Sandbox vs Themepark Discussion Thread

11920212325

Comments

  • Gamer54321Gamer54321 OsloMember UncommonPosts: 380
    edited August 2016
    I am tempted to think that:

    1) A sandbox game, rely ON offering the player 'player options'


    while

    2) A theme park game, rely ON NOT offering the player 'player options'


    So, this wouldn't about a game seemingly "having" player options, but instead, if the game is designed around giving the player 'player options'.

    Another thing about 'player options': Given how anything 'strategic' is about achieving goals, any game that rely on you SIMPLY accomplishing given goals, would be akin to being a 'theme park' game, as opposed to a game in which you can do other things, than simply achieving some given goal.

    So, in a sense, having lots of 'tactical' options in a game is good for any sand box game. Simply achieving things isn't good enough.

    Post edited by Gamer54321 on

    This forums sucks!

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    ApexTKM said:
    Yea I know, this is the thing, I don't remember back in the day where you were constantly flagged for PvP, you either chose to flag yourself or went into a pvp flagged zone. From what I remember there were no PvP or PvE Servers, just servers indicating which Region or Coast and the name of each servers.

    Currently it looks like imposter sandboxes have "forced pvp" which doesn't even make it sandbox to begin with. Sandbox gives you the option to do what you want, if they are forcing you to do something its not sandbox in my eyes.

    I think people emphasize PvP so much in sandboxes because of all the good times they did it with their server community setting all that up or just checking in a pvp flagged zone to see if anyone is there to fight. But they all forget that sandboxes are meant to be complex, not PvP focused. If it was PvP focused the rest of the game would probably be really bland.

    But theres much more to it than that. Also I think you mean, "If most sandboxes was not a PvP arena gank fest there might be more interest.".
    Eh, sandboxes aren't "meant" to be anything.  They just have to be a game that's more characterized by player authorship than dev authorship.  That's literally the only criteria to be considered a sandbox.  That broad criteria allows for plenty of dev-created rules (it wasn't a player who create the Redstone material type in Minecraft; it was a developer.)  After all, if there are no dev rules at all then it isn't a sandbox game, it's just like...drawing art or writing literature or similar completely-freeform creative activities (none of which are games; games need rules).

    I agree with Horusra's intent, given that there's tremendous potential for PVE cooperative sandbox games and meanwhile it's well-known that open world PVP is casual trash that few players seem interested in (compared with the very strong interest in skill-focused PVP in genres like RTS, FPS, and fighting games).

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • ApexTKMApexTKM Starkiller BaseMember UncommonPosts: 334
    Axehilt said:

    Eh, sandboxes aren't "meant" to be anything.  They just have to be a game that's more characterized by player authorship than dev authorship.  That's literally the only criteria to be considered a sandbox.  That broad criteria allows for plenty of dev-created rules (it wasn't a player who create the Redstone material type in Minecraft; it was a developer.)  After all, if there are no dev rules at all then it isn't a sandbox game, it's just like...drawing art or writing literature or similar completely-freeform creative activities (none of which are games; games need rules).

    I agree with Horusra's intent, given that there's tremendous potential for PVE cooperative sandbox games and meanwhile it's well-known that open world PVP is casual trash that few players seem interested in (compared with the very strong interest in skill-focused PVP in genres like RTS, FPS, and fighting games).

    To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.

    As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.

    And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.

    The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

    But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    ApexTKM said:
    To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.

    As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.

    And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.

    That's not what sandboxes are.

    Sandbox just implies player authorship.  Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference.  It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.

    Pure sandboxes aren't games.  They're things like writing a book, drawing a painting, etc. They're freeform experiences with no rules.  The lack of rules is what makes them pure sandboxes (you're completely free to author the experience in its entirety) and it's why they're not games (you can't be a game without rules).

    Also note that pure sandboxes aren't automatically boring.  Painting can be enjoyable for the same core reason games are fun (pattern mastery: figuring out how to quickly create an aesthetically appealing piece of art).  But yes, a giant empty world where all you can do is wander it makes for a very boring experience (and also isn't especially sandbox-like if you can't actually author (ie change) the world).  Exploration involves too little mastery on its own without purposes to the various locations you can explore.  Exploration is still a light form of pattern-mastery (you're gaining the knowledge of what exists and where it exists) but without additional game systems to provide relevance to that knowledge (and provide many additional patterns which are much harder to master than simply traveling to places) it's flat and boring.

    My comments on open world PVP aren't an emotional backlash. I'm not describing my individual subjective experience.  I'm making simple statements of fact based on the objective game rules.
    • Most PVP games are focused on skillful competition: if you're the more skilled player or team, you win.
    • World PVP is not: instead of the skilled player/team always winning, players can use non-skill factors like progression and population to gain huge advantages over their opponents.
    By extension this makes the skill-based decisions less important, which results in PVP where casual players can do much better.  A team of scrubs in Overwatch matched against a team of better players will always lose (unless they exhibit more skill than their opponents).  Whereas a scrub in EVE can join a giant group of players to utterly crush a smaller force. 

    The common, fallacious counter-argument to the EVE situation is that a small group of skilled players can sometimes beat a larger one.  But everyone understands those situations to be incredibly rare and it doesn't dispute the core problem, which is that when teams and skill are even I can always bring 100 more friends and win the fight with substantially less skill than my opponents.

    (CS:GO is sort of trash amongst FPS games, because hitscan shooters require less skill than shooters with projectile weapons.  It's still a pretty skill-intensive game, but really if you can double-click a Windows icon super accurately, you can score a headshot consistently in CS:GO and so it's a lower bar than the better shooters out there.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • ApexTKMApexTKM Starkiller BaseMember UncommonPosts: 334
    edited September 2016
    Axehilt said:

    That's not what sandboxes are.

    Sandbox just implies player authorship.  Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference.  It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.

    Pure sandboxes aren't games.  They're things like writing a book, drawing a painting, etc. They're freeform experiences with no rules.  The lack of rules is what makes them pure sandboxes (you're completely free to author the experience in its entirety) and it's why they're not games (you can't be a game without rules).
    I think there's a difference between a regular sandbox game than a sandbox mmo. The way I'm always going to define a sandbox mmo is always going to be about the freedom, more choices, more tools, player driven, and a really complex game.(tldr; a second life) Now a regular sandbox game on the other hand its simple as having the freedom to do what you want.

    Note, not alot of sandbox mmos fit my description of a sandbox mmo exactly.

    Sandbox are games.....minecraft.

    When I think of Sandbox PvP, I think of PvP, I don't nitpick at a pvp feature. From a themepark player I guess I understand where your coming from. Sandbox pvp has lately been known as OWPvP but overshadows the rest of the PvP in the game. Nevermind I guess since sandbox mmos these days only have OPvP and no other pvp which sets a bad example imo, of a sandbox mmo.

    I'm starting to think that the people who want OPvP as a feature they want to see in an mmo are people new to the subgenre of sandboxes they probably aren't even sandbox players to begin with, I'm just saying man......I really don't know though.
    Post edited by ApexTKM on
    The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

    But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,692
    Axehilt said:
    ApexTKM said:
    To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.

    As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.

    And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.

    That's not what sandboxes are.

    Sandbox just implies player authorship.  Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference.  It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.

    Pure sandboxes aren't games.  They're things like writing a book, drawing a painting, etc. They're freeform experiences with no rules.  The lack of rules is what makes them pure sandboxes (you're completely free to author the experience in its entirety) and it's why they're not games (you can't be a game without rules).

    Also note that pure sandboxes aren't automatically boring.  Painting can be enjoyable for the same core reason games are fun (pattern mastery: figuring out how to quickly create an aesthetically appealing piece of art).  But yes, a giant empty world where all you can do is wander it makes for a very boring experience (and also isn't especially sandbox-like if you can't actually author (ie change) the world).  Exploration involves too little mastery on its own without purposes to the various locations you can explore.  Exploration is still a light form of pattern-mastery (you're gaining the knowledge of what exists and where it exists) but without additional game systems to provide relevance to that knowledge (and provide many additional patterns which are much harder to master than simply traveling to places) it's flat and boring.

    My comments on open world PVP aren't an emotional backlash. I'm not describing my individual subjective experience.  I'm making simple statements of fact based on the objective game rules.
    • Most PVP games are focused on skillful competition: if you're the more skilled player or team, you win.
    • World PVP is not: instead of the skilled player/team always winning, players can use non-skill factors like progression and population to gain huge advantages over their opponents.
    By extension this makes the skill-based decisions less important, which results in PVP where casual players can do much better.  A team of scrubs in Overwatch matched against a team of better players will always lose (unless they exhibit more skill than their opponents).  Whereas a scrub in EVE can join a giant group of players to utterly crush a smaller force. 

    The common, fallacious counter-argument to the EVE situation is that a small group of skilled players can sometimes beat a larger one.  But everyone understands those situations to be incredibly rare and it doesn't dispute the core problem, which is that when teams and skill are even I can always bring 100 more friends and win the fight with substantially less skill than my opponents.

    (CS:GO is sort of trash amongst FPS games, because hitscan shooters require less skill than shooters with projectile weapons.  It's still a pretty skill-intensive game, but really if you can double-click a Windows icon super accurately, you can score a headshot consistently in CS:GO and so it's a lower bar than the better shooters out there.)

    We have too many people with their own working idea of what sandbox means. There is NOT a consensus on a definition for sandbox and way too many variations for anyone to claim that there is one.  That doesn't mean someone won't try to say there is a standard definition of sandbox.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    ApexTKM said:
    I think there's a difference between a regular sandbox game than a sandbox mmo. The way I'm always going to define a sandbox mmo is always going to be about the freedom, more choices, more tools, player driven, and a really complex game.(tldr; a second life) Now a regular sandbox game on the other hand its simple as having the freedom to do what you want.

    Note, not alot of sandbox mmos fit my description of a sandbox mmo exactly.

    Sandbox are games.....minecraft.

    When I think of Sandbox PvP, I think of PvP, I don't nitpick at a pvp feature. From a themepark player I guess I understand where your coming from. Sandbox pvp has lately been known as OWPvP but overshadows the rest of the PvP in the game. Nevermind I guess since sandbox mmos these days only have OPvP and no other pvp which sets a bad example imo, of a sandbox mmo.

    I'm starting to think that the people who want OPvP as a feature they want to see in an mmo are people new to the subgenre of sandboxes they probably aren't even sandbox players to begin with, I'm just saying man......I really don't know though.
    You can choose to ignore the clear and obvious implication of the term sandbox (it has sand; sand just means that things are malleable/changeable/player-authored), but you shouldn't because it will make you fail to communicate your intended thoughts when communicating with others.

    You can choose to ignore the clear and obvious implication of the term MMO (massively multiplayer and online; that's it), but you shouldn't because (again) using words incorrectly fails to communicate meaning. RPG is the noun, MMO is the adjective.  What kind of RPG? A massively multiplayer online one.  No significant gameplay is changed when becoming an MMO, otherwise MMOFPSes, MMORTSes, and MMORPGs would play similar (and they play entirely different from one another).

    The benefits of choosing ignorance are: you won't have given up an argument on the internet.
    The benefits of choosing knowledge are: efficient, clear communication.

    Don't choose ignorance.  There's no purpose to it.

    It's not really a nitpick to point out that adding non-skill factors (to what would've been a purely skill-based competition) causes PVP to become casual trash. Competition is the point of PVP, and so when one specific rule causes competition to be greatly worsened it's a really important detail and not a "nitpick".  And because this type of PVP isn't interesting to most players, it harms the potential of sandbox MMORPGs when it's used in them, hence Horusra's post.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • ApexTKMApexTKM Starkiller BaseMember UncommonPosts: 334
    Axehilt said:

    And because this type of PVP isn't interesting to most players, it harms the potential of sandbox MMORPGs when it's used in them, hence Horusra's post.
    Agreed, PvP servers are stupid. Not being sarcastic btw, I seriously don't see the point in them at all just like I don't see the point of a pve server either.
    The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

    But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    waynejr2 said:
    Axehilt said:
    ApexTKM said:
    To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.

    As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.

    And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.

    That's not what sandboxes are.

    Sandbox just implies player authorship.  Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference.  It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.
    We have too many people with their own working idea of what sandbox means. There is NOT a consensus on a definition for sandbox and way too many variations for anyone to claim that there is one.  That doesn't mean someone won't try to say there is a standard definition of sandbox.
    Making everyone believe his opinion is the only right one is really all he's here for. If they don't believe in his interpretation of sandbox then obviously they are wrong.

    Hell, even when people have prefaced their statement with "to me" and defined their concept of a sandbox as a personal perspective/preference, axe still considers it wrong because they have an opinion that differs from his.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    Axehilt said:
    ApexTKM said:
    I think there's a difference between a regular sandbox game than a sandbox mmo. The way I'm always going to define a sandbox mmo is always going to be about the freedom, more choices, more tools, player driven, and a really complex game.(tldr; a second life) Now a regular sandbox game on the other hand its simple as having the freedom to do what you want.

    Note, not alot of sandbox mmos fit my description of a sandbox mmo exactly.

    Sandbox are games.....minecraft.

    When I think of Sandbox PvP, I think of PvP, I don't nitpick at a pvp feature. From a themepark player I guess I understand where your coming from. Sandbox pvp has lately been known as OWPvP but overshadows the rest of the PvP in the game. Nevermind I guess since sandbox mmos these days only have OPvP and no other pvp which sets a bad example imo, of a sandbox mmo.

    I'm starting to think that the people who want OPvP as a feature they want to see in an mmo are people new to the subgenre of sandboxes they probably aren't even sandbox players to begin with, I'm just saying man......I really don't know though.
    You can choose to ignore the clear and obvious implication of the term sandbox (it has sand; sand just means that things are malleable/changeable/player-authored), but you shouldn't because it will make you fail to communicate your intended thoughts when communicating with others.

    You can choose to ignore the clear and obvious implication of the term MMO (massively multiplayer and online; that's it), but you shouldn't because (again) using words incorrectly fails to communicate meaning. RPG is the noun, MMO is the adjective.  What kind of RPG? A massively multiplayer online one.  No significant gameplay is changed when becoming an MMO, otherwise MMOFPSes, MMORTSes, and MMORPGs would play similar (and they play entirely different from one another).

    The benefits of choosing ignorance are: you won't have given up an argument on the internet.
    The benefits of choosing knowledge are: efficient, clear communication.

    Don't choose ignorance.  There's no purpose to it.
    Actually that is an example of ignorance in action.

    Notably in the statement of what MMO means. MMO's require a core framework to be developed which makes them stand apart from any other genre of game through the use of the dedicated/persistent client/server model and the subsequent scale of players and interactivity.

    If nothing changed between taking an RPG and turning it into an MMORPG you'd have quite a few big problems. For one, the user experience would quickly get muddled by players indirectly competing to simply fulfill tasks in the world.

    Instead, MMO titles are very intentionally built with the knowledge that the scale and the interaction of players with not just the environment, but each-other in such a broad format with large numbers brings many gameplay consequences. This is for example why you have solutions that try to circumvent the functionality of an MMO in order to deliver a more finite user experience like that you see in SWtoR. By instancing off most stuff and pairing down the user count to a few or even one person, it lets the developers treat it like a single player title, but in the process sacrifice most of it's MMO features.

    And yet that does not dictate homogeny either. Just because "MMO" carries with it certain underlying structures and mechanics, does not make it inflexible in how you design the games atop it. Hence again the SWtoR example. So too would different game genres within the MMO space not have to play similar.

    If you wish others to not be ignorant, then don't choose it yourself.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • ApexTKMApexTKM Starkiller BaseMember UncommonPosts: 334
    Deivos said:

    Making everyone believe his opinion is the only right one is really all he's here for. If they don't believe in his interpretation of sandbox then obviously they are wrong.

    Hell, even when people have prefaced their statement with "to me" and defined their concept of a sandbox as a personal perspective/preference, axe still considers it wrong because they have an opinion that differs from his.
    lmao.........
    The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

    But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,692
    Deivos said:
    waynejr2 said:
    Axehilt said:
    ApexTKM said:
    To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.

    As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.

    And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.

    That's not what sandboxes are.

    Sandbox just implies player authorship.  Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference.  It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.
    We have too many people with their own working idea of what sandbox means. There is NOT a consensus on a definition for sandbox and way too many variations for anyone to claim that there is one.  That doesn't mean someone won't try to say there is a standard definition of sandbox.
    Making everyone believe his opinion is the only right one is really all he's here for. If they don't believe in his interpretation of sandbox then obviously they are wrong.

    Hell, even when people have prefaced their statement with "to me" and defined their concept of a sandbox as a personal perspective/preference, axe still considers it wrong because they have an opinion that differs from his.

    I am still not sure the themepark vs sandbox is even appropriate.  Some see it as the difference between apples and oranges, today I feel it is the difference between paprika and smoked paprika.  Not even sure it is a worthy effort.  I certainly don't see a very methodical approach to the defining of each.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • ApexTKMApexTKM Starkiller BaseMember UncommonPosts: 334
    waynejr2 said:

    I am still not sure the themepark vs sandbox is even appropriate.  Some see it as the difference between apples and oranges, today I feel it is the difference between paprika and smoked paprika.  Not even sure it is a worthy effort.  I certainly don't see a very methodical approach to the defining of each.
    The way people see the difference between them all depends on how they define sandbox/themepark. The way I've defined both makes them significantly different. But even though both types are under the same genre I feel like its comparing Battlefield to League of Legends. like wut, they are two different types of games. The game design is different between both sandbox and themepark.

    The way I see it if you see themepark and sandbox as similar your looking at archeage/BDO and finalfantasy/WoW.
    The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

    But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    It's a relatively fluid concept to me as I think of it as mostly a list of features, and no game is beholden to picking design features from only one "genre" list. Dominant traits and how players approach and interact with the world seems to be the more encompassing or definitive element from my perspective, but in that same token I do feel like toy can, say, have castle and empire building elements in a RPG system or a narrative arc in a sandbox, it's just a matter of how it's implemented alongside the rest of the game's features.

    Overall, the binary nature of the themepark vs sandbox argument setup is an unnecessary one to me and kinda serves to impede the conversation more than help.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHMember RarePosts: 8,735
    Just my opinion, but for me the most important design point of a MMO is character development.  Hence if someone classifies a game as a sandbox, yet the game has classes, I will debate their classification.  If you limit your character with a class designation, you are limiting the most important feature in the game.  If you want to have your wizard run around in plate or wield a two handed sword, it should be your preogative despite their probable constraints. 

    I think the reason there are so few sandbox games at present, many players don't want to make all these  decisions, they want the game to make them for them, hence the popularity of themepark.  In the end it is all about how many people are attracted to your game.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,435
    Ozmodan said:
    Just my opinion, but for me the most important design point of a MMO is character development.  Hence if someone classifies a game as a sandbox, yet the game has classes, I will debate their classification.  If you limit your character with a class designation, you are limiting the most important feature in the game.  If you want to have your wizard run around in plate or wield a two handed sword, it should be your preogative despite their probable constraints. 

    I think the reason there are so few sandbox games at present, many players don't want to make all these  decisions, they want the game to make them for them, hence the popularity of themepark.  In the end it is all about how many people are attracted to your game.
    I think the class system which basically came from Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper decades ago is a system that MMOs tried out, it worked and as a result they saw no need to change it.

    So the only companies that are offering users to even experience an alteritive design are sandybox indies

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    waynejr2 said:
    I am still not sure the themepark vs sandbox is even appropriate.  Some see it as the difference between apples and oranges, today I feel it is the difference between paprika and smoked paprika.  Not even sure it is a worthy effort.  I certainly don't see a very methodical approach to the defining of each.
    They're appropriate terms for indicating how much player authorship (vs. dev authorship) exists in a game.

    You're right that there isn't an objective, methodic approach of measuring how much authorship any given game has (and no game is wholly player-authored OR dev-authored), but that's not a requirement for the word to function.  It's a sub-genre, and genres by definition are broad boundaries that define a certain set of things, and they don't necessarily have to be precise for a player to communicate to another player that a game is highly characterized by player-authorship ("sandbox").

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • DeivosDeivos Member EpicPosts: 3,692
    Axehilt said:
    waynejr2 said:
    I am still not sure the themepark vs sandbox is even appropriate.  Some see it as the difference between apples and oranges, today I feel it is the difference between paprika and smoked paprika.  Not even sure it is a worthy effort.  I certainly don't see a very methodical approach to the defining of each.
    They're appropriate terms for indicating how much player authorship (vs. dev authorship) exists in a game.

    You're right that there isn't an objective, methodic approach of measuring how much authorship any given game has (and no game is wholly player-authored OR dev-authored), but that's not a requirement for the word to function.  It's a sub-genre, and genres by definition are broad boundaries that define a certain set of things, and they don't necessarily have to be precise for a player to communicate to another player that a game is highly characterized by player-authorship ("sandbox").
    So you repeat the same basic argument that already netted a prior response?

    "We have too many people with their own working idea of what sandbox means.There is NOT a consensus on a definition for sandbox and way too many variations for anyone to claim that there is one.  That doesn't mean someone won't try to say there is a standard definition of sandbox."

    The argument of player authorship rapidly breaks down when you consider the nature of different games and how one might classify them.

    For example, you have historically claimed titles like Skyrim on the PC are not sandboxes even though users can go as far as converting the game into an new title if they feel like it. A title with which players are given the tools for the greatest level of creative control with how they mould their experience, and it's not a sandbox?

    And on the flip-side you would still acknowledge the likes of EVE as a sandbox, even though the creative control of the game is considerably more finite.

    Player authorship is obviously not the only factor for you nor others, regardless of what you are trying to claim at the moment to fit your whim. If anything, it implies that there is a means to implementing tools and features that extends player's creative control, and that for some reason certain one's are not "done right" to you to qualify.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin

  • nerovergilnerovergil klMember UncommonPosts: 631
    sandbox = roleplay
  • PhryPhry OxfordshireMember EpicPosts: 9,021
    ApexTKM said:
    Axehilt said:

    And because this type of PVP isn't interesting to most players, it harms the potential of sandbox MMORPGs when it's used in them, hence Horusra's post.
    Agreed, PvP servers are stupid. Not being sarcastic btw, I seriously don't see the point in them at all just like I don't see the point of a pve server either.
    Whether there are PVP or PVE servers in a sandbox game, is largely a matter of preference, and dependent on whether you choose to have voluntary, or not, PVP in the game, there is no requirement after all to have PVP in a sandbox game.
  • MegidolaonMegidolaon New York, NYMember UncommonPosts: 10
    edited October 2016
    .
    Post edited by Megidolaon on
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,867
    Deivos said:
    Axehilt said:
    waynejr2 said:
    I am still not sure the themepark vs sandbox is even appropriate.  Some see it as the difference between apples and oranges, today I feel it is the difference between paprika and smoked paprika.  Not even sure it is a worthy effort.  I certainly don't see a very methodical approach to the defining of each.
    They're appropriate terms for indicating how much player authorship (vs. dev authorship) exists in a game.

    You're right that there isn't an objective, methodic approach of measuring how much authorship any given game has (and no game is wholly player-authored OR dev-authored), but that's not a requirement for the word to function.  It's a sub-genre, and genres by definition are broad boundaries that define a certain set of things, and they don't necessarily have to be precise for a player to communicate to another player that a game is highly characterized by player-authorship ("sandbox").
    So you repeat the same basic argument that already netted a prior response?

    "We have too many people with their own working idea of what sandbox means.There is NOT a consensus on a definition for sandbox and way too many variations for anyone to claim that there is one.  That doesn't mean someone won't try to say there is a standard definition of sandbox."

    The argument of player authorship rapidly breaks down when you consider the nature of different games and how one might classify them.

    For example, you have historically claimed titles like Skyrim on the PC are not sandboxes even though users can go as far as converting the game into an new title if they feel like it. A title with which players are given the tools for the greatest level of creative control with how they mould their experience, and it's not a sandbox?

    And on the flip-side you would still acknowledge the likes of EVE as a sandbox, even though the creative control of the game is considerably more finite.

    Player authorship is obviously not the only factor for you nor others, regardless of what you are trying to claim at the moment to fit your whim. If anything, it implies that there is a means to implementing tools and features that extends player's creative control, and that for some reason certain one's are not "done right" to you to qualify.
    I would say the ability to for players to provide their own content is the very definition of what a sandbox is.

    The term sandbox originates from the sandboxes we played in as a child. You go out there. You take some toys, and you entertain yourself with nothing but the sand and the toys and the box by doing whatever you want with them.

    In contrast at a theme park you go and take part in the attractions they have created to entertain you. A roller coaster, water slide. Things specifically created to give you the experience the creators want you to have.

    EVE is a sandbox in that the main driving content is player politics. There is no scripted end boss. It's player built alliances and corporations fighting each other and other players trying to supply the resources those wars require.

    Skyrim is not a sandbox in that pretty much everything you can do in the game is scripted. In order to convert it into an entirely new game you have to mod it. You can't really consider mods to be part of the game when discussing if the game includes sandbox features or not. The fact Gary's Mod is a sandbox doesn't make Half Life 2 a sandbox. It makes Gary's Mod a sandbox.
  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon ParisMember RarePosts: 3,297
    Wurm Online is the only true sandbox mmo I can think k of, it's sand box overflowing with sand. 




  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,867
    edited October 2016
    Wurm Online is the only true sandbox mmo I can think k of, it's sand box overflowing with sand. 
    I think sandbox vs. themepark is kind of a scale. One one end is straight theme-parks with no player housing of any sandbox content / room for emergent gameplay whatsoever. On the other end is Wurm Online and Minecraft which are straight 100% sandbox.

    Somewhere in the middlei-ish (leaning themepark IMO) are games like ArcheAge that are mainly theme-park but do have some room for emergent gameplay. And somewhere leaning sandbox are games like Darkfall, EVE, and Mortal that have lots of limitations but still focus on emergent gameplay.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
  • gaireastgaireast watertown, NYMember UncommonPosts: 12
    Check out Darkfall New Dawn, a pretty cool game currently in development.  It's a rework of Darkfall, making it the game it was supposed to be.  They have already added a lot of things and are adding/fixing tons more.  You can play the indev version or wait for launch.  Definitely worth checking out if you like open world pvp sandbox games.
Sign In or Register to comment.