It's a funny discussion that pops up from time to time
People will mix things based on things they like or don't like, rather than what isn't or is sandbox features. I'll give an example
Poster_01: It's called a sandbox because like in a sandbox you can build whatever you like and play however you like. I can even destroy your castle if I want
Poster_02: That's not a sandbox feature that's griefing. I don't want my stuff destroyed and a sandbox doesn't have to mean the same as an actual sandbox
Yadda yadda yadda
Then there's a group of people that will believe anything a developer tells them. "Todd Howard said Skyrim was a sandbox so that's the truth" - IE completely oblivious to the fact they are not only in the business of making games but selling them as well. Marketing is a big part of that
Here's my truth
Free roaming with no zones and no instances is not a sandbox feature. This can exist in a themepark without turning the themepark into a hybrid or in any way shape or form make it a themepark with "sandbox features". All it means is the engine and servers can handle it
Housing is not a sandbox feature for the same reason as above.
PvP is not a sandbox feature no matter how it's done. You can have a sandbox with NO PvP
The reason for the confusion is because sandbox inherently means freedom. If you can kill anybody anywhere then you have more freedom but correlation does not mean causation. I'll write that again, correlation does not mean causation.
I'll write that again, correlation does not mean causation.
I don't suppose you have time to visit 50 or so "community" threads?
"Camping = great communities" came up again, just a day or two ago.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by StonesDK It's a funny discussion that pops up from time to time People will mix things based on things they like or don't like, rather than what isn't or is sandbox features. I'll give an example Poster_01: It's called a sandbox because like in a sandbox you can build whatever you like and play however you like. I can even destroy your castle if I wantPoster_02: That's not a sandbox feature that's griefing. I don't want my stuff destroyed and a sandbox doesn't have to mean the same as an actual sandbox Yadda yadda yadda Then there's a group of people that will believe anything a developer tells them. "Todd Howard said Skyrim was a sandbox so that's the truth" - IE completely oblivious to the fact they are not only in the business of making games but selling them as well. Marketing is a big part of that Here's my truthFree roaming with no zones and no instances is not a sandbox feature. This can exist in a themepark without turning the themepark into a hybrid or in any way shape or form make it a themepark with "sandbox features". All it means is the engine and servers can handle itHousing is not a sandbox feature for the same reason as above.PvP is not a sandbox feature no matter how it's done. You can have a sandbox with NO PvP The reason for the confusion is because sandbox inherently means freedom. If you can kill anybody anywhere then you have more freedom but correlation does not mean causation. I'll write that again, correlation does not mean causation.
I think the problem is that "sandbox" doesn't inherently mean anything. It means something different to different groups of people. That's part of what got me thinking about putting the OP up. If there is a "sandbox" ideal, that is inherently a "sandbox", then it should be possible to describe it. To measure it in words. We haven't done that here.
Now, I'm not trying to determine whether a given game is a sandbox game or not. That comes later, if this little experiment is a success. I'm only trying to find a way to consistently see game features as being implemented in a sandbox manner or not. Games are compilations of features, and once we can consistently identify the features, the next step would be the games.
With that line of thinking, housing and PvP could be implemented in a sandbox manner, or not. It just depends on how the developer did it.
Also, there do seem to be features that are just game features or mmorpg features and that do not have a sandbox or theme park implementation. An open world with no instances would fall into this category.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the problem is that "sandbox" doesn't inherently mean anything. It means something different to different groups of people. That's part of what got me thinking about putting the OP up. If there is a "sandbox" ideal, that is inherently a "sandbox", then it should be possible to describe it. To measure it in words. We haven't done that here.
There is not one ideal sandbox. There is a huge underexplored design space that may contain many iconic games yet to be created. Games like UO, EvE, Minecraft and Spore are all examples of games that sit on the edges of this space - but even with all the differences between them, no combination of them really captures the game that I personally would make if I was suddenly empowered to wish it into existance.
So although I could add my version of the "a sandbox feature is sand and tools to shape the sand" speil to this thread, if the word "sandbox" isn't a self-explatory design philosophy, then my personal list of features would either be my own narrow ideal or be so broad as to be meaningless.
Originally posted by MMOExposed This a easy question. Going back to the original meaning of sandbox. Its all about player made content. Housing system is sandbox.
Quest maker is sandbox.
Dungeon maker is sandbox.
Anything that allow you to create something, not talking about crafting here, is sandbox.
If it really were an easy question, there wouldn't be discussions and arguments about what makes a sandbox. I've seen a lot of arguments, but not a lot of methodology around determining what makes up a sandbox or sandbox features. That's what I was thinking about when I posted the OP.
For example, with a quest maker, does the quest maker change the shared world in some persistent way and once created, is the resulting quest something that other players can interact with? If so, then the quest maker itself is a sandbox feature, but what about the quests that are created? Do those quests have some potential, material risk and some potential, material reward? If not, then the quests are not sandbox content, even if the quest maker is a sandbox feature.
For the dungeon maker, the same sort of questions would be asked. Does the dungeon make change the shared world in some persistent way, and once created, is the resulting dungeon something that other players can interact with? If the dungeon maker creates instances, and not dungeons in the shared world, then it is less likely a sandbox feature. If other players cannot interact with the dungeon and cause persistent changes to the dungeon, then it doesn't seem like the dungeon make is a sandbox feature, and it doesn't create a sandbox feature either.
I'll need to update my OP a bit. :-) Good post.
So no MMOs (and I include EVE here) are sandbox. You are saying you want persistent change in NPCs. This basically doesn't happen. WAR came somewhat close, but amusingly many people here would label WAR as themepark.
To the majority of people who answered this thread.
This thread is not about what a sandbox is or isn't, it is not about the definition of sandbox.
This thread is about what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature.
Ha As I read through the replies I didn't get very far before I was asking this question..." wasn't this about what are sandbox features, not what a sandbox is " ?
Originally posted by nennafir So no MMOs (and I include EVE here) are sandbox. You are saying you want persistent change in NPCs. This basically doesn't happen. WAR came somewhat close, but amusingly many people here would label WAR as themepark.
You're missing the point of the thread and I think of what I said. I'm just looking at individual features. I'm not making any statements about whole games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by maplestone Originally posted by lizardbonesI think the problem is that "sandbox" doesn't inherently mean anything. It means something different to different groups of people. That's part of what got me thinking about putting the OP up. If there is a "sandbox" ideal, that is inherently a "sandbox", then it should be possible to describe it. To measure it in words. We haven't done that here.
There is not one ideal sandbox. There is a huge underexplored design space that may contain many iconic games yet to be created. Games like UO, EvE, Minecraft and Spore are all examples of games that sit on the edges of this space - but even with all the differences between them, no combination of them really captures the game that I personally would make if I was suddenly empowered to wish it into existance.
So although I could add my version of the "a sandbox feature is sand and tools to shape the sand" speil to this thread, if the word "sandbox" isn't a self-explatory design philosophy, then my personal list of features would either be my own narrow ideal or be so broad as to be meaningless.
I listen to what you are saying and I think, "That's a problem." There's no good way to have a conversation about sandboxes, especially here without the conversation devolving into an argument about what is or is not a sandbox and what is or is not a sandbox feature.
If there is nothing but a bunch of differing personal views on what sandboxes are, then no, sandboxes do not actually exist. However, many people, most even, agree that there are sandboxes, and they point to them and say, "That is a sandbox", and other people don't argue with them. If that's the case, then it should be possible to get a handle on that property of being a sandbox.
I'm suggesting a way to look at the features of a sandbox, rather than the whole thing so that we can at least pick out, in a consistent way, which implementations of features have the property of being sandbox features.
Since games are made of up a bunch of features piled together, being able to pick out the sandbox implementations from the non-sandbox implementations should eventually lead to a way to pick out sandbox games in a clear and consistent manner.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Open World PvP in a Themepark is catered only for people who want to PvP. In a Sandbox, people who do not want to actively battle with other people, provide necessary services to those who do.
The way I see it, Open World PvP is a sandbox feature for the PvPers and a themepark feature for the non-PvPers.
To the majority of people who answered this thread.
This thread is not about what a sandbox is or isn't, it is not about the definition of sandbox.
This thread is about what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature.
What makes something a particular thing is in fact what that definition is. It isn't arbitrary. You don't get to just go outside and point at things and call them dogs. What a dog is is a very specific definition and therefore what makes a dog a dog is exactly what the definition of the word dog is. So what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature is any feature which fits the definition of sandbox.
My above post both answers what a sandbox is and therefore what makes a feature a sandbox feature and it truly is that simple.
I think the problem is that "sandbox" doesn't inherently mean anything. It means something different to different groups of people. That's part of what got me thinking about putting the OP up. If there is a "sandbox" ideal, that is inherently a "sandbox", then it should be possible to describe it. To measure it in words. We haven't done that here.
Sandbox definitely 100% means something. However, there is an amazing amount of people who don't understand the term and use it wrong.
It is no different than the 100s of people on the internet that spell ridiculous "rediculous" or the people that say "in all intensive purposes". The internet is full of people who THINK they understand things (phrases, spelling, terms) that in actuality do not at all.
I also simply and directly defined it in my earlier post so I disagree that "we haven't done that here".
To the majority of people who answered this thread.
This thread is not about what a sandbox is or isn't, it is not about the definition of sandbox.
This thread is about what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature.
What makes something a particular thing is in fact what that definition is. It isn't arbitrary. You don't get to just go outside and point at things and call them dogs. What a dog is is a very specific definition and therefore what makes a dog a dog is exactly what the definition of the word dog is. So what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature is any feature which fits the definition of sandbox.
My above post both answers what a sandbox is and therefore what makes a feature a sandbox feature and it truly is that simple.
I disagree.
You are right we don't get to make arbitrary definitions but we are not talking about definitions. We are not talking about what makes a sandbox game.
We are talking about what makes a feature in a game sandbox or not. There is a significant difference between the two.
People say a sandbox game has housing, open world, no class restrictions and ability to change the world. Fine. I say a themepark can do almost all of those things.
Therefore there is a difference in the features themselves, in how the game handles and addresses each feature that determines if they are sandbox or not. The question is what is it? Not what is the feature, but what is the difference in how those features are handled.
Very few people in this thread have done that. They have just listed a bunch of features, or said it's about freedom.
The question is not about what the feature is, the question is about what is the difference in how that feature is used between the two.
It is not as simple as saying open world pvp is sandbox feature. WoW has servers with this, it's not sandbox.
It's not as simple saying housing is sandbox. EQ, EQ2, DCUO have housing. They aren't considered sandbox.
It's not as simple as saying no classes. FE doesn't have classes, many feel it is not a sandbox.
It's not as simple as saying freedom. All games have rules and restrictions. And some games have more freedom in some areas and less freedom in others.
So what is the difference in how the features are handled. What makes that feature sandbox in game A and themepark in Game B.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
To the majority of people who answered this thread.
This thread is not about what a sandbox is or isn't, it is not about the definition of sandbox.
This thread is about what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature.
What makes something a particular thing is in fact what that definition is. It isn't arbitrary. You don't get to just go outside and point at things and call them dogs. What a dog is is a very specific definition and therefore what makes a dog a dog is exactly what the definition of the word dog is. So what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature is any feature which fits the definition of sandbox.
My above post both answers what a sandbox is and therefore what makes a feature a sandbox feature and it truly is that simple.
I disagree.
You are right we don't get to make arbitrary definitions but we are not talking about definitions. We are not talking about what makes a sandbox game.
We are talking about what makes a feature in a game sandbox or not. There is a significant difference between the two.
People say a sandbox game has housing, open world, no class restrictions and ability to change the world. Fine. I say a themepark can do almost all of those things.
Therefore there is a difference in the features themselves, in how the game handles and addresses each feature that determines if they are sandbox or not. The question is what is it? Not what is the feature, but what is the difference in how those features are handled.
There are plenty of mistakes in this.
Housing by itself is in no way shape or form a sandbox. In fact having pre placed houses that you can buy (or pre defined plots of land that only a specific house can go on that needs to be built) is in fact a theme park setup.
Placing housing anywhere or each player being able to design their house (decorating is not the same) makes it a more sandbox feature.
Open world does not = sandbox at all. If it is a static world with predefined content it is in fact a theme park feature. A world that you can change (physically change the landscape through tools that can raise the land lower it, create caves, etc.) or effect (cut down an entire forest and it never grows back, kill off a type of creature in an area so something else moves in, etc.) it becomes sandbox.
No class restrictions can be sandbox. First let's define no class restrictions. If we are saying there is no classes but instead a long list of skills of which you choose some to fit your character then it is definitely more of a sandbox feature.
Your confusion is thinking that for example an open world means sandbox but a theme park can have it. Thinking that no class restrictions can be done in a theme park as a theme park feature. Thinking that static housing can be called sandbox.
My point being if your very confusion directly comes from not understanding the actual definition. When the definition is used there are no arguments because something either fits the sandbox definition, and is therefore a sandbox feature, or it does not, and is therefore not a sandbox feature.
As I said in my original post, sandbox means having tools to create/change the world. So you have to compare things to that. Simply an open world? Well that contains no tools, so that has nothing to do with the definition of sandbox. Housing? Well if you can only buy pre-existing houses in defined places, or place pre-defined houses in pre-defined locations, then you don't have tools to change/create the world so no by default it is not sandbox.
The definition is all that matters because then it is so very simple to compare any given feature to the definitions of sandbox/theme park and see which one it fits.
Originally posted by Quirhid There are no "sandbox features" or "themepark features" because any feature can be implemented into any game without it becoming one or the other. This sort of pidgeonholing serves no one. There are not "MMORPG features" either. Just features.
To the majority of people who answered this thread.
This thread is not about what a sandbox is or isn't, it is not about the definition of sandbox.
This thread is about what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature.
What makes something a particular thing is in fact what that definition is. It isn't arbitrary. You don't get to just go outside and point at things and call them dogs. What a dog is is a very specific definition and therefore what makes a dog a dog is exactly what the definition of the word dog is. So what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature is any feature which fits the definition of sandbox.
My above post both answers what a sandbox is and therefore what makes a feature a sandbox feature and it truly is that simple.
I disagree.
You are right we don't get to make arbitrary definitions but we are not talking about definitions. We are not talking about what makes a sandbox game.
We are talking about what makes a feature in a game sandbox or not. There is a significant difference between the two.
People say a sandbox game has housing, open world, no class restrictions and ability to change the world. Fine. I say a themepark can do almost all of those things.
Therefore there is a difference in the features themselves, in how the game handles and addresses each feature that determines if they are sandbox or not. The question is what is it? Not what is the feature, but what is the difference in how those features are handled.
There are plenty of mistakes in this.
Housing by itself is in no way shape or form a sandbox. In fact having pre placed houses that you can buy (or pre defined plots of land that only a specific house can go on that needs to be built) is in fact a theme park setup.
Placing housing anywhere or each player being able to design their house (decorating is not the same) makes it a more sandbox feature.
Open world does not = sandbox at all. If it is a static world with predefined content it is in fact a theme park feature. A world that you can change (physically change the landscape through tools that can raise the land lower it, create caves, etc.) or effect (cut down an entire forest and it never grows back, kill off a type of creature in an area so something else moves in, etc.) it becomes sandbox.
No class restrictions can be sandbox. First let's define no class restrictions. If we are saying there is no classes but instead a long list of skills of which you choose some to fit your character then it is definitely more of a sandbox feature.
Your confusion is thinking that for example an open world means sandbox but a theme park can have it. Thinking that no class restrictions can be done in a theme park as a theme park feature. Thinking that static housing can be called sandbox.
My point being if your very confusion directly comes from not understanding the actual definition. When the definition is used there are no arguments because something either fits the sandbox definition, and is therefore a sandbox feature, or it does not, and is therefore not a sandbox feature.
As I said in my original post, sandbox means having tools to create/change the world. So you have to compare things to that. Simply an open world? Well that contains no tools, so that has nothing to do with the definition of sandbox. Housing? Well if you can only buy pre-existing houses in defined places, or place pre-defined houses in pre-defined locations, then you don't have tools to change/create the world so no by default it is not sandbox.
The definition is all that matters because then it is so very simple to compare any given feature to the definitions of sandbox/theme park and see which one it fits.
I think you are mistaking what I think vs what I have stated is commonly thought.
I don't think owpvp, housing or anything in particular is a sandbox feature. However many many do. In this very thread people have stated that those are sandbox features.
I also argue that there is an actual definition. There isn't. There is just what each individual thinks is the definition. There is no commonly accepted definition at all.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Housing by itself is in no way shape or form a sandbox. In fact having pre placed houses that you can buy (or pre defined plots of land that only a specific house can go on that needs to be built) is in fact a theme park setup.
Placing housing anywhere or each player being able to design their house (decorating is not the same) makes it a more sandbox feature.
Open world does not = sandbox at all. If it is a static world with predefined content it is in fact a theme park feature. A world that you can change (physically change the landscape through tools that can raise the land lower it, create caves, etc.) or effect (cut down an entire forest and it never grows back, kill off a type of creature in an area so something else moves in, etc.) it becomes sandbox.
No class restrictions can be sandbox. First let's define no class restrictions. If we are saying there is no classes but instead a long list of skills of which you choose some to fit your character then it is definitely more of a sandbox feature.
Your confusion is thinking that for example an open world means sandbox but a theme park can have it. Thinking that no class restrictions can be done in a theme park as a theme park feature. Thinking that static housing can be called sandbox.
My point being if your very confusion directly comes from not understanding the actual definition. When the definition is used there are no arguments because something either fits the sandbox definition, and is therefore a sandbox feature, or it does not, and is therefore not a sandbox feature.
As I said in my original post, sandbox means having tools to create/change the world. So you have to compare things to that. Simply an open world? Well that contains no tools, so that has nothing to do with the definition of sandbox. Housing? Well if you can only buy pre-existing houses in defined places, or place pre-defined houses in pre-defined locations, then you don't have tools to change/create the world so no by default it is not sandbox.
The definition is all that matters because then it is so very simple to compare any given feature to the definitions of sandbox/theme park and see which one it fits.
I think you are mistaking what I think vs what I have stated is commonly thought.
I don't think owpvp, housing or anything in particular is a sandbox feature. However many many do. In this very thread people have stated that those are sandbox features.
I also argue that there is an actual definition. There isn't. There is just what each individual thinks is the definition. There is no commonly accepted definition at all.
There is a definition, it is an easy definition, and it makes it very easy to determine sandbox from themepark. It is so clear that there should never even be any discussion about whether something it or isn't any more than there should be discussions on if an animal is or isn't a dog. They are both equally clear points.
Housing by itself is in no way shape or form a sandbox. In fact having pre placed houses that you can buy (or pre defined plots of land that only a specific house can go on that needs to be built) is in fact a theme park setup.
Placing housing anywhere or each player being able to design their house (decorating is not the same) makes it a more sandbox feature.
Open world does not = sandbox at all. If it is a static world with predefined content it is in fact a theme park feature. A world that you can change (physically change the landscape through tools that can raise the land lower it, create caves, etc.) or effect (cut down an entire forest and it never grows back, kill off a type of creature in an area so something else moves in, etc.) it becomes sandbox.
No class restrictions can be sandbox. First let's define no class restrictions. If we are saying there is no classes but instead a long list of skills of which you choose some to fit your character then it is definitely more of a sandbox feature.
Your confusion is thinking that for example an open world means sandbox but a theme park can have it. Thinking that no class restrictions can be done in a theme park as a theme park feature. Thinking that static housing can be called sandbox.
My point being if your very confusion directly comes from not understanding the actual definition. When the definition is used there are no arguments because something either fits the sandbox definition, and is therefore a sandbox feature, or it does not, and is therefore not a sandbox feature.
As I said in my original post, sandbox means having tools to create/change the world. So you have to compare things to that. Simply an open world? Well that contains no tools, so that has nothing to do with the definition of sandbox. Housing? Well if you can only buy pre-existing houses in defined places, or place pre-defined houses in pre-defined locations, then you don't have tools to change/create the world so no by default it is not sandbox.
The definition is all that matters because then it is so very simple to compare any given feature to the definitions of sandbox/theme park and see which one it fits.
I think you are mistaking what I think vs what I have stated is commonly thought.
I don't think owpvp, housing or anything in particular is a sandbox feature. However many many do. In this very thread people have stated that those are sandbox features.
I also argue that there is an actual definition. There isn't. There is just what each individual thinks is the definition. There is no commonly accepted definition at all.
There is a definition, it is an easy definition, and it makes it very easy to determine sandbox from themepark. It is so clear that there should never even be any discussion about whether something it or isn't any more than there should be discussions on if an animal is or isn't a dog. They are both equally clear points.
Well if no one agrees on the definition, and words are defined by the majority... then there is no definition.
We all agree on what is a dog. We don't all agree on what is a sandbox.
All you are saying is that the definition you use is the right one.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
First of all, I don't accept the simplistic way of dividing features into either sandbox or themepark. There are other definitions than just two, everything is not black or white. Themepark did not exist till WoW brought us the definition and refined it, generally mmorpgs before that were just roleplaying games, and mostly build on sandbox features.
Sandbox is a world with rules that gives players much freedom to create their own adventure. Only a set of rules apply, but within those rules everyone can do what they want. Free pvp does not mean sandbox, a sandbox can exist perfectly fine without pvp. Sandbox is not rule-less, it is simply a world where the rules are designed in a way that create gameplay, so that players are the biggest content provider.
Themepark is a world with preset adventures, and like the word themepark suggest, You try out the various rides which are highly designed each with a specific purpose. This is typically quests/events, story driven games. The gameplay here is not asmuch rules, but defined content, and the main provider is the developer.
Sandbox Themepark whatever can't really be applied as describing a feature (although we keep trying), but it is rather how content and gameplay is defined, be it by setting up rules and a world and let the gameplay evolve around that, or design adventures, stories etc and let that be the main gameplay.
There is a definition, it is an easy definition, and it makes it very easy to determine sandbox from themepark. It is so clear that there should never even be any discussion about whether something it or isn't any more than there should be discussions on if an animal is or isn't a dog. They are both equally clear points.
Well if no one agrees on the definition, and words are defined by the majority... then there is no definition.
We all agree on what is a dog. We don't all agree on what is a sandbox.
All you are saying is that the definition you use is the right one.
Nope, I'm saying there is a universally easy to understand definition in the MMO world that the vast majority both understand and agree on. There are simply a few people (mostly on the mmorpg.com forums for some reason, I haven't seen many other places not get what sandbox means) who don't get it and yet insist that everyone who does get it is wrong.
I dont think there is such a thing as a sandbox feature. The MMORPG can play like a sandbox or it can play as a ThemePark or it can be a hybrid but I dont think you can poinpoint it to a particular feature.
However I would say that a hallmark of a sandbox MMO is that it is non-linear and player-drivenby nature where as a ThemePark is linear and developer-driven.
Sandboxes are about sand. Sand is player-controlled or player-created game elements.
That's it. That's the origin of the term, that sandboxes are sandboxes because they are malleable.
Anything else is just some incidental trait which just happened to be in a sandbox game you enjoyed. That trait didn't make the game sandbox. The sand did. The game's focus on player-controlled elements.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sandboxes are about sand. Sand is player-controlled or player-created game elements.
That's it. That's the origin of the term, that sandboxes are sandboxes because they are malleable.
I've been trying to explain that for pages now. I'm not sure why the term sandbox is so challenging to understand for some people.
The name gives the definition and the definition is simple. It's like someone asking why a section of road is called "dead man's curve" and then arguing some convoluted definition of what a dead man is.
One, I don't see risk vs reward having relevance to sandbox vs themepark. They are separate conversations.
Two, if a player can create an item that persists in the world - whether instanced or not - it is at least "sandboxy". Further discussion would be needed to define and distinguish (for example) crafting from housing.
Comments
Why do I feel like this thread has been here before?
Oh ya ... a new one asking the same question pops up every week.
You stay sassy!
It's a funny discussion that pops up from time to time
People will mix things based on things they like or don't like, rather than what isn't or is sandbox features. I'll give an example
Poster_01: It's called a sandbox because like in a sandbox you can build whatever you like and play however you like. I can even destroy your castle if I want
Poster_02: That's not a sandbox feature that's griefing. I don't want my stuff destroyed and a sandbox doesn't have to mean the same as an actual sandbox
Yadda yadda yadda
Then there's a group of people that will believe anything a developer tells them. "Todd Howard said Skyrim was a sandbox so that's the truth" - IE completely oblivious to the fact they are not only in the business of making games but selling them as well. Marketing is a big part of that
Here's my truth
Free roaming with no zones and no instances is not a sandbox feature. This can exist in a themepark without turning the themepark into a hybrid or in any way shape or form make it a themepark with "sandbox features". All it means is the engine and servers can handle it
Housing is not a sandbox feature for the same reason as above.
PvP is not a sandbox feature no matter how it's done. You can have a sandbox with NO PvP
The reason for the confusion is because sandbox inherently means freedom. If you can kill anybody anywhere then you have more freedom but correlation does not mean causation. I'll write that again, correlation does not mean causation.
I don't suppose you have time to visit 50 or so "community" threads?
"Camping = great communities" came up again, just a day or two ago.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I think the problem is that "sandbox" doesn't inherently mean anything. It means something different to different groups of people. That's part of what got me thinking about putting the OP up. If there is a "sandbox" ideal, that is inherently a "sandbox", then it should be possible to describe it. To measure it in words. We haven't done that here.
Now, I'm not trying to determine whether a given game is a sandbox game or not. That comes later, if this little experiment is a success. I'm only trying to find a way to consistently see game features as being implemented in a sandbox manner or not. Games are compilations of features, and once we can consistently identify the features, the next step would be the games.
With that line of thinking, housing and PvP could be implemented in a sandbox manner, or not. It just depends on how the developer did it.
Also, there do seem to be features that are just game features or mmorpg features and that do not have a sandbox or theme park implementation. An open world with no instances would fall into this category.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There is not one ideal sandbox. There is a huge underexplored design space that may contain many iconic games yet to be created. Games like UO, EvE, Minecraft and Spore are all examples of games that sit on the edges of this space - but even with all the differences between them, no combination of them really captures the game that I personally would make if I was suddenly empowered to wish it into existance.
So although I could add my version of the "a sandbox feature is sand and tools to shape the sand" speil to this thread, if the word "sandbox" isn't a self-explatory design philosophy, then my personal list of features would either be my own narrow ideal or be so broad as to be meaningless.
So no MMOs (and I include EVE here) are sandbox. You are saying you want persistent change in NPCs. This basically doesn't happen. WAR came somewhat close, but amusingly many people here would label WAR as themepark.
Ha As I read through the replies I didn't get very far before I was asking this question..." wasn't this about what are sandbox features, not what a sandbox is " ?
You're missing the point of the thread and I think of what I said. I'm just looking at individual features. I'm not making any statements about whole games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So although I could add my version of the "a sandbox feature is sand and tools to shape the sand" speil to this thread, if the word "sandbox" isn't a self-explatory design philosophy, then my personal list of features would either be my own narrow ideal or be so broad as to be meaningless.
I listen to what you are saying and I think, "That's a problem." There's no good way to have a conversation about sandboxes, especially here without the conversation devolving into an argument about what is or is not a sandbox and what is or is not a sandbox feature.
If there is nothing but a bunch of differing personal views on what sandboxes are, then no, sandboxes do not actually exist. However, many people, most even, agree that there are sandboxes, and they point to them and say, "That is a sandbox", and other people don't argue with them. If that's the case, then it should be possible to get a handle on that property of being a sandbox.
I'm suggesting a way to look at the features of a sandbox, rather than the whole thing so that we can at least pick out, in a consistent way, which implementations of features have the property of being sandbox features.
Since games are made of up a bunch of features piled together, being able to pick out the sandbox implementations from the non-sandbox implementations should eventually lead to a way to pick out sandbox games in a clear and consistent manner.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The way I see it, Open World PvP is a sandbox feature for the PvPers and a themepark feature for the non-PvPers.
What makes something a particular thing is in fact what that definition is. It isn't arbitrary. You don't get to just go outside and point at things and call them dogs. What a dog is is a very specific definition and therefore what makes a dog a dog is exactly what the definition of the word dog is. So what makes a sandbox feature a sandbox feature is any feature which fits the definition of sandbox.
My above post both answers what a sandbox is and therefore what makes a feature a sandbox feature and it truly is that simple.
Sandbox definitely 100% means something. However, there is an amazing amount of people who don't understand the term and use it wrong.
It is no different than the 100s of people on the internet that spell ridiculous "rediculous" or the people that say "in all intensive purposes". The internet is full of people who THINK they understand things (phrases, spelling, terms) that in actuality do not at all.
I also simply and directly defined it in my earlier post so I disagree that "we haven't done that here".
I disagree.
You are right we don't get to make arbitrary definitions but we are not talking about definitions. We are not talking about what makes a sandbox game.
We are talking about what makes a feature in a game sandbox or not. There is a significant difference between the two.
People say a sandbox game has housing, open world, no class restrictions and ability to change the world. Fine. I say a themepark can do almost all of those things.
Therefore there is a difference in the features themselves, in how the game handles and addresses each feature that determines if they are sandbox or not. The question is what is it? Not what is the feature, but what is the difference in how those features are handled.
Very few people in this thread have done that. They have just listed a bunch of features, or said it's about freedom.
The question is not about what the feature is, the question is about what is the difference in how that feature is used between the two.
It is not as simple as saying open world pvp is sandbox feature. WoW has servers with this, it's not sandbox.
It's not as simple saying housing is sandbox. EQ, EQ2, DCUO have housing. They aren't considered sandbox.
It's not as simple as saying no classes. FE doesn't have classes, many feel it is not a sandbox.
It's not as simple as saying freedom. All games have rules and restrictions. And some games have more freedom in some areas and less freedom in others.
So what is the difference in how the features are handled. What makes that feature sandbox in game A and themepark in Game B.
There are plenty of mistakes in this.
Housing by itself is in no way shape or form a sandbox. In fact having pre placed houses that you can buy (or pre defined plots of land that only a specific house can go on that needs to be built) is in fact a theme park setup.
Placing housing anywhere or each player being able to design their house (decorating is not the same) makes it a more sandbox feature.
Open world does not = sandbox at all. If it is a static world with predefined content it is in fact a theme park feature. A world that you can change (physically change the landscape through tools that can raise the land lower it, create caves, etc.) or effect (cut down an entire forest and it never grows back, kill off a type of creature in an area so something else moves in, etc.) it becomes sandbox.
No class restrictions can be sandbox. First let's define no class restrictions. If we are saying there is no classes but instead a long list of skills of which you choose some to fit your character then it is definitely more of a sandbox feature.
Your confusion is thinking that for example an open world means sandbox but a theme park can have it. Thinking that no class restrictions can be done in a theme park as a theme park feature. Thinking that static housing can be called sandbox.
My point being if your very confusion directly comes from not understanding the actual definition. When the definition is used there are no arguments because something either fits the sandbox definition, and is therefore a sandbox feature, or it does not, and is therefore not a sandbox feature.
As I said in my original post, sandbox means having tools to create/change the world. So you have to compare things to that. Simply an open world? Well that contains no tools, so that has nothing to do with the definition of sandbox. Housing? Well if you can only buy pre-existing houses in defined places, or place pre-defined houses in pre-defined locations, then you don't have tools to change/create the world so no by default it is not sandbox.
The definition is all that matters because then it is so very simple to compare any given feature to the definitions of sandbox/theme park and see which one it fits.
i dont agree but i dont know to define it
I believe Quest hubs are a theme park feature tho
EQ2 fan sites
I think you are mistaking what I think vs what I have stated is commonly thought.
I don't think owpvp, housing or anything in particular is a sandbox feature. However many many do. In this very thread people have stated that those are sandbox features.
I also argue that there is an actual definition. There isn't. There is just what each individual thinks is the definition. There is no commonly accepted definition at all.
There is a definition, it is an easy definition, and it makes it very easy to determine sandbox from themepark. It is so clear that there should never even be any discussion about whether something it or isn't any more than there should be discussions on if an animal is or isn't a dog. They are both equally clear points.
Well if no one agrees on the definition, and words are defined by the majority... then there is no definition.
We all agree on what is a dog. We don't all agree on what is a sandbox.
All you are saying is that the definition you use is the right one.
First of all, I don't accept the simplistic way of dividing features into either sandbox or themepark. There are other definitions than just two, everything is not black or white. Themepark did not exist till WoW brought us the definition and refined it, generally mmorpgs before that were just roleplaying games, and mostly build on sandbox features.
Sandbox is a world with rules that gives players much freedom to create their own adventure. Only a set of rules apply, but within those rules everyone can do what they want. Free pvp does not mean sandbox, a sandbox can exist perfectly fine without pvp. Sandbox is not rule-less, it is simply a world where the rules are designed in a way that create gameplay, so that players are the biggest content provider.
Themepark is a world with preset adventures, and like the word themepark suggest, You try out the various rides which are highly designed each with a specific purpose. This is typically quests/events, story driven games. The gameplay here is not asmuch rules, but defined content, and the main provider is the developer.
Sandbox Themepark whatever can't really be applied as describing a feature (although we keep trying), but it is rather how content and gameplay is defined, be it by setting up rules and a world and let the gameplay evolve around that, or design adventures, stories etc and let that be the main gameplay.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Nope, I'm saying there is a universally easy to understand definition in the MMO world that the vast majority both understand and agree on. There are simply a few people (mostly on the mmorpg.com forums for some reason, I haven't seen many other places not get what sandbox means) who don't get it and yet insist that everyone who does get it is wrong.
I dont think there is such a thing as a sandbox feature. The MMORPG can play like a sandbox or it can play as a ThemePark or it can be a hybrid but I dont think you can poinpoint it to a particular feature.
However I would say that a hallmark of a sandbox MMO is that it is non-linear and player-drivenby nature where as a ThemePark is linear and developer-driven.
My gaming blog
Risk and Reward is not sandbox-specific at all.
Sandboxes are about sand. Sand is player-controlled or player-created game elements.
That's it. That's the origin of the term, that sandboxes are sandboxes because they are malleable.
Anything else is just some incidental trait which just happened to be in a sandbox game you enjoyed. That trait didn't make the game sandbox. The sand did. The game's focus on player-controlled elements.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've been trying to explain that for pages now. I'm not sure why the term sandbox is so challenging to understand for some people.
The name gives the definition and the definition is simple. It's like someone asking why a section of road is called "dead man's curve" and then arguing some convoluted definition of what a dead man is.
One, I don't see risk vs reward having relevance to sandbox vs themepark. They are separate conversations.
Two, if a player can create an item that persists in the world - whether instanced or not - it is at least "sandboxy". Further discussion would be needed to define and distinguish (for example) crafting from housing.