Playing creativelly is not bound physically by the action of Building something or Creating something tangible.
Playing creativelly may also mean having the opportunity to accomplish the same result as someone else in a different way in faced by a given challenge.
The best example I can give to demonstrate is for instance a Raid and Downing a given Boss. In WoW there is a "right" way to do it, and everyone is trying to perfect that one way of doing it. You have to do certain actions at the right moment and in the right order and way or it is a Wipe.
Converselly in a Game such as UO, I remember when Hunting balrons and Blood Elementals there was many ways that we all develloped to down them, and every player creativelly discovered and pplied these ways. So it was Creative play.
So it is about the capacity to be able to say, I want to achieve goal X, and I can do so by turning left then right then left again, yet another player can creativelly decide to do a right another right and a left and achieve the same X goal.
And that is creative play, it is not predefined it is not pre-established by the design, the player can be creative about How to solve the problem.
There is no "right way" or only "one way".
There is something to this, I agree.
One of the more frustrating aspects of MMO game-play I've been encountering, to increasing degre, the past five years or so is:
Many MMO gamers don't know how to engage in warfare anymore, or know what teamwork based combat is. Tactics aren't understood or practiced. Strategy is some word that starts with an "S", so what?
Combat has devolved for a large % of the MMO playerbase into a binary maneuver:
See a mob, or a pack, run at it, mash your DPS, CC, and interrupt skill keys, and yell at the healer "keep me up nub!".
See a mob, or a pack, run at it, mash your DPS, CC, and interrupt skill keys, and yell at the healer "keep me up nub!".
Etc.
Alternate "tactic" 1:
The healer can't keep you up. Kick the healer and get a new one, preferrably your "good friend who's got a capped healer with killer gear" who's heals outstrip the entire DPS output of the pack in question, thus fueling the "pro" strat of:
Now I can see a mob, or a pack, run at it, and mash my DPS, CC and interrupt skills while standing there because now I have a healer can just keep me up through that.
Alternate "tactic" 2:
The "tank" can't tank the pack and is dying, or the DPS isn't killing the pack fast enough. Kick the tank, or the DPS, and find a new one, preferrably your "good friend" who's capped with capped gear who can clear the entire instance or tank it with no heals even. This fuels your ability to:
Just see a mob or mobs, run at it, and mash buttons.
I watch approaches to mobs and packs nowadays, and just don't get it. People are robots I guess. Unless it can be just RUN THROUGH using a farm-it approach, well, it just can't be done. We'll have to wait for (insert needed/perceived overpowered party-member/class here) to come online to get this done.
When, 8 of 10 times I'd say (waving thumb in the air) it's perfectly doable . . . if you . . . . JUST . . . fought smart, and actually used strat and tactics to beat the mobs.
But, sadly enough, many people just want stuff lined up in duck-rows so they can mow it down.
Me, I LOVE finding ways to pick stuff apart and win against it . . . using "less". Or just plain "on level" as a challenge. Use the terrain, use Traps, divide and conquer, peeling, kiting, find the healer or the AoE mob, or the fear mob and silence it., etc.
the answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU.
archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
the answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU.
archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
I wouldnt count ArcheAge as the sandbox game to break the mold as its got a few things going against it.
1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)
2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish)
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
Question to everyone. If a developer gives us the ultimate tool to make a MMO ourselves, with their models, terrain, etc.. or our mods... would that be considered a sandbox mmo? Since players can be gods themselves and create the environment while people play on them and follow the rules? Sort of like a RP IRC chat but in 3D and with immersion. Essentially a story making tool that we have seen on Kickstarter combined with less complicated coding, or point and click if you will.
No, that isn't sandbox? WTF is... sandbox then?
If sandbox is Mortal Online, Darkfall or any other similiar game, then I am not a sandbox fan. If it is more PvE sandbox, then people would shout out that it's not sandbox. Then go and play the games before mentioned then, because that is just what it is like without PvE.
There are so much things from sandbox that can be put in a themepark. F.ex... skills, open world, realistic harvesting, housing, co-op building, seafights, siegefights, one massive server, etc..
They also elaborate on the specificity of sandbox in the article:
The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Soooo yeah. I think you should at least ACCEPT that the definition given on the Wikipedia page is a valid one even if you don't agree with it. You are free to have your personal definition of sandbox, but please don't assume it is the only "right" definition.
Personally, I'm going to use the definition that seems the most prominent, and I'm thinking that's the one on the wikipedia page.
Well your highlighted definition is my definition of sandbox, where sand (creative play) is the defining trait of a sandbox.
The problem comes when people bring forward the logical fallacy, "because all sandboxes are open worlds, all open worlds are sandboxes." This is wrong. Some open worlds are themeparks, where the player has little or no manipulation of the world (as in Skyrim.)
I should also note that the wikipedia entry on "their" might also accurately point out that "the words 'they're and 'there' are interchangably used with 'their'". The statement would be accurate, but the usage is wrong.
I don't assume my definition is the only right definition.
I assume my definition is the only logical definition (crystal clear, fits the analogy, and doesn't overlap existing (better) terms.)
So you think you're right? Huh! Never would've guessed it !
Also..."play creatively" does not mean "player created content." For example...I can play football creatively by using unorthodox plays, yet I am not building houses on the gridiron.
Play creatively means exactly player created content, you cannot be creative without creating - thats what the word means - to create. Player created content, howver, doest notmean building, that is just one type of creativity
In your football example you are creating a new and unique way of playing.
I disagree.
Playing creativelly is not bound physically by the action of Building something or Creating something tangible.
Playing creativelly may also mean having the opportunity to accomplish the same result as someone else in a different way in faced by a given challenge.
The best example I can give to demonstrate is for instance a Raid and Downing a given Boss. In WoW there is a "right" way to do it, and everyone is trying to perfect that one way of doing it. You have to do certain actions at the right moment and in the right order and way or it is a Wipe.
Converselly in a Game such as UO, I remember when Hunting balrons and Blood Elementals there was many ways that we all develloped to down them, and every player creativelly discovered and pplied these ways. So it was Creative play.
So it is about the capacity to be able to say, I want to achieve goal X, and I can do so by turning left then right then left again, yet another player can creativelly decide to do a right another right and a left and achieve the same X goal.
And that is creative play, it is not predefined it is not pre-established by the design, the player can be creative about How to solve the problem.
There is no "right way" or only "one way".
I did not say it means building or creating something tangible, in fact I stated the opposite. I stated building is only one form of creating, and that Creslin's example of football was still creating. He created a new way to play football, thats creative.
It is most definately not just building, again, building is just ONE form of creativity. Which is why IMO vanguard is still themepark, yes you can build houses, but you just select from a few examples. Thats not creative at all.
Hmm, indeed I misread you. My apologies.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Playing creativelly is not bound physically by the action of Building something or Creating something tangible.
Playing creativelly may also mean having the opportunity to accomplish the same result as someone else in a different way in faced by a given challenge.
The best example I can give to demonstrate is for instance a Raid and Downing a given Boss. In WoW there is a "right" way to do it, and everyone is trying to perfect that one way of doing it. You have to do certain actions at the right moment and in the right order and way or it is a Wipe.
Converselly in a Game such as UO, I remember when Hunting balrons and Blood Elementals there was many ways that we all develloped to down them, and every player creativelly discovered and pplied these ways. So it was Creative play.
So it is about the capacity to be able to say, I want to achieve goal X, and I can do so by turning left then right then left again, yet another player can creativelly decide to do a right another right and a left and achieve the same X goal.
And that is creative play, it is not predefined it is not pre-established by the design, the player can be creative about How to solve the problem.
There is no "right way" or only "one way".
There is something to this, I agree.
One of the more frustrating aspects of MMO game-play I've been encountering, to increasing degre, the past five years or so is:
Many MMO gamers don't know how to engage in warfare anymore, or know what teamwork based combat is. Tactics aren't understood or practiced. Strategy is some word that starts with an "S", so what?
Combat has devolved for a large % of the MMO playerbase into a binary maneuver:
See a mob, or a pack, run at it, mash your DPS, CC, and interrupt skill keys, and yell at the healer "keep me up nub!".
See a mob, or a pack, run at it, mash your DPS, CC, and interrupt skill keys, and yell at the healer "keep me up nub!".
Etc.
Alternate "tactic" 1:
The healer can't keep you up. Kick the healer and get a new one, preferrably your "good friend who's got a capped healer with killer gear" who's heals outstrip the entire DPS output of the pack in question, thus fueling the "pro" strat of:
Now I can see a mob, or a pack, run at it, and mash my DPS, CC and interrupt skills while standing there because now I have a healer can just keep me up through that.
Alternate "tactic" 2:
The "tank" can't tank the pack and is dying, or the DPS isn't killing the pack fast enough. Kick the tank, or the DPS, and find a new one, preferrably your "good friend" who's capped with capped gear who can clear the entire instance or tank it with no heals even. This fuels your ability to:
Just see a mob or mobs, run at it, and mash buttons.
I watch approaches to mobs and packs nowadays, and just don't get it. People are robots I guess. Unless it can be just RUN THROUGH using a farm-it approach, well, it just can't be done. We'll have to wait for (insert needed/perceived overpowered party-member/class here) to come online to get this done.
When, 8 of 10 times I'd say (waving thumb in the air) it's perfectly doable . . . if you . . . . JUST . . . fought smart, and actually used strat and tactics to beat the mobs.
But, sadly enough, many people just want stuff lined up in duck-rows so they can mow it down.
Me, I LOVE finding ways to pick stuff apart and win against it . . . using "less". Or just plain "on level" as a challenge. Use the terrain, use Traps, divide and conquer, peeling, kiting, find the healer or the AoE mob, or the fear mob and silence it., etc.
I agree as well, it has become too mechanical or innorganic or I like howyou put it, binary. Foor me an organic gameplay is one that invites the player to solve the chllenges in creative ways, and there is not only one way to do things or achieve goals, then the game is organic.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
They also elaborate on the specificity of sandbox in the article:
The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Soooo yeah. I think you should at least ACCEPT that the definition given on the Wikipedia page is a valid one even if you don't agree with it. You are free to have your personal definition of sandbox, but please don't assume it is the only "right" definition.
Personally, I'm going to use the definition that seems the most prominent, and I'm thinking that's the one on the wikipedia page.
Well your highlighted definition is my definition of sandbox, where sand (creative play) is the defining trait of a sandbox.
The problem comes when people bring forward the logical fallacy, "because all sandboxes are open worlds, all open worlds are sandboxes." This is wrong. Some open worlds are themeparks, where the player has little or no manipulation of the world (as in Skyrim.)
I should also note that the wikipedia entry on "their" might also accurately point out that "the words 'they're and 'there' are interchangably used with 'their'". The statement would be accurate, but the usage is wrong.
I don't assume my definition is the only right definition.
I assume my definition is the only logical definition (crystal clear, fits the analogy, and doesn't overlap existing (better) terms.)
Except that people aren't agreeing that "the player has little or no manipulation of the world" in the examples you cite. I happen to think there is ALOT of room for player manipulation in Skyrim...hence it's on the "sandbox" side of the spectrum from my perspective.
Also note that "the game" is not neccesarly limited to "the world", it can also be "the narrative", or "the player" or "the players experience of the game." Theoriticaly you could have a "sandbox" game without any world what-so-ever. Mad Libs would be an example of that type of game.....there is no "world".....just a loose story structure that the players dramaticaly alter by filling in the blanks, resulting in a narrative that is largely (but not solely) the creation of the player.
Originally posted by PyrateLV Originally posted by Hedeonthe answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU. archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
I wouldnt count ArcheAge as the sandbox game to break the mold as its got a few things going against it.
1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)
2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish)
The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Hedeonthe answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU. archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
I wouldnt count ArcheAge as the sandbox game to break the mold as its got a few things going against it.
1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)
2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish)
The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
I don't know how you WOULDN'T count it as a sandbox.
FFA PVP
HUGE crafting list, including houses and boats and other mounts...
Housing anyone?
Large open world not guided by a deadset questline..
Planting gardens trees and orchards (sp?)
Builing castles and seiging them..
....I mean really.. if this isn't a sandbox, then there is no such thing as a sandbox.
Originally posted by Hedeonthe answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU. archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
I wouldnt count ArcheAge as the sandbox game to break the mold as its got a few things going against it.
1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)
2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish)
The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
@ pyrate
well can tell you that if archeage wont become a success in the western market, you wont see any other quality productions at all, those 2 points to me is nitpicking, especially since I dont find the asian style be that penetrating in this game, might be huge to you, but then you are willing to show that you have no intrest in the gamestyle that already is niche, and archeage is the only quality sandbox MMO in production that I know of, there is a couple that looks intresting, before any actual gameplay functionality is shown....but you are right anyway, there is so many people on this forum who are ready to ruin any game for themself with not much of a reason.
@ lizard it is not only FFA PvP in the third continent, which is what I dislike about the game so far, they havent completely said no to a server with only 3rd continent PvP, but the way they responded it sounded like a polite way of saying NEVER to me. and really believe this is the real reason this game wont become a big success long term, in the west.
Except that people aren't agreeing that "the player has little or no manipulation of the world" in the examples you cite. I happen to think there is ALOT of room for player manipulation in Skyrim...hence it's on the "sandbox" side of the spectrum from my perspective.
Also note that "the game" is not neccesarly limited to "the world", it can also be "the narrative", or "the player" or "the players experience of the game." Theoriticaly you could have a "sandbox" game without any world what-so-ever. Mad Libs would be an example of that type of game.....there is no "world".....just a loose story structure that the players dramaticaly alter by filling in the blanks, resulting in a narrative that is largely (but not solely) the creation of the player.
Except that you're wrong. In Skyrim, the game has one pre-programmed ending. The only way not to get to that ending is not to play the game. You will end the civil war. You will kill Alduin. You will become arch-mage. You will become head of the thieves guild. You will become head of the Companions. You cannot play through those campaigns and come to a different conclusion. You have no real input on the future of your character except to walk away.
Amazing really how this mythical massive sandbox crowd can somehow spawn a 1000+ post thread with no end in sight.
There may not be a lot of fans of sandbox style games, but it sure seems everyone has an opinion and enjoys discussing them in great detail.
Cmon Kyl, some posters on MMORPG does not make for a massive MMO sandbox crowd. EVE has done the best so far, and even then it is propping itself up with credit sales(plex). Under 400k, while cashing in on the gold seller sales, isnt what I deem a good showing. Anything else in the MMO sandbox realm is doing pretty piss poor when it comes to NA.
I should say with legitimate gameplay. Entropia Universe I have heard described as a sandbox, yet when folks are gambling for 10k plus in RL money, I would say the gambling addiction feeds this game. No clue on numbers actually playing, and surprised it wasnt shut down long ago.
What were the estimates.....2m total MMO sandbox gamers vs 45m themepark? They are a drop in the bucket. If someone could capture the majority of the sanbox MMO crowd it could be worthwhile, but from your time here, you know damn well are at least 2 factions among them(those wanting FFA vs those that dont).
If I was gambling my money on backing a MMO, I sure wouldnt aim for the 5% of market.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Except that people aren't agreeing that "the player has little or no manipulation of the world" in the examples you cite. I happen to think there is ALOT of room for player manipulation in Skyrim...hence it's on the "sandbox" side of the spectrum from my perspective.
Also note that "the game" is not neccesarly limited to "the world", it can also be "the narrative", or "the player" or "the players experience of the game." Theoriticaly you could have a "sandbox" game without any world what-so-ever. Mad Libs would be an example of that type of game.....there is no "world".....just a loose story structure that the players dramaticaly alter by filling in the blanks, resulting in a narrative that is largely (but not solely) the creation of the player.
Except that you're wrong. In Skyrim, the game has one pre-programmed ending. The only way not to get to that ending is not to play the game. You will end the civil war. You will kill Alduin. You will become arch-mage. You will become head of the thieves guild. You will become head of the Companions. You cannot play through those campaigns and come to a different conclusion. You have no real input on the future of your character except to walk away.
Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......
Except that people aren't agreeing that "the player has little or no manipulation of the world" in the examples you cite. I happen to think there is ALOT of room for player manipulation in Skyrim...hence it's on the "sandbox" side of the spectrum from my perspective.
Also note that "the game" is not neccesarly limited to "the world", it can also be "the narrative", or "the player" or "the players experience of the game." Theoriticaly you could have a "sandbox" game without any world what-so-ever. Mad Libs would be an example of that type of game.....there is no "world".....just a loose story structure that the players dramaticaly alter by filling in the blanks, resulting in a narrative that is largely (but not solely) the creation of the player.
Except that you're wrong. In Skyrim, the game has one pre-programmed ending. The only way not to get to that ending is not to play the game. You will end the civil war. You will kill Alduin. You will become arch-mage. You will become head of the thieves guild. You will become head of the Companions. You cannot play through those campaigns and come to a different conclusion. You have no real input on the future of your character except to walk away.
Odd then that is nothing remotely resembling how I concluded Skyrim. I DID end the civil war, by choosing to actively support the NORDS... I could have opted for the Empire or to remain neutral instead but I didn't. I did NOT kill Alduin...he and his dragons are still plagueing the lands. I did not become "arch-mage", my character being superstiteous generaly wants as little to do with magic as is possible....hence I didn't pursue anything remotely "mage-like". I did NOT join the Thieves Guild...in fact I actualy killed quite a few of thier members instead, as my character does not like Thieves. I did NOT join the Companions, as my character didn't feel like wasting his time with a bunch of Mercenaries when there was the Empire to wrest Skyrims independance from and alot of snooty Thalmor to hew in twain. I did take time out to help some of the common folk of Skyrim out with their problems with bandits and various other threats.
At this point, I'm sure that you are going to tell me that I was "playing the game all wrong". To which I will respond that at no point in time did I find that the Developers fail to accomodate, support or provide for my style of play or the choices I made with my character. So unless you actualy represent Skyrims Developers in some sort of official fashion, I will maintain that you are the one who fails to understand the games design intent and features.
Odd then that is nothing remotely resembling how I concluded Skyrim. I DID end the civil war, by choosing to actively support the NORDS... I could have opted for the Empire or to remain neutral instead but I didn't. I did NOT kill Alduin...he and his dragons are still plagueing the lands. I did not become "arch-mage", my character being superstiteous generaly wants as little to do with magic as is possible....hence I didn't pursue anything remotely "mage-like". I did NOT join the Thieves Guild...in fact I actualy killed quite a few of thier members instead, as my character does not like Thieves. I did NOT join the Companions, as my character didn't feel like wasting his time with a bunch of Mercenaries when there was the Empire to wrest Skyrims independance from and alot of snooty Thalmor to hew in twain. I did take time out to help some of the common folk of Skyrim out with their problems with bandits and various other threats.
At this point, I'm sure that you are going to tell me that I was "playing the game all wrong". To which I will respond that at no point in time did I find that the Developers fail to accomodate, support or provide for my style of play or the choices I made with my character. So unless you actualy represent Skyrims Developers in some sort of official fashion, I will maintain that you are the one who fails to understand the games design intent and features.
No you're not playing the game wrong - to each his own, certainly ...if you do not mind people looking you funny.
In BG1, my character never cared about the life outside the walls and lived a peaceful life in Candlekeep as a monk.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Casual + Sandbox. These two are often mutually exclusive in multiplayer gaming. But I think the only way to make a hugely popular sandbox game is to also make it casual-friendly. Casual players should be able to jump in and have fun instantly for 10 or 15 minutes, even if they only play 15 mins once a month.
Casual + Sandbox. These two are often mutually exclusive in multiplayer gaming. But I think the only way to make a hugely popular sandbox game is to also make it casual-friendly. Casual players should be able to jump in and have fun instantly for 10 or 15 minutes, even if they only play 15 mins once a month.
Well, I agree with that, but I also think you can have that mixed into a much deeper sort of game too. With lots of freedom, and no single hook that forces game play, there's no reason not to have plenty of options and choices.
Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......
Could you possibly be more close minded? You reallyl don't get it do you? WOW isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest (and do LFD, mob grind, or many other possible ways to play), you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. Clueless .....
Originally posted by Dewm Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by PyrateLVOriginally posted by Hedeonthe answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU. archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
I wouldnt count ArcheAge as the sandbox game to break the mold as its got a few things going against it.1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish) The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
I don't know how you WOULDN'T count it as a sandbox.
FFA PVP
HUGE crafting list, including houses and boats and other mounts...
Housing anyone?
Large open world not guided by a deadset questline..
Planting gardens trees and orchards (sp?)
Builing castles and seiging them..
....I mean really.. if this isn't a sandbox, then there is no such thing as a sandbox.
I wasn't saying it wasn't a sandbox. It is a sandbox. The thing is, those features, the housing and farming, are all tied to the third continent. You can't build a house on the first or second continents. Guess where the FFA PvP is and guess where one of the game features is tearing down another player's house? You guessed it. The Third Continent.
This doesn't make it not a sandbox, but it does limit the appeal somewhat.
Now again, this could all change. I don't think it will though. The FFA PvP thing seems to be stuck in some developer's heads as the only way to bring a sandbox to the MMORPG market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......
Could you possibly be more close minded? You reallyl don't get it do you? WOW isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest (and do LFD, mob grind, or many other possible ways to play), you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. Clueless .....
Clicking a button and waiting around for a confirmation box to pop up on your screen is not a sandbox. It's a Lobby.
Developers of sandbox games just need to kick the identification of FFAPvP being neccesary for one.
It's the first thing people think, and it's not what makes one. A sandbox is - simply - a game with a lack of concrete direction. You log in, ask yourself "what do I want to do?", and then go about it. They usually have a wide range of features that allow you to do way more than just "level up, gear up, raid". Without any idea of what the game is capable of, people will just scream "this game is boring". Initiative is what makes a true sandbox player, and it's what divides the rest of us up into different camps of necessary hand-holding.
EVE Online, MO, Darkfall, Wakfu, etc are all great sandbox games, but will always be niche because you don't have a choice in whether to PvP or not. If someone wants you dead, they can attempt it as just about any time. The genre needs to drop the silly FFAPvP shit, because it attracts tards and sociopaths.
Though, I will say that Face of Mankind was FFAPvP and worked, but namely because of the faction politics at hand, and giving them each a 'sphere' of play to govern. The problem is that new players generally didn't know how all that worked, assumed it was just a persistant deathmatch, and ganked anyone and anything without thinking. Then when they got notice and teamed up on, the game became "unfair". Lack of understanding what a game is about is really the biggest downfall for sandbox games and the new players that try them out. God forbid anyone do their research first...
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Odd then that is nothing remotely resembling how I concluded Skyrim. I DID end the civil war, by choosing to actively support the NORDS... I could have opted for the Empire or to remain neutral instead but I didn't. I did NOT kill Alduin...he and his dragons are still plagueing the lands. I did not become "arch-mage", my character being superstiteous generaly wants as little to do with magic as is possible....hence I didn't pursue anything remotely "mage-like". I did NOT join the Thieves Guild...in fact I actualy killed quite a few of thier members instead, as my character does not like Thieves. I did NOT join the Companions, as my character didn't feel like wasting his time with a bunch of Mercenaries when there was the Empire to wrest Skyrims independance from and alot of snooty Thalmor to hew in twain. I did take time out to help some of the common folk of Skyrim out with their problems with bandits and various other threats.
At this point, I'm sure that you are going to tell me that I was "playing the game all wrong". To which I will respond that at no point in time did I find that the Developers fail to accomodate, support or provide for my style of play or the choices I made with my character. So unless you actualy represent Skyrims Developers in some sort of official fashion, I will maintain that you are the one who fails to understand the games design intent and features.
It has nothing to do with playing the game wrong, you didn't play the game. There are specific questlines that you play through. You cannot play through the Alduin questline without killing Alduin. The only way to avoid doing it is not to play it at all. You simply cannot play the questline and come to any other conclusion than is pre-programmed. By the same token, you cannot play the civil war questline and not end the war. There were two options, you could support the Imperials or the Nords, but both bring you to the same ultimate conclusion. The war ends. No other way around it.
The only way around those conclusions is not to play those questlines at all, exactly as I said.
Originally posted by lizardbones The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
I don't know how you WOULDN'T count it as a sandbox.
FFA PVP
HUGE crafting list, including houses and boats and other mounts...
Housing anyone?
Large open world not guided by a deadset questline..
Planting gardens trees and orchards (sp?)
Builing castles and seiging them..
....I mean really.. if this isn't a sandbox, then there is no such thing as a sandbox.
I wasn't saying it wasn't a sandbox. It is a sandbox. The thing is, those features, the housing and farming, are all tied to the third continent. You can't build a house on the first or second continents. Guess where the FFA PvP is and guess where one of the game features is tearing down another player's house? You guessed it. The Third Continent.
This doesn't make it not a sandbox, but it does limit the appeal somewhat.
Now again, this could all change. I don't think it will though. The FFA PvP thing seems to be stuck in some developer's heads as the only way to bring a sandbox to the MMORPG market.
Although it was a duct-tape solution at the time, I think the next great sandbox will look and function a lot like the two-facet shards of Ultima Online.
I'm a UO fan and an avid PVPer. I barely ever set foot in Trammel. However, if we take an unbiased and objective look back at UO from UO:R to present day, UO's Trammel facet is an excellent example of a functioning, feature-rich and engaging sandbox-style virtual world in a predominantly PvE-only (there is consensual PVP) environment.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......
Could you possibly be more close minded? You reallyl don't get it do you? WOW isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest (and do LFD, mob grind, or many other possible ways to play), you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. Clueless .....
No one has done it yet for the sandbox in almost 15 (?) years. I've played Eve Online off and on, didn't try SWG, but neither one seemed casual friendly. A good example of casual friendly is having a level 12 character in GW2 (takes an hour or two), and get level boosted to 80 for pvp. Play a couple quick matches and log off. No significant time investment required.
Comments
There is something to this, I agree.
One of the more frustrating aspects of MMO game-play I've been encountering, to increasing degre, the past five years or so is:
Many MMO gamers don't know how to engage in warfare anymore, or know what teamwork based combat is. Tactics aren't understood or practiced. Strategy is some word that starts with an "S", so what?
Combat has devolved for a large % of the MMO playerbase into a binary maneuver:
See a mob, or a pack, run at it, mash your DPS, CC, and interrupt skill keys, and yell at the healer "keep me up nub!".
See a mob, or a pack, run at it, mash your DPS, CC, and interrupt skill keys, and yell at the healer "keep me up nub!".
Etc.
Alternate "tactic" 1:
The healer can't keep you up. Kick the healer and get a new one, preferrably your "good friend who's got a capped healer with killer gear" who's heals outstrip the entire DPS output of the pack in question, thus fueling the "pro" strat of:
Now I can see a mob, or a pack, run at it, and mash my DPS, CC and interrupt skills while standing there because now I have a healer can just keep me up through that.
Alternate "tactic" 2:
The "tank" can't tank the pack and is dying, or the DPS isn't killing the pack fast enough. Kick the tank, or the DPS, and find a new one, preferrably your "good friend" who's capped with capped gear who can clear the entire instance or tank it with no heals even. This fuels your ability to:
Just see a mob or mobs, run at it, and mash buttons.
I watch approaches to mobs and packs nowadays, and just don't get it. People are robots I guess. Unless it can be just RUN THROUGH using a farm-it approach, well, it just can't be done. We'll have to wait for (insert needed/perceived overpowered party-member/class here) to come online to get this done.
When, 8 of 10 times I'd say (waving thumb in the air) it's perfectly doable . . . if you . . . . JUST . . . fought smart, and actually used strat and tactics to beat the mobs.
But, sadly enough, many people just want stuff lined up in duck-rows so they can mow it down.
Me, I LOVE finding ways to pick stuff apart and win against it . . . using "less". Or just plain "on level" as a challenge. Use the terrain, use Traps, divide and conquer, peeling, kiting, find the healer or the AoE mob, or the fear mob and silence it., etc.
Wherever you go, there you are.
the answer will come with archeage I guess, even though am sure my game time in it will go something along the lines of move as soon, and as far, away from quests as possible...build my little farm in the country side when possible....farm burned down by strangers.....*shrug and log off*. but certainly will be among their first day customers, in the EU.
archeage will certainly show if a sandbox game, have a bigger audience than the OP seem to believe, no real reason to discuss it until then. there just isnt any newer sandboxes, of high quality and variaty of things to do, at this point, atleast for what I know, and it need to be of high quality to reach that 250k, or what other mark you d set as a prove of success.
I wouldnt count ArcheAge as the sandbox game to break the mold as its got a few things going against it.
1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)
2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish)
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
Question to everyone. If a developer gives us the ultimate tool to make a MMO ourselves, with their models, terrain, etc.. or our mods... would that be considered a sandbox mmo? Since players can be gods themselves and create the environment while people play on them and follow the rules? Sort of like a RP IRC chat but in 3D and with immersion. Essentially a story making tool that we have seen on Kickstarter combined with less complicated coding, or point and click if you will.
No, that isn't sandbox? WTF is... sandbox then?
If sandbox is Mortal Online, Darkfall or any other similiar game, then I am not a sandbox fan. If it is more PvE sandbox, then people would shout out that it's not sandbox. Then go and play the games before mentioned then, because that is just what it is like without PvE.
There are so much things from sandbox that can be put in a themepark. F.ex... skills, open world, realistic harvesting, housing, co-op building, seafights, siegefights, one massive server, etc..
Hmm, indeed I misread you. My apologies.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I agree as well, it has become too mechanical or innorganic or I like howyou put it, binary. Foor me an organic gameplay is one that invites the player to solve the chllenges in creative ways, and there is not only one way to do things or achieve goals, then the game is organic.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Except that people aren't agreeing that "the player has little or no manipulation of the world" in the examples you cite. I happen to think there is ALOT of room for player manipulation in Skyrim...hence it's on the "sandbox" side of the spectrum from my perspective.
Also note that "the game" is not neccesarly limited to "the world", it can also be "the narrative", or "the player" or "the players experience of the game." Theoriticaly you could have a "sandbox" game without any world what-so-ever. Mad Libs would be an example of that type of game.....there is no "world".....just a loose story structure that the players dramaticaly alter by filling in the blanks, resulting in a narrative that is largely (but not solely) the creation of the player.
1- The Asian art style (it doesnt sell well in America)
2- NCSoft (they tend to meddle in the games they publish)
The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Amazing really how this mythical massive sandbox crowd can somehow spawn a 1000+ post thread with no end in sight.
There may not be a lot of fans of sandbox style games, but it sure seems everyone has an opinion and enjoys discussing them in great detail.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't know how you WOULDN'T count it as a sandbox.
FFA PVP
HUGE crafting list, including houses and boats and other mounts...
Housing anyone?
Large open world not guided by a deadset questline..
Planting gardens trees and orchards (sp?)
Builing castles and seiging them..
....I mean really.. if this isn't a sandbox, then there is no such thing as a sandbox.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
@ pyrate
well can tell you that if archeage wont become a success in the western market, you wont see any other quality productions at all, those 2 points to me is nitpicking, especially since I dont find the asian style be that penetrating in this game, might be huge to you, but then you are willing to show that you have no intrest in the gamestyle that already is niche, and archeage is the only quality sandbox MMO in production that I know of, there is a couple that looks intresting, before any actual gameplay functionality is shown....but you are right anyway, there is so many people on this forum who are ready to ruin any game for themself with not much of a reason.
@ lizard it is not only FFA PvP in the third continent, which is what I dislike about the game so far, they havent completely said no to a server with only 3rd continent PvP, but the way they responded it sounded like a polite way of saying NEVER to me. and really believe this is the real reason this game wont become a big success long term, in the west.
Except that you're wrong. In Skyrim, the game has one pre-programmed ending. The only way not to get to that ending is not to play the game. You will end the civil war. You will kill Alduin. You will become arch-mage. You will become head of the thieves guild. You will become head of the Companions. You cannot play through those campaigns and come to a different conclusion. You have no real input on the future of your character except to walk away.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Cmon Kyl, some posters on MMORPG does not make for a massive MMO sandbox crowd. EVE has done the best so far, and even then it is propping itself up with credit sales(plex). Under 400k, while cashing in on the gold seller sales, isnt what I deem a good showing. Anything else in the MMO sandbox realm is doing pretty piss poor when it comes to NA.
I should say with legitimate gameplay. Entropia Universe I have heard described as a sandbox, yet when folks are gambling for 10k plus in RL money, I would say the gambling addiction feeds this game. No clue on numbers actually playing, and surprised it wasnt shut down long ago.
What were the estimates.....2m total MMO sandbox gamers vs 45m themepark? They are a drop in the bucket. If someone could capture the majority of the sanbox MMO crowd it could be worthwhile, but from your time here, you know damn well are at least 2 factions among them(those wanting FFA vs those that dont).
If I was gambling my money on backing a MMO, I sure wouldnt aim for the 5% of market.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......
Odd then that is nothing remotely resembling how I concluded Skyrim. I DID end the civil war, by choosing to actively support the NORDS... I could have opted for the Empire or to remain neutral instead but I didn't. I did NOT kill Alduin...he and his dragons are still plagueing the lands. I did not become "arch-mage", my character being superstiteous generaly wants as little to do with magic as is possible....hence I didn't pursue anything remotely "mage-like". I did NOT join the Thieves Guild...in fact I actualy killed quite a few of thier members instead, as my character does not like Thieves. I did NOT join the Companions, as my character didn't feel like wasting his time with a bunch of Mercenaries when there was the Empire to wrest Skyrims independance from and alot of snooty Thalmor to hew in twain. I did take time out to help some of the common folk of Skyrim out with their problems with bandits and various other threats.
At this point, I'm sure that you are going to tell me that I was "playing the game all wrong". To which I will respond that at no point in time did I find that the Developers fail to accomodate, support or provide for my style of play or the choices I made with my character. So unless you actualy represent Skyrims Developers in some sort of official fashion, I will maintain that you are the one who fails to understand the games design intent and features.
No you're not playing the game wrong - to each his own, certainly ...if you do not mind people looking you funny.
In BG1, my character never cared about the life outside the walls and lived a peaceful life in Candlekeep as a monk.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Casual + Sandbox. These two are often mutually exclusive in multiplayer gaming. But I think the only way to make a hugely popular sandbox game is to also make it casual-friendly. Casual players should be able to jump in and have fun instantly for 10 or 15 minutes, even if they only play 15 mins once a month.
Well, I agree with that, but I also think you can have that mixed into a much deeper sort of game too. With lots of freedom, and no single hook that forces game play, there's no reason not to have plenty of options and choices.
Once upon a time....
Could you possibly be more close minded? You reallyl don't get it do you? WOW isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest (and do LFD, mob grind, or many other possible ways to play), you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. Clueless .....
The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.
I don't know how you WOULDN'T count it as a sandbox.
FFA PVP
HUGE crafting list, including houses and boats and other mounts...
Housing anyone?
Large open world not guided by a deadset questline..
Planting gardens trees and orchards (sp?)
Builing castles and seiging them..
....I mean really.. if this isn't a sandbox, then there is no such thing as a sandbox.
I wasn't saying it wasn't a sandbox. It is a sandbox. The thing is, those features, the housing and farming, are all tied to the third continent. You can't build a house on the first or second continents. Guess where the FFA PvP is and guess where one of the game features is tearing down another player's house? You guessed it. The Third Continent.
This doesn't make it not a sandbox, but it does limit the appeal somewhat.
Now again, this could all change. I don't think it will though. The FFA PvP thing seems to be stuck in some developer's heads as the only way to bring a sandbox to the MMORPG market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Clicking a button and waiting around for a confirmation box to pop up on your screen is not a sandbox. It's a Lobby.
Developers of sandbox games just need to kick the identification of FFAPvP being neccesary for one.
It's the first thing people think, and it's not what makes one. A sandbox is - simply - a game with a lack of concrete direction. You log in, ask yourself "what do I want to do?", and then go about it. They usually have a wide range of features that allow you to do way more than just "level up, gear up, raid". Without any idea of what the game is capable of, people will just scream "this game is boring". Initiative is what makes a true sandbox player, and it's what divides the rest of us up into different camps of necessary hand-holding.
EVE Online, MO, Darkfall, Wakfu, etc are all great sandbox games, but will always be niche because you don't have a choice in whether to PvP or not. If someone wants you dead, they can attempt it as just about any time. The genre needs to drop the silly FFAPvP shit, because it attracts tards and sociopaths.
Though, I will say that Face of Mankind was FFAPvP and worked, but namely because of the faction politics at hand, and giving them each a 'sphere' of play to govern. The problem is that new players generally didn't know how all that worked, assumed it was just a persistant deathmatch, and ganked anyone and anything without thinking. Then when they got notice and teamed up on, the game became "unfair". Lack of understanding what a game is about is really the biggest downfall for sandbox games and the new players that try them out. God forbid anyone do their research first...
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
It has nothing to do with playing the game wrong, you didn't play the game. There are specific questlines that you play through. You cannot play through the Alduin questline without killing Alduin. The only way to avoid doing it is not to play it at all. You simply cannot play the questline and come to any other conclusion than is pre-programmed. By the same token, you cannot play the civil war questline and not end the war. There were two options, you could support the Imperials or the Nords, but both bring you to the same ultimate conclusion. The war ends. No other way around it.
The only way around those conclusions is not to play those questlines at all, exactly as I said.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Although it was a duct-tape solution at the time, I think the next great sandbox will look and function a lot like the two-facet shards of Ultima Online.
I'm a UO fan and an avid PVPer. I barely ever set foot in Trammel. However, if we take an unbiased and objective look back at UO from UO:R to present day, UO's Trammel facet is an excellent example of a functioning, feature-rich and engaging sandbox-style virtual world in a predominantly PvE-only (there is consensual PVP) environment.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
No one has done it yet for the sandbox in almost 15 (?) years. I've played Eve Online off and on, didn't try SWG, but neither one seemed casual friendly. A good example of casual friendly is having a level 12 character in GW2 (takes an hour or two), and get level boosted to 80 for pvp. Play a couple quick matches and log off. No significant time investment required.