Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.
I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.
Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer...
Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG.
So what makes Skyrim a sandbox?
Freedom.
Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class"
Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class.
Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want.
GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox.
It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.
Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.
It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in
I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.
SWG, FFXI, and UO post-Trammel split (when it was at the height of its popularity) were all examples of sandbox games with little or consensual PvP.
All 3 were/are fairly popular.
UO is on a 13 year run, still charging a sub fee, SWG ended but ran for 8 years with a sub fee, and FFXI I beleive is still up and running with a sub fee and doing well (probably helped FFXI that FFXIV crashed and burned)
There is a market for PvE sandboxes with optional PvP.
Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.
It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in
So you are of the opinion that sandbox = ability to build/create in the game world?
Would UO and EvE be considered sandboxes even though the only thing you can build in the game world is housing/POS?
Well I guess EvE also has planetary construction now.
Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.
It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in
So you are of the opinion that sandbox = ability to build/create in the game world?
Would UO and EvE be considered sandboxes even though the only thing you can build in the game world is housing/POS?
Well I guess EvE also has planetary construction now.
If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples
If you can build permanent structures in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox
The term lends for you to mold the world you play in. It doesn't mean molding your character.
If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples
If you can build permanent structure in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox
You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?
Also couldn't destroy structures in SWG, so must not be a true sandbox.
Neither in FFXI. No construction or destruction.
So EvE is the only true sandbox because you can build and destroy POS?
What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...
I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.
SWG, FFXI, and UO post-Trammel split (when it was at the height of its popularity) were all examples of sandbox games with little or consensual PvP.
All 3 were/are fairly popular.
UO is on a 13 year run, still charging a sub fee, SWG ended but ran for 8 years with a sub fee, and FFXI I beleive is still up and running with a sub fee and doing well (probably helped FFXI that FFXIV crashed and burned)
There is a market for PvE sandboxes with optional PvP.
As somebody who played FFXI from launch (and still has an active sub and logs in from time to time to craft and put my wares up on the AH), FFXI is *NOT* a sandbox. To some extent, there is *some* freedom as far as what you do in the game (mostly because of the extent of the many rails that are provided to ride), but FFXI doesn't deserve to be put in the same category as SWG and UO. With EQ, perhaps. But, it is a themepark with some sandboxy aspects along the periphery of the game.
As for your other point about building in the game (and UO only featuring housing as far as what players can build), what about the amazing and diverse choices for crafting, gathering, resource management and refinement that UO offered? What about being able to go into the wild and find and tame animals (including mounts), then sell those mounts to other characters? *edit to add: What about mining and smithing, namely characters creating some of the best gear in the game (and also repairing it as it got damaged because gear degraded with use/over time)?
Those kinds of features and the actions related to them were as much about "world building" as the actual erecting of physical structures like houses ever was....
If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples
If you can build permanent structure in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox
You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?
You couldn't destroy your own house you just built? News to me
If Minecraft patched the game making it impossible to change, alter or destroy other peoples creations it would still be a sandbox because the creator can do those things himself
You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?
You couldn't destroy your own house you just built? News to me
If Minecraft patched the game making it impossible to change, alter or destroy other peoples creations it would still be a sandbox because the creator can do those things himself
What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...
So you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...
I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.
SWG, FFXI, and UO post-Trammel split (when it was at the height of its popularity) were all examples of sandbox games with little or consensual PvP.
All 3 were/are fairly popular.
UO is on a 13 year run, still charging a sub fee, SWG ended but ran for 8 years with a sub fee, and FFXI I beleive is still up and running with a sub fee and doing well (probably helped FFXI that FFXIV crashed and burned)
There is a market for PvE sandboxes with optional PvP.
A lot of people hate the CU/NGE in SWG, but if it weren't for having to pay a hefty licensing fee to Lucas, it would still be running...So it is gone not so much for lack of regular viability, but due to lack of margins, due to the Star Wars license (which probably was increased to deter SoE from keeping a running competition mmo to BW's new game.) I dislike the new SWG, but a lot still liked it and would of kept it going if it was its own entity.
I also do not think that UO became more popular due to the Trammel split, I think it was just natural progress, as more and more people have gotten into MMOs as time had gone along. I actually found that people were bigger jerks on the 'safe' side of UO, due to no retribution...In the old side, you either were respectful of others, or you knew you were going to throw down (well if it wasn't going to happen anyway, but UO also had a unique player base due to lack of competition imo....It wasn't full of griefers and had a good amount of anti-pk guilds).
I have actually been back and forth to UO many times, but I just can't get into the new skill system setup, and other changes...Would of loved it if they brought back a classic server, and also decided to make content based on it, rather than the new stuff, first part almost happend, doubt the second ever will.
I do not think you need to make a sandbox game strictly open pvp, or flagged, or non-pvp....I think with rulesets, and also good systems in place, you could strike a good balance. Some of the alternative UO runners have done that, and while not perfect, they are creative, and with some tweaking probably could hit that balance.
You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?
You couldn't destroy your own house you just built? News to me
If Minecraft patched the game making it impossible to change, alter or destroy other peoples creations it would still be a sandbox because the creator can do those things himself
What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...
That's because you are looking at it all wrong
Lets for agruments sake say a sandbox only require two things to be a sandbox.
1. World building
2. Playermade content
Lets just for fun say it only needs those two things. Everything you add to that. Be it FFA PVP, dymanic events, world politics, crafting is all icing on the cake making the sandbox more attractive. Lets add full freedom of character creation. You can be a dual weilding necro monk with arcane magic if you want. It's still just more icing that adds to the spirit of freedom.
It however is not a "MUST" that those things have to be present for it to be a sandbox
That's not a narrow definition by a long stretch. Those two options give you a world of freedom
I do not think you need to make a sandbox game strictly open pvp, or flagged, or non-pvp....I think with rulesets, and also good systems in place, you could strike a good balance. Some of the alternative UO runners have done that, and while not perfect, they are creative, and with some tweaking probably could hit that balance.
Well, apparently in order to be a sandbox you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...
It's a sandbox?
I think a sandbox is a lot more than that.
The building and destroying of things is only but a small part, a small part of a much bigger picture.
So you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...
It's a sandbox?
Yup that's why a singleplayer game can be a sandbox too
Lets for agruments sake say a sandbox only require two things to be a sandbox.
1. World building
2. Playermade content
Lets just for fun say it only needs those two things. Everything you add to that. Be it FFA PVP, dymanic events, world politics, crafting is all icing on the cake making the sandbox more attractive. Lets add full freedom of character creation. You can be a dual weilding necro monk with arcane magic if you want. It's still just more icing that adds to the spirit of freedom.
It however is not a "MUST" that those things have to be present for it to be a sandbox
That's not a narrow definition by a long stretch. Those two options give you a world of freedom
So... Star Trek Online is a sandbox because you can build your own content?
And by building your own content and sharing it with others, you are building the world in which the game is played?
And EvE Online is NOT a sandbox becasue there is no playermade content, just emergant content from player interaction?
Lets for agruments sake say a sandbox only require two things to be a sandbox.
1. World building
2. Playermade content
Lets just for fun say it only needs those two things. Everything you add to that. Be it FFA PVP, dymanic events, world politics, crafting is all icing on the cake making the sandbox more attractive. Lets add full freedom of character creation. You can be a dual weilding necro monk with arcane magic if you want. It's still just more icing that adds to the spirit of freedom.
It however is not a "MUST" that those things have to be present for it to be a sandbox
That's not a narrow definition by a long stretch. Those two options give you a world of freedom
So... Star Trek Online is a sandbox because you can build your own content?
And by building your own content and sharing it with others, you are building the world in which the game is played?
I don't know enough about ST to comment on that. If you can create ingame content for others or just yourself to play in then yes. Garys mod is a sandbox tool. If ST offers similar freedom then absolutely
If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples
If you can build permanent structure in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox
You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?
Also couldn't destroy structures in SWG, so must not be a true sandbox.
Neither in FFXI. No construction or destruction.
Where are you getting FFXI from? Seriously... Besides you, who has said FFXI is a "sandbox"...? Did I miss it? XD
Also, how hard is it for you to understand that "world building" can mean much more than building/destroying structures?
So... Star Trek Online is a sandbox because you can build your own content?
And by building your own content and sharing it with others, you are building the world in which the game is played?
I don't know enough about ST to comment on that. If you can create ingame content for others or just yourself to play in then yes.
I think 99% of people on MMORPG.com would disagree with you.
Would they disagree because I'm wrong or because ST is a horrible game that's the question. If you love one thing and a game makes a mockery of the genre, you tend not to apply anthing positive towards it. A sandbox is something positive in this case. And as I said I don't know enough about ST to say one way or another if it's a sandbox or not
Eq2 has a dungeon creation tool that lets players play in it. I don't know if it ever got released but again. Thers's the sandbox
IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel.
Stopped reading here.
I don't care to waste my time arguing these points as people are so entrenched. I'll just tell the most recent chapter of my MMO life briefly.
I received SWTOR as a birthday gift in January. I played the free month, levelling quickly and easily, meeting no resistance and no people. All goals were mine to achieve by rote. I quit playing and went out of town without unsubscribing and got hit for another month which I never used. I'm still kicking myself over that.
I downloaded Rift and played the first 20 levels free. That game was even easier and faster than SWTOR, and worse even though I normally prefer the fantasy setting. I didn't even die once as I plowed through levels in two evenings while watching tv and doing chores around the house. I wasn't powerlevelling. Hell, I wasn't even trying. The game is so linear it practically plays itself.
These games were so bad I started thinking fondly of WOW, but that was just a tricky mirage. WOW is partially to blame for the current state of gaming, but more so are people like you who think Trammel improved UO.
My college roomate introduced me to UO. He was a member of a large guild warred with three others of equal size. They had rules governing their interactions, including no looting. They abhored pks, but they dealt with them, fiercely. They balanced the game.
I logged in last night just to remember the fear. I miss that experience.
Trammies need to stop polluting the MMORPG landscape. They already have enough games in which to emote hugs and sell garbage by the banks.
IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel.
My college roomate introduced me to UO. He was a member of a large guild warred with three others of equal size. They had rules governing their interactions, including no looting. They abhored pks, but they dealt with them, fiercely. They balanced the game.
I logged in last night just to remember the fear. I miss that experience.
You could still do all of that in UO after Trammel was introduced.
I know, I did on the Atlantic and Siege Perilous shards up until about 2003/2004 when I stopped playing UO.
Only difference is, other people could play the game their way too.
So... Star Trek Online is a sandbox because you can build your own content?
And by building your own content and sharing it with others, you are building the world in which the game is played?
I don't know enough about ST to comment on that. If you can create ingame content for others or just yourself to play in then yes.
I think 99% of people on MMORPG.com would disagree with you.
And THIS is what happens when you narrowly define something, you put it in a box.
Your definition of sandbox is not the only definition.
You get my point and what I am trying to do?
As I said earlier. If there's a part of ST that lets you create your own content than that part is sandbox. There's nothing narrow about it. The freedom to create doesn't just extend to characters or an open freeroam world. It neither includes or excludes it. Incidentally if the lack of quests and your ability to walk your own path in an open world is considered a sandbox then old school EQ was a sandbox too
Again garys mod is considered a sandbox tool. Why do you think that is
I see what you are trying to do and also see you not only failing at it but completely missed the boat about what sandbox games are about in the first place. Where the term comes from, what games are considered sandboxes outside of MMOs and why that is
The Sims games from the very beginning are considered sandbox games. It doesn't have free roam exploration, open world or any of the things you seem intent on proving your points on for instance. There are many games outside of the MMO genre that carries the title of "sandbox" and they all have one thing in common. I'll let you guess what that is
Comments
Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.
It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in
Look at where the term comes from
SWG, FFXI, and UO post-Trammel split (when it was at the height of its popularity) were all examples of sandbox games with little or consensual PvP.
All 3 were/are fairly popular.
UO is on a 13 year run, still charging a sub fee, SWG ended but ran for 8 years with a sub fee, and FFXI I beleive is still up and running with a sub fee and doing well (probably helped FFXI that FFXIV crashed and burned)
There is a market for PvE sandboxes with optional PvP.
So you are of the opinion that sandbox = ability to build/create in the game world?
Would UO and EvE be considered sandboxes even though the only thing you can build in the game world is housing/POS?
Well I guess EvE also has planetary construction now.
If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples
If you can build permanent structures in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox
The term lends for you to mold the world you play in. It doesn't mean molding your character.
You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?
Also couldn't destroy structures in SWG, so must not be a true sandbox.
Neither in FFXI. No construction or destruction.
So EvE is the only true sandbox because you can build and destroy POS?
What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...
As somebody who played FFXI from launch (and still has an active sub and logs in from time to time to craft and put my wares up on the AH), FFXI is *NOT* a sandbox. To some extent, there is *some* freedom as far as what you do in the game (mostly because of the extent of the many rails that are provided to ride), but FFXI doesn't deserve to be put in the same category as SWG and UO. With EQ, perhaps. But, it is a themepark with some sandboxy aspects along the periphery of the game.
As for your other point about building in the game (and UO only featuring housing as far as what players can build), what about the amazing and diverse choices for crafting, gathering, resource management and refinement that UO offered? What about being able to go into the wild and find and tame animals (including mounts), then sell those mounts to other characters? *edit to add: What about mining and smithing, namely characters creating some of the best gear in the game (and also repairing it as it got damaged because gear degraded with use/over time)?
Those kinds of features and the actions related to them were as much about "world building" as the actual erecting of physical structures like houses ever was....
You couldn't destroy your own house you just built? News to me
If Minecraft patched the game making it impossible to change, alter or destroy other peoples creations it would still be a sandbox because the creator can do those things himself
What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...
So you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...
It's a sandbox?
A lot of people hate the CU/NGE in SWG, but if it weren't for having to pay a hefty licensing fee to Lucas, it would still be running...So it is gone not so much for lack of regular viability, but due to lack of margins, due to the Star Wars license (which probably was increased to deter SoE from keeping a running competition mmo to BW's new game.) I dislike the new SWG, but a lot still liked it and would of kept it going if it was its own entity.
I also do not think that UO became more popular due to the Trammel split, I think it was just natural progress, as more and more people have gotten into MMOs as time had gone along. I actually found that people were bigger jerks on the 'safe' side of UO, due to no retribution...In the old side, you either were respectful of others, or you knew you were going to throw down (well if it wasn't going to happen anyway, but UO also had a unique player base due to lack of competition imo....It wasn't full of griefers and had a good amount of anti-pk guilds).
I have actually been back and forth to UO many times, but I just can't get into the new skill system setup, and other changes...Would of loved it if they brought back a classic server, and also decided to make content based on it, rather than the new stuff, first part almost happend, doubt the second ever will.
I do not think you need to make a sandbox game strictly open pvp, or flagged, or non-pvp....I think with rulesets, and also good systems in place, you could strike a good balance. Some of the alternative UO runners have done that, and while not perfect, they are creative, and with some tweaking probably could hit that balance.
That's because you are looking at it all wrong
Lets for agruments sake say a sandbox only require two things to be a sandbox.
1. World building
2. Playermade content
Lets just for fun say it only needs those two things. Everything you add to that. Be it FFA PVP, dymanic events, world politics, crafting is all icing on the cake making the sandbox more attractive. Lets add full freedom of character creation. You can be a dual weilding necro monk with arcane magic if you want. It's still just more icing that adds to the spirit of freedom.
It however is not a "MUST" that those things have to be present for it to be a sandbox
That's not a narrow definition by a long stretch. Those two options give you a world of freedom
Well, apparently in order to be a sandbox you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...
It's a sandbox?
I think a sandbox is a lot more than that.
The building and destroying of things is only but a small part, a small part of a much bigger picture.
Yup that's why a singleplayer game can be a sandbox too
So... Star Trek Online is a sandbox because you can build your own content?
And by building your own content and sharing it with others, you are building the world in which the game is played?
And EvE Online is NOT a sandbox becasue there is no playermade content, just emergant content from player interaction?
I don't know enough about ST to comment on that. If you can create ingame content for others or just yourself to play in then yes. Garys mod is a sandbox tool. If ST offers similar freedom then absolutely
I think 99% of people on MMORPG.com would disagree with you.
And THIS is what happens when you narrowly define something, you put it in a box.
Your definition of sandbox is not the only definition.
You get my point and what I am trying to do?
Where are you getting FFXI from? Seriously... Besides you, who has said FFXI is a "sandbox"...? Did I miss it? XD
Also, how hard is it for you to understand that "world building" can mean much more than building/destroying structures?
Not sure if troll or just stu... =/
Would they disagree because I'm wrong or because ST is a horrible game that's the question. If you love one thing and a game makes a mockery of the genre, you tend not to apply anthing positive towards it. A sandbox is something positive in this case. And as I said I don't know enough about ST to say one way or another if it's a sandbox or not
Eq2 has a dungeon creation tool that lets players play in it. I don't know if it ever got released but again. Thers's the sandbox
Stopped reading here.
I don't care to waste my time arguing these points as people are so entrenched. I'll just tell the most recent chapter of my MMO life briefly.
I received SWTOR as a birthday gift in January. I played the free month, levelling quickly and easily, meeting no resistance and no people. All goals were mine to achieve by rote. I quit playing and went out of town without unsubscribing and got hit for another month which I never used. I'm still kicking myself over that.
I downloaded Rift and played the first 20 levels free. That game was even easier and faster than SWTOR, and worse even though I normally prefer the fantasy setting. I didn't even die once as I plowed through levels in two evenings while watching tv and doing chores around the house. I wasn't powerlevelling. Hell, I wasn't even trying. The game is so linear it practically plays itself.
These games were so bad I started thinking fondly of WOW, but that was just a tricky mirage. WOW is partially to blame for the current state of gaming, but more so are people like you who think Trammel improved UO.
My college roomate introduced me to UO. He was a member of a large guild warred with three others of equal size. They had rules governing their interactions, including no looting. They abhored pks, but they dealt with them, fiercely. They balanced the game.
I logged in last night just to remember the fear. I miss that experience.
Trammies need to stop polluting the MMORPG landscape. They already have enough games in which to emote hugs and sell garbage by the banks.
Point just flew right over this one, and please, watch the flaming / name calling I'd hate to report you.
I perfectly understand how world building can and does mean a lot more than building/destroying structures.
You could still do all of that in UO after Trammel was introduced.
I know, I did on the Atlantic and Siege Perilous shards up until about 2003/2004 when I stopped playing UO.
Only difference is, other people could play the game their way too.
I was just about to say "nvm" since I see what you were doing now. My bad and sorry to intrude on your lesson.
Ha no worries mate, thank you.
I just try to broaden minds... that is all.
As I said earlier. If there's a part of ST that lets you create your own content than that part is sandbox. There's nothing narrow about it. The freedom to create doesn't just extend to characters or an open freeroam world. It neither includes or excludes it. Incidentally if the lack of quests and your ability to walk your own path in an open world is considered a sandbox then old school EQ was a sandbox too
Again garys mod is considered a sandbox tool. Why do you think that is
I see what you are trying to do and also see you not only failing at it but completely missed the boat about what sandbox games are about in the first place. Where the term comes from, what games are considered sandboxes outside of MMOs and why that is
The Sims games from the very beginning are considered sandbox games. It doesn't have free roam exploration, open world or any of the things you seem intent on proving your points on for instance. There are many games outside of the MMO genre that carries the title of "sandbox" and they all have one thing in common. I'll let you guess what that is
Then were back to what I said before...
There are NO true sandbox games, because they have some themepark in them.
But, most themepark games have NO sandbox elements.
Wrap your head around that one...hehe..