.
In ultima online you pick either an elf or human, this has little effect on your character mostly cosmetic. You can pick a basic skill set, warrior, mage ect. You can choose to start in the newbie area or go straight to one of the many cities in the game. UO is completly skill based, you choose the skills you want to level by using those skills. A Starting character has no restrictions, they can go were they want in the world, no barriers. A New character can have a mount straight away, can have a house straight away, can wear nearly every item in the game even the best ones. A player will shape his character through skills, if character keeps using swords, he will become a swordsman, but if hes doesnt like that he can start using magic and become a mage, but can throw other skills in his template like parrying with a sheild, wrestling, necromancy and make a unique template, they may choose to use bard skills, or tame animals to raise there skill so they can tame dragons to fight for them. There are numerous crafting professions, gathering requires you to prospect and search the world for resource rare spots, not easy beacause the world is huge.You can learn to read maps and hunt for treasure, buy a boat and fish for treasure, explore many dungeons at any time. You can own a house that is actually ingame and customize everything about it to look unique, you can run a shop in your house with vendors to sell crafted and looted items. In between this you can hang around with your friends and guildies in cities and your houses, players can make there own content through there houses by holding events because the game allows it. I have been to player run auctions with over a 100 people <---thats a true auction house, won a fashion show, been to many partys, weddings, role played in guilds, had wars with other guilds, been to player museums to look at unique rare one of a kind items. Is there a end game? No really theres more stuff to do if you have a more developed toon, you fight boss monsters for artifacts and other items in a varitey of different ways, crafting to get the best armour and weapons, you can become a rare colector and search out for true rares to add to your collection, but there is really no end to the game this is a true sandbox, I have been playing for 5 years and you cant "Beat It" there is still some stuff i havent done, I still have skills to raise to maximum. I have spent whole gaming sessions just doing stuff that hasnt advanced my character, gained me any loot or money just for the fun off it.
There is nothing sandbox about Warcraft, you are completly ingnorant, if you think just beacause you can craft a Helicopter and Arena is a E-Sport makes it a sandbox your deluded. Btw the helecopter can only be crafted if your an engineer, and can only be used by you and never sold as well as needing to be level 70 and having a high enginner skill, so please how does that relate to a sandbox? Sounds like a single player game feature.
Ok Zorndorf lets compare your precious WoW with the king of sandboxes Ultima online. In WoW you pick your race and class, start level 1 in a starting area for your race get quests, kill things, get rewards + exp. Level up. Repeat untill 70. You may also break this up with running a few instances to get more exp and better gear. You may also do some crafting/gathering. Or you may do some instanced PvP. All your gear is level based and most of it once worn and to low level for you is either sold or disenchanted if you have the skill. The whole path to 70 is a linear set of different zones with level ranges you have to go to a level apporaite area to "level" you cant go to a level 60 area to level your level 20 toon. Once you get to level 70 the Engame begins, you can either do PvE raiding, heroic dungeons all for the purpose of getting"Epic Gear" once you have the very best Epic gear in the game its game over for PvE. PvP is again all about instanced battlegrounds that have no bearing on the world, once you get all your epic gear whats the point in PvP in BG? Arena is just another grinding excerise for PvP gear, but at least you can play on to get a better team score. You can craft, but you can craft in nearly every MMO, doesnt make it a sandbox because it has a auction house, infact auction houses detract from sandboxes as theres no player interaction. You get mounts only at 40,60 and flying ones at 70. So ineffect you can beat the game, theres no reason to visit any off the other low level zones in the world. In ultima online you pick either an elf or human, this has little effect on your character mostly cosmetic. You can pick a basic skill set, warrior, mage ect. You can choose to start in the newbie area or go straight to one of the many cities in the game. UO is completly skill based, you choose the skills you want to level by using those skills. A Starting character has no restrictions, they can go were they want in the world, no barriers. A New character can have a mount straight away, can have a house straight away, can wear nearly every item in the game even the best ones. A player will shape his character through skills, if character keeps using swords, he will become a swordsman, but if hes doesnt like that he can start using magic and become a mage, but can throw other skills in his template like parrying with a sheild, wrestling, necromancy and make a unique template, they may choose to use bard skills, or tame animals to raise there skill so they can tame dragons to fight for them. There are numerous crafting professions, gathering requires you to prospect and search the world for resource rare spots, not easy beacause the world is huge.You can learn to read maps and hunt for treasure, buy a boat and fish for treasure, explore many dungeons at any time. You can own a house that is actually ingame and customize everything about it to look unique, you can run a shop in your house with vendors to sell crafted and looted items. In between this you can hang around with your friends and guildies in cities and your houses, players can make there own content through there houses by holding events because the game allows it. I have been to player run auctions with over a 100 people <---thats a true auction house, won a fashion show, been to many partys, weddings, role played in guilds, had wars with other guilds, been to player museums to look at unique rare one of a kind items. Is there a end game? No really theres more stuff to do if you have a more developed toon, you fight boss monsters for artifacts and other items in a varitey of different ways, crafting to get the best armour and weapons, you can become a rare colector and search out for true rares to add to your collection, but there is really no end to the game this is a true sandbox, I have been playing for 5 years and you cant "Beat It" there is still some stuff i havent done, I still have skills to raise to maximum. I have spent whole gaming sessions just doing stuff that hasnt advanced my character, gained me any loot or money just for the fun off it. There is nothing sandbox about Warcraft, you are completly ingnorant, if you think just beacause you can craft a Helicopter and Arena is a E-Sport makes it a sandbox your deluded. Btw the helecopter can only be crafted if your an engineer, and can only be used by you and never sold as well as needing to be level 70 and having a high enginner skill, so please how does that relate to a sandbox? Sounds like a single player game feature.
Altho i agree with most you say this WALL of txt is a pain to read and many will not accomplish this task, to read it all:P
Some space between section so we can breath a little:)
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
1. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg clearly defined in your opinion?
No, but there are 1) a constellation of features that many agree on as a prototype and 2) a handful of concepts that many argue as being the motivating factors - such as "freedom of choice"
2. Do "sandbox" mmorpgs 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.
3. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a concrete concept or an aspirational concept?
See above - I do not think that it is a concrete concept. I think that there are a set of features of a prototypical sandbox mmorpg that serve an aspirational purpose.
4. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a matter of type/kind or a matter of degree?
I believe that "sandboxiness" lies on a continuum - it is a matter of degree. With that in mind, I see WoW lying on that continuum and I can conceive that it could move on that continuum as the game is updated over time. I see EVE on that continuum as well - and farther to my own ideal of the prototypical sandbox mmorpg.
5. Is EVE a true "sandbox" mmorpg?
In my opinion, it is not. For the following (previously stated) reasons and a few others:
Character advancement - in my opinion, a "true" sandbox game would not have classes, levels, skills or skill points, character statistics, crafting proficiency or the like. Everyone could do anything - and a "newbie" could do the same things as a "veteran", dependent on player (not character) skill
Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are more areas in which to explore, but the security ratings of areas are a type of linearity just as much as difficulty of zones in other mmorpgs
Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are different agents in the game (quest givers with a different abstract form of ? over their heads), but your "faction" with their corporation impose a type of linearity just as much as different level quest givers in other mmorpgs (you cannot go to *any* quest giver and ask what's up - you must work through prerequisites to be able to interact with them)
Restrictions on character design - race is a factor that cannot be overcome
Restrictions on character design / advancement - there are (arbitrary) prerequisites for skills
Restrictions on character advancement - there a time-based restriction on skills (which in my opinion is a different type of linear character advancement)
Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces character level with a group of skill levels
Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces "classes" with an associated set of skills needed to adequately perform a role in group play
Restrictions on what different players are able to do based on loot
Restrictions on available character actions - every action that is possible to do given the setting / genre / environment is not allowed - you cannot walk in a starbase, you cannot land on a planet, you cannot start a colony, etc.
The world is not truly dynamic - if you kill an NPC, it will respawn some time later. You cannot wipe out all pirates from the game forever, they are infinately spawning and any change that you make regarding NPCs will become undone over time if no further action is taken
The world is not truly dynamic - what are the ways in which you can truly "affect" the world (besides building an outpost - what is the "affect" of that)? Can you take over a starbase? Can you create a new portal between zones? Can you create a new asteroid field? Can you create a new blueprint?
The world is not truly dynamic - there is no in-game system to engage in politics and "change" the rules - can citizens get together in-game and lobby for changes in the security rating of a zone or how security forces operate?
The economy is not completely character driven - NPCs offer manufactured goods and harvestable materials at prices which compete with player character created or harvested goods and materials
The economy is not completely character driven - prices for goods get "reset" as there are arbitrary market controls
The pvp is not truly "open" - there are systems (security rating / security forces) that attempt to regulate aggressive actions against new players who may choose to use them (stay in high security space) to avoid player aggression
You cannot be a "pure" crafter without *leveling up* (where level up = time instead of some other level)
There not a "large" selection of things to do - this is solely an opinion, but the rather cookie cutter options of quest (ratting) / pvp / resource gathering / crafting / fed-exing goods from point a to point b does not seem quantitatively or qualitatively different from other "linear" mmorpgs
There a "large" selection of player-generated goals that are possible - there are other goals than those listed in the actions above (such as those involving corporations), but these do not seem qualitatively different from guilds in other "linear" mmorpgs
Sounds WOW/TBC June 2008. The opening of the Sunwell these last months was an effort from the whole population. Made possible by doing daily quests and crafting from the whole community per server. Oh !that doesn't count because it's Wow.
And how much choice did you have in HOW the island developed due to the community's efforts?
And once the last part of the island was claimed by the Shatterred Sun Offensive, what other options for virtual world advancement were available?
I LOVE WoW, I really do, and it's NOTHING to do with disliking WoW, I would say the same about LOTRO, EQ2, AoC.... they're not sandbox.
Did it change the world ? yep
Was it reset ? Nope
It changed the world as it was scripted to change the world.
But you just don't get that.
The story is set. The developers give you a predetermined storyline to follow.
It's not your story...whether you participated in the battle or not did not change the outcome, which was predetermined by the developers, one bit.
Oh, it was fun and all, no doubt. But your presence was not required.
WoW is not a sandbox game. At all. That is not to say that it's a bad game, or that it isn't wildly successful.
But it's not a sandbox.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Well, at least we know what we're arguing about now Ah, but Zorndorf, these failed new MMO's usually aren't trying to be 'freeform', sandbox, whatever you want to call it, they're usually trying to be "WoW but a bit different" and just balls it up. AoC certainly sin't what most of us would consider "true sandbox" either, although the keep sieges are certainly a feature of freeform mmo's. Anyway, here's what we agree on (I think) based on your last post: The further an MMO goes from entirely desginer-controlled features, the more problematic it becomes for 3 key reasons: - easy of development and stability, because every feature that is under player control is a hotbed of potential for scrappy implementation and bug hell, in addition to increased database requirements and thus potentially a performance issue. - Balance and polish, because the more control a player has over the individual aspects of their character (as would be seen in skill system rather than a level system) makes it harder to reach a fair balance between characters. - perceived commerical viability, because the people with the big money want to invest in a proven approach to MMO (in other words, WoW makes a lot of money, they want some.) Here then, are the points we seem to disagree on, and my view on them: - Is it worth trying? Clearly you don't believe so. I disagree. While you are correct that attempts to release freeform MMO's have not gone well thus far, individual features have in themselves worked incredibly well. It will be hard, but we've seen the features work and we know that they're doable, they just need the right game built around them! - and here's the big one: commerical viability. And I belive it is commerically viable, for the following reason: What WoW does, it does best (and I know you'll agree with that) so investors are going to realise that they cannot possibly dislodge WoW fans by producing MMO's that try to be the same sort of game, because in direct comparison they will look inferior. Therefore, more complex (freeformy!) features are the only realistic way to offer something that WoW doesn't. In terms of designer-controlled content, WoW will not be beaten. Player-driven content is the only avenue through which MMO's other than WoW can really compete. They still won't be WoW beaters, another fact I think investors are finally coming to terms with. A final consideration is this: Maybe WoW's strength is not truely in the designer-led style, but in the fact that they never work to deadlines and make whatever they do very polished, no matter the time cost. If you look at some of the 'nearly made it' freeform MMO's, their fate was as much to do with shareholder pressure, corporate idiocy and such as it was to do with the style of the game.
At the end of the day though, any MMO that isn't trying to avoid total designer-controlled content is trying to beat Wow at itøs own game, surely nothing that a design team does could be more stupid than that? ^^
At the very least this thread is coming to the fundamentals of "sandboxes". And a lot more then " I KNOW what game is a sandbox and what game is NOT a sandbox."
The pitaph of it :calling EVE total freedom, a game where you can't even leave your spaceship. NOT talking of the very high qualtiy EVE stand for btw.
I HATE the term sandbox by the way. And by showing Wow had elements of player creations that influence the world YOU live in, was just not excepted from most players "hard disks", because of various reasons. They need to erase those hard disks and ask some very fundamental questions.:
I believe in EVOLUTION. Not revolution. Step by step. Design phase by design phase. Profesionnel control phase.
WHY DO people keep on playing succesful MMORPG's which HAVE lineair questing up to max level AFTER dinging. ...
A LOT of MMORPG's failed, NOT because they were Wow clones and having lineair leveling, but because they just did NOT kept the attention of its players...
Talking about trends here (please refrain all who want to cry out : I did not like game X and I left ! at level 34). It is the general trend we speak of.
Answer: because MORE options to play, MORE choices offered the MORE players you will please. be it "lesser sandboxed or more sandboxed" doesn't even matter. And in this repect I differ again.
Conan tried to compete with Wow and other MMORPG's (like LOTRO, etc...) by using BIG (ugly) graphics resolutions, forgetting in the end WHY people PAY to play.
Its end game woud be "ultimate siege combats" with players constructing them and conquering them. these cities and sieges would be considered elements of sandboxes. We all were drewling all over our keyboards. Waauw >...and sandboxes yeaaah !!!!
The result is ... well painfull if you know that all other basic elements were... (no stop talking of Conan), off topic here.
But hey what do we have in WotLK? Constructable keeps? with constructed siege engines? team based tank combat ? Controlled zones by one side or the other that changes (temporary) the world. Mounts with passengers. Flying air combat systems. Man crafted tools to aid in all this.
And HOPS! now suddenly it is NOT a "sandbox element", because ... i KNOW this Wow product from 4 years ago and it wasn't in it then. Wow how intelligent.
So stop ? Why? Why should Blizzard stop something developping further they make 1.2 billion dollars a year from ?
Because Blizard wants it in a more controlled form with professional balancing mechanism and support hard data analysis, with real alpha testing and beta testing?
Where is the line of your "sandbox". For most it stops when they hear the name Wow! Not realising we are not even talking of the same game anymore.
Arena was an unknown word in Wow before 2006.
Wow Players couldn't fly in crafted helicopters back in 2007.
Construction of Keeps is already IN the new WotLK. So why should I back off in stating Wow and any other developped MMORPG game for that matter HAS sandbox elements. Be it LOTRO or Pirates of the Burning Sea.
My conclusion is : I believe in evolution NOT in uncontrolled player daydreams.
Perhaps you COULD be right. But until today I don't see a sandbox. Only shades of greys.
Zorn, what is your second best sandbox game right after WoW?
Napoleon's Battles (with sadles).
I don't know why I should respond to someone who called me an idiot 3 pages ago?
Hope at least you read my stuff above.
No I didnt call you idiot. I said the guy on the picture is nuts. Nothing to do with you. And no I'm not reading your posts if they have more than 3 sentences.
let me guess... Guild Wars? ... or Titan Quest?.. or Command and Conquer? I think you can do helicopters there as well.
I'm guessing it's easier to come up with a comment that you think is pithy than to respond to the assertion that there is not a universally accepted definition of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
If anyone can create a list of necessary and / or sufficient features of a "sandbox" mmorpg i'll be amazed. If anyone can do that AND point to a game that has all those features, I'll be shocked and awed.
let me guess... Guild Wars? ... or Titan Quest?.. or Command and Conquer? I think you can do helicopters there as well.
I'm guessing it's easier to come up with a comment that you think is pithy than to respond to the assertion that there is not a universally accepted definition of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
If anyone can create a list of necessary and / or sufficient features of a "sandbox" mmorpg i'll be amazed. If anyone can do that AND point to a game that has all those features, I'll be shocked and awed.
I think the main point of this thread is to try and make Zorn understand that WoW is -not- a Sandbox game. Everything else is secondary banter right now.
Damn! I contributed to the actual discussion. Stop me! *flees and returns to sipping coffee and watching*
let me guess... Guild Wars? ... or Titan Quest?.. or Command and Conquer? I think you can do helicopters there as well.
I'm guessing it's easier to come up with a comment that you think is pithy than to respond to the assertion that there is not a universally accepted definition of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
If anyone can create a list of necessary and / or sufficient features of a "sandbox" mmorpg i'll be amazed. If anyone can do that AND point to a game that has all those features, I'll be shocked and awed.
Yeh, maybe because I'm not taking these forums seriously enough.
Comments
Why?
Because I showed and to some extend I proved that indeed almost every MMORPG out there is more or less a sandbox game, because ... PURE sandbox games are in fact 'thin air" ideas. Loose ideas, to serve ones purpose....
The answer you will find in my very first post of this thread. I showed that to have a GOOD and polished MMORPG these days you need to have COMPLETE designer control of every aspect of the game.
Lack of these millions of data analysis and testings (read the first thread) result in games like Age of Conan and the numerous OLD MMORPG techniques we had to endure.
Amateurish, broken systems.
Sandbox is a hype and a "myth". Seen by old grognards who think they can stand above the masses by looking back at HOW good those old days were.
It's normal: they consider themselves the upper upper classes of MMORPG players.
In society they are the cricket players of modern sports (Eve). A game hard to play and hard to explain.
While football is for the masses with little education, cricket is for the elite.
No matter how laggy and compressed you have to play EVE in PvP (rather like to look at a spreadsheet when battles did take place). It is CHIQUE to say to play EVE and stating it is a sandbox game.
Truth is : every good MMORPG out there is to a certain degree a sandbox game.
And the best are those with decent analysed data designs with a big gameplay value and LOTS of options in their end game playing styles.
Well, this is a different arguement isn't it, aside from the semantics. From a semantic point of view, we're simply disagreed on what the term 'sandbox' defines, or if it indeed truely defines anything, and I can accept that.
Regarding the second half of your post, I would like to ask you a favour. I realise that many people are anti-WoW, and let their dislike of the game taint their presentation of their views and lend bias to their point of view. So please, I ask you to realise that I am a huge fan of WoW, a current player, a defiante purchase or the next expansion, and that nothing I say is because I think WoW is bad, or does things wrong.
With that in mind, I take exception to this: I showed that to have a GOOD and polished MMORPG these days you need to have COMPLETE designer control of every aspect of the game. I believe it is this opinion that is causing argument, more so than the definition of ‘sandbox’.
The problem here is that there are MMO game systems that can only exist outside of COMPLETE designer control, and you are telling people that enjoy these systems that they are wrong to do so. What I would ask is why you feel you are qualified to tell people that for a game to have a feature that they enjoy, it must be a ‘worse’ game than WoW. I suppose some examples would be stuff like:
· - Having quested in Tanaris, I would like to purge the south of the zone of the ogres and found a desert city there. This city would be free of political affiliations to either the horde or alliance directly, but may have some kind of trading agreement with the Steamwheedle Cartel.
Okay, it’s a very simplistic example, not designed to cover all the potential offered by a free world, but hopefully enough to illustrate the point. Using that example, we would need the following features that could NOT be directly controlled by the design team:
1) - The ability to found a city, and build player structures, with a degree of freedom. Ideally this would be total freedom but even the biggest sandbox snob would probably accept that some limitations are required.
2) - The ability to form new factions, or have some kind of political influence outside of the pre-structured factions, whilst not having to permanently subscribe to the racial reactions to traditional enemies.
Now, of course, WoW as we know it would have to compromise some features for this:
1) The gameworld would have to lose some if it’s carefully sculptured style and layout. Freeform structure building doesn’t work very well in a heavy-sculpted landscape.
2) - Questlines designed for faction-specific character progression are compromised and may possibly have to lose some of their great focus and detail.
3)- - PvP flagging is simply more complicated, it’s not enough for the game to know that a player is horde or alliance, it has to track their current affiliation.
I think this example highlights the tradeoff: The more power you put in the player’s hands (and away from the designers) the less specific detail (and of course balance) can be achieved with the designer-provided content. This will be the same in other facets, for example the more control a player has over the uniqueness of an item, the less time the developers will have to be able to give each possible item a unique and interesting look.
Now here’s my problem:
The way you present your opinion suggests that you think that only the “WoW” approach is the ‘good’ way to do it. And well, it is A good way. I know I enjoy it.
But I also know that I and many others LOVE the other way. We WILL happily sacrifice a highly-sculpted landscape, easier to maintain, highly-balanced, scripted and polished system for a game where we have a lot of freedom to change the world independently of highly specific designs by the designers. I’m not saying it’s better, or worse, it’s just two different styles or preferences. Can you understand why people find it slightly offensive that you’re basically saying an MMO can’t provide what they want without being worse than a designer-fixed world like WoW (and of course you are quite entitled to feel offended by the opposite implication, that a WoW-style implementation is inherently worse than a freeform one?)
Forgive me for copying and pasting from the wikipedia entry from semantics, under prototype theory:
_____________________________________________________
Prototype theory
Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members.
Systems of categories are not objectively "out there" in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world — meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience". A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture.
I bet about 2699 players will not agree with you that SWG was a sand box.
It just shows that sandbox is a "hype" that doen't exist. A word without meaning.
This comment is a joke right? SWG wasn't a sandbox style game? What, were you one of those that started a year AFTER the NGE hit?
I NEVER said SWG wasn't a sandbox. I say all good MMORPG's these days have sandbox elements.
Zorndoff, does anything you do in WoW affect the game world or just other players and yourself?
Please answer this.
O_o o_O
You were the guy that wanted to prove Wow was not a sandbox because you couldn't craft ... let's see ...saddles and zeppelins that would "change the world".
Well I answered that I have a crafted saddle and make helicopters
Still waiting for your answer....
I gave up trying to reason with you, silly person. You ignored 99% of what I wrote and replied with "HEY I CAN DO HELICOPTER OMG"
You can believe whatever you want little fanboy, if WoW is a sandbox for you, good for you. But for the rest of us (sane guys), it simply isn't. Anyway thanks for quoting the lovely picture of Sid Haig again.
REALITY CHECK
As long as you say that EVE is a true FREEDOM sandbox game, ..
EVE = A game you can't even exit from your spacehip.
and Wow it is totally not, while I even C R A F T my own transports like helicopters...
This discussion is closed and I win, because lack of foundation in YOUR definitions.
Nope. As someone else said, you are compare apple and orange here.
I keep saying, compare the core system, then you'll see the difference.
I already gave the definition of core elements of sandbox and elements associate and/or derived from the core, you offer NOTHING... so you, sir, won nothing and lost all sense of logic...
You can CRAFT!!! We know, but can you be a PURE CRAFTER???
----------------------------------
I say Wotlk will have constructable (grouped) keeps and siege engines
YOU answer with "... and is this over the whole world or only there and there..."
For the N+1 time, ANSWER ALL THE DAMN QUESTIONS!!! If you want to nit-pick them, I can do that too.
And my question regard to WoTLK's constructable keeps are simple, is it in the open-world?(the whole game world, not just the area created for the expansion) If it is not, then even though it is element derived from the sandbox core Dynamic world, it is still not a true dynamic world system (because it is limited to just the new expansion area...) So you didn't proof anything here...
it just shows you are adepting the term "sandbox" to your own definitions.
Again, I gave the basic definition of a sandbox game, you don't pay attention, and when ask you to show example of why WoW is a sandbox game, you gave no concrete proof other than biased opinion. I didn't "adapt" sandbox to my definition, I define the term with the universal accepted standard of sandbox game design. Are you a game designer? I am learning to be one, and guess what? I have to know each genre and style and know the definition of them in order to know how to design them and why they are such way.
Everyone does. i don't even care.
I like my sandbox character in Wow with more freedom than handling a spaceship.
You still haven't prove WoW as sandbox. You may have the allusion that it is, but it isn't. You statement is an opinion, a preference, which belongs to you alone, and it doesn't make it correct.
Discussion over, logic triumphs.
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
Wishful thinking?
Not playable?
Too many dream on?
There is only one point that you proved to everybody without any doubt: that you, sir, are an utterly hopeless idiot.
I rest my case.
Zorndorf which mmorpgs have u truly played. Im just wondering
Things I learned about the sandbox gods from watching this thread:
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
Very very good post and at least someone who understands WHAT I am trying to say ... for how many pages...now (of course being dutch/french doesn't help either.
))
Yes I CAN understand why they are angry about letting the balloon "explode" of wishfull thinking.
And yes you were about the only one to understand what I wanted to explain from my VERY first post in this thread (meaning the POLISHED and ANALYSED games).
And yes - and I have the COMMERCIAL facts behind me - I really really think that from the gaming standpoint these "ideal open ended sandbox world" games would be terrific but complete failures in sales.
But yea I am also convinced they would NOT be playable ... game play value wise.
UNLESS you had perhaps super super development teams with 100X more resources even Blizzard has to develop them AND make them playable in BALANCED forms.
Just look at what happend to Age of XXX.
That's ALSO WHY I stated somewhere "sandbox" is the new hyped word, it used to be "world pvp". Both are great and both are as hollow as can be.
Because HOW can you EVER have gameplay (meaning polished balanced VALUE of play) in there.
So I am letting the ballon burst: according to the reactions--- far too many dream on.
Resulting in ....complete failure of EVERY new MMORPG being launched these last years.
Why do you think ?
))
Well, at least we know what we're arguing about now
Ah, but Zorndorf, these failed new MMO's usually aren't trying to be 'freeform', sandbox, whatever you want to call it, they're usually trying to be "WoW but a bit different" and just balls it up. AoC certainly sin't what most of us would consider "true sandbox" either, although the keep sieges are certainly a feature of freeform mmo's.
Anyway, here's what we agree on (I think) based on your last post:
The further an MMO goes from entirely desginer-controlled features, the more problematic it becomes for 3 key reasons:
- easy of development and stability, because every feature that is under player control is a hotbed of potential for scrappy implementation and bug hell, in addition to increased database requirements and thus potentially a performance issue.
- Balance and polish, because the more control a player has over the individual aspects of their character (as would be seen in skill system rather than a level system) makes it harder to reach a fair balance between characters.
- perceived commerical viability, because the people with the big money want to invest in a proven approach to MMO (in other words, WoW makes a lot of money, they want some.)
Here then, are the points we seem to disagree on, and my view on them:
- Is it worth trying? Clearly you don't believe so. I disagree. While you are correct that attempts to release freeform MMO's have not gone well thus far, individual features have in themselves worked incredibly well. It will be hard, but we've seen the features work and we know that they're doable, they just need the right game built around them!
- and here's the big one: commerical viability. And I belive it is commerically viable, for the following reason: What WoW does, it does best (and I know you'll agree with that) so investors are going to realise that they cannot possibly dislodge WoW fans by producing MMO's that try to be the same sort of game, because in direct comparison they will look inferior. Therefore, more complex (freeformy!) features are the only realistic way to offer something that WoW doesn't. In terms of designer-controlled content, WoW will not be beaten. Player-driven content is the only avenue through which MMO's other than WoW can really compete. They still won't be WoW beaters, another fact I think investors are finally coming to terms with.
A final consideration is this: Maybe WoW's strength is not truely in the designer-led style, but in the fact that they never work to deadlines and make whatever they do very polished, no matter the time cost. If you look at some of the 'nearly made it' freeform MMO's, their fate was as much to do with shareholder pressure, corporate idiocy and such as it was to do with the style of the game.
At the end of the day though, any MMO that isn't trying to avoid total designer-controlled content is trying to beat Wow at itøs own game, surely nothing that a design team does could be more stupid than that? ^^
Questions:
I ask because some people in the thread treat these matters as if they are black and white, where I think of them as open for a worthwhile debate between gamers who may or may not like sandbox mmorpgs
Ok Zorndorf lets compare your precious WoW with the king of sandboxes Ultima online.
In WoW you pick your race and class, start level 1 in a starting area for your race get quests, kill things, get rewards + exp. Level up. Repeat untill 70. You may also break this up with running a few instances to get more exp and better gear. You may also do some crafting/gathering. Or you may do some instanced PvP. All your gear is level based and most of it once worn and to low level for you is either sold or disenchanted if you have the skill. The whole path to 70 is a linear set of different zones with level ranges you have to go to a level apporaite area to "level" you cant go to a level 60 area to level your level 20 toon. Once you get to level 70 the Engame begins, you can either do PvE raiding, heroic dungeons all for the purpose of getting"Epic Gear" once you have the very best Epic gear in the game its game over for PvE. PvP is again all about instanced battlegrounds that have no bearing on the world, once you get all your epic gear whats the point in PvP in BG? Arena is just another grinding excerise for PvP gear, but at least you can play on to get a better team score. You can craft, but you can craft in nearly every MMO, doesnt make it a sandbox because it has a auction house, infact auction houses detract from sandboxes as theres no player interaction. You get mounts only at 40,60 and flying ones at 70. So ineffect you can beat the game, theres no reason to visit any off the other low level zones in the world.
In ultima online you pick either an elf or human, this has little effect on your character mostly cosmetic. You can pick a basic skill set, warrior, mage ect. You can choose to start in the newbie area or go straight to one of the many cities in the game. UO is completly skill based, you choose the skills you want to level by using those skills. A Starting character has no restrictions, they can go were they want in the world, no barriers. A New character can have a mount straight away, can have a house straight away, can wear nearly every item in the game even the best ones. A player will shape his character through skills, if character keeps using swords, he will become a swordsman, but if hes doesnt like that he can start using magic and become a mage, but can throw other skills in his template like parrying with a sheild, wrestling, necromancy and make a unique template, they may choose to use bard skills, or tame animals to raise there skill so they can tame dragons to fight for them. There are numerous crafting professions, gathering requires you to prospect and search the world for resource rare spots, not easy beacause the world is huge.You can learn to read maps and hunt for treasure, buy a boat and fish for treasure, explore many dungeons at any time. You can own a house that is actually ingame and customize everything about it to look unique, you can run a shop in your house with vendors to sell crafted and looted items. In between this you can hang around with your friends and guildies in cities and your houses, players can make there own content through there houses by holding events because the game allows it. I have been to player run auctions with over a 100 people <---thats a true auction house, won a fashion show, been to many partys, weddings, role played in guilds, had wars with other guilds, been to player museums to look at unique rare one of a kind items. Is there a end game? No really theres more stuff to do if you have a more developed toon, you fight boss monsters for artifacts and other items in a varitey of different ways, crafting to get the best armour and weapons, you can become a rare colector and search out for true rares to add to your collection, but there is really no end to the game this is a true sandbox, I have been playing for 5 years and you cant "Beat It" there is still some stuff i havent done, I still have skills to raise to maximum. I have spent whole gaming sessions just doing stuff that hasnt advanced my character, gained me any loot or money just for the fun off it.
There is nothing sandbox about Warcraft, you are completly ingnorant, if you think just beacause you can craft a Helicopter and Arena is a E-Sport makes it a sandbox your deluded. Btw the helecopter can only be crafted if your an engineer, and can only be used by you and never sold as well as needing to be level 70 and having a high enginner skill, so please how does that relate to a sandbox? Sounds like a single player game feature.
Altho i agree with most you say this WALL of txt is a pain to read and many will not accomplish this task, to read it all:P
Some space between section so we can breath a little:)
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
I'll take a stab at my own questions:
1. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg clearly defined in your opinion?
No, but there are 1) a constellation of features that many agree on as a prototype and 2) a handful of concepts that many argue as being the motivating factors - such as "freedom of choice"
2. Do "sandbox" mmorpgs 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.
3. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a concrete concept or an aspirational concept?
See above - I do not think that it is a concrete concept. I think that there are a set of features of a prototypical sandbox mmorpg that serve an aspirational purpose.
4. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a matter of type/kind or a matter of degree?
I believe that "sandboxiness" lies on a continuum - it is a matter of degree. With that in mind, I see WoW lying on that continuum and I can conceive that it could move on that continuum as the game is updated over time. I see EVE on that continuum as well - and farther to my own ideal of the prototypical sandbox mmorpg.
5. Is EVE a true "sandbox" mmorpg?
In my opinion, it is not. For the following (previously stated) reasons and a few others:
And how much choice did you have in HOW the island developed due to the community's efforts?
And once the last part of the island was claimed by the Shatterred Sun Offensive, what other options for virtual world advancement were available?
I LOVE WoW, I really do, and it's NOTHING to do with disliking WoW, I would say the same about LOTRO, EQ2, AoC.... they're not sandbox.
Did it change the world ? yep
Was it reset ? Nope
It changed the world as it was scripted to change the world.
But you just don't get that.
The story is set. The developers give you a predetermined storyline to follow.
It's not your story...whether you participated in the battle or not did not change the outcome, which was predetermined by the developers, one bit.
Oh, it was fun and all, no doubt. But your presence was not required.
WoW is not a sandbox game. At all. That is not to say that it's a bad game, or that it isn't wildly successful.
But it's not a sandbox.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
At the very least this thread is coming to the fundamentals of "sandboxes". And a lot more then " I KNOW what game is a sandbox and what game is NOT a sandbox."
The pitaph of it :calling EVE total freedom, a game where you can't even leave your spaceship. NOT talking of the very high qualtiy EVE stand for btw.
I HATE the term sandbox by the way. And by showing Wow had elements of player creations that influence the world YOU live in, was just not excepted from most players "hard disks", because of various reasons. They need to erase those hard disks and ask some very fundamental questions.:
I believe in EVOLUTION. Not revolution. Step by step. Design phase by design phase. Profesionnel control phase.
WHY DO people keep on playing succesful MMORPG's which HAVE lineair questing up to max level AFTER dinging. ...
A LOT of MMORPG's failed, NOT because they were Wow clones and having lineair leveling, but because they just did NOT kept the attention of its players...
Talking about trends here (please refrain all who want to cry out : I did not like game X and I left ! at level 34). It is the general trend we speak of.
Answer: because MORE options to play, MORE choices offered the MORE players you will please. be it "lesser sandboxed or more sandboxed" doesn't even matter. And in this repect I differ again.
Conan tried to compete with Wow and other MMORPG's (like LOTRO, etc...) by using BIG (ugly) graphics resolutions, forgetting in the end WHY people PAY to play.
Its end game woud be "ultimate siege combats" with players constructing them and conquering them. these cities and sieges would be considered elements of sandboxes. We all were drewling all over our keyboards. Waauw >...and sandboxes yeaaah !!!!
The result is ... well painfull if you know that all other basic elements were... (no stop talking of Conan), off topic here.
But hey what do we have in WotLK? Constructable keeps? with constructed siege engines? team based tank combat ? Controlled zones by one side or the other that changes (temporary) the world. Mounts with passengers. Flying air combat systems. Man crafted tools to aid in all this.
And HOPS! now suddenly it is NOT a "sandbox element", because ... i KNOW this Wow product from 4 years ago and it wasn't in it then. Wow how intelligent.
So stop ? Why? Why should Blizzard stop something developping further they make 1.2 billion dollars a year from ?
Because Blizard wants it in a more controlled form with professional balancing mechanism and support hard data analysis, with real alpha testing and beta testing?
Where is the line of your "sandbox". For most it stops when they hear the name Wow! Not realising we are not even talking of the same game anymore.
Arena was an unknown word in Wow before 2006.
Wow Players couldn't fly in crafted helicopters back in 2007.
Construction of Keeps is already IN the new WotLK. So why should I back off in stating Wow and any other developped MMORPG game for that matter HAS sandbox elements. Be it LOTRO or Pirates of the Burning Sea.
My conclusion is : I believe in evolution NOT in uncontrolled player daydreams.
Perhaps you COULD be right. But until today I don't see a sandbox. Only shades of greys.
What?
We were getting somewhere Zandorf, then you quoted my post and repsonded to totally different points.
*sigh* etc...
Nothing quite as refreshing as reading this thread first thing in the morning. *sips coffee* Please go on. It's still very amusing.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Zorn, what is your second best sandbox game right after WoW?
REALITY CHECK
let me guess...
Guild Wars?
...
or Titan Quest?.. or Command and Conquer? I think you can do helicopters there as well.
REALITY CHECK
Probably joined you and the other guy playing Vanguard.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Napoleon's Battles (with sadles).
I don't know why I should respond to someone who called me an idiot 3 pages ago?
Hope at least you read my stuff above.
No I didnt call you idiot. I said the guy on the picture is nuts. Nothing to do with you. And no I'm not reading your posts if they have more than 3 sentences.
REALITY CHECK
I'm guessing it's easier to come up with a comment that you think is pithy than to respond to the assertion that there is not a universally accepted definition of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
If anyone can create a list of necessary and / or sufficient features of a "sandbox" mmorpg i'll be amazed. If anyone can do that AND point to a game that has all those features, I'll be shocked and awed.
I'm guessing it's easier to come up with a comment that you think is pithy than to respond to the assertion that there is not a universally accepted definition of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
If anyone can create a list of necessary and / or sufficient features of a "sandbox" mmorpg i'll be amazed. If anyone can do that AND point to a game that has all those features, I'll be shocked and awed.
I think the main point of this thread is to try and make Zorn understand that WoW is -not- a Sandbox game. Everything else is secondary banter right now.
Damn! I contributed to the actual discussion. Stop me! *flees and returns to sipping coffee and watching*
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
I'm guessing it's easier to come up with a comment that you think is pithy than to respond to the assertion that there is not a universally accepted definition of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
If anyone can create a list of necessary and / or sufficient features of a "sandbox" mmorpg i'll be amazed. If anyone can do that AND point to a game that has all those features, I'll be shocked and awed.
Yeh, maybe because I'm not taking these forums seriously enough.
REALITY CHECK