Originally posted by Mahni

Originally posted by Forcan

Originally posted by Mahni

Questions:

1. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg clearly defined in your opinion?
2. Do "sandbox" mmorpgs have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features?
3. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a concrete concept or an aspirational concept?
4. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a matter of type/kind or a matter of degree?
5. Is EVE a true "sandbox" mmorpg?

I ask because some people in the thread treat these matters as if they are black and white, where I think of them as open for a worthwhile debate between gamers who may or may not like sandbox mmorpgs

 

 

1.) Yes, the "sandbox" design is clearly defined (although implemented differently) in different genre of video game.

2.) As I've stated before, there are core elements of sandbox design, and elements associated and/or derived from these core elements.  The core are as follow:

• I.) Dynamic World (this is the "open-ended" definition given to sandbox world - a dynamic world where there is limited or almost no restriction to interact and/or affect the game world from a physical or the abstract [such as economy]...)
• II.) Freedom in Character Design (this is one of the major elements which many used to judge if a game is "sandbox" or not - how much freedom is given in Character Design (not just at one stage of the game, but at all stage...), and how much choice are given in Character Progression System.)
• III.) Community-based Gameplay [MMORPG only] (this is the part where can have a lot of ways to implement into the game, and it can all be debated in detail if needed.  The biggest reason for this is because of the inter-dependency in the Character Design.)

And the rest are derived from and/or associate to one or more core elements.

3.) Yes, it is a concrete concept with many examples existing already.  When you compare games to see if they are sandbox or not, you do not just look at what the system offers, but rather if the system stays true to the core elements of sandbox.  Some may want to re-invent the whole idea of sandbox, or different ways of implementation, but most would keep the core elements as the basis of their sandbox design.

4.) Yes, you could say it is a type of MMORPG, just like you can say there are linear MMORPG.  And based on the how the core systems are designed, you can clearly categorize if a game is sandbox or not.

 

5.) EVE is a sandbox, if using the core elements listed as above:

 

• I.) Dynamic World : I shouldn't have to explain this for EVE, but yes, the game world in EVE is dynamic in the sense that players are taking control of the game world, not developers' pre-scripted system.
• II.) Freedom in Character Design : This can be argued, but the present system give the players the freedom to change their avatar in the form of the ships.  The ships can be modified with different parts to fit the play-style of the players.
• III.) Community-based Gameplay [MMORPG only] : This is seen in how guilds and craft are designed in the game, and these focus on the inter-dependency of the systems (how the combat characters and crafter affect the outcome of the dynamic world.

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that the following are jointly sufficient and necessary to classify something as a sandbox (mmorpg):

1. Dynamic world
2. Freedom in character design
3. Community-based gameplay (guilds, crafting)

Saying that the "rest" are derived from and / or associate with these "core" elements just keeps the feature list abstract enough that additional necessary and / or sufficient features can be added.

You are making the strong claim that sandboxes are clearly defined, but your feature set uses words like "limited" restriction on how dynamic the world is, "how much" freedom there is in character design, and a "lot of [different] ways to implement" community-based gameplay. 

I look at it from the game design(developer) perspective, not just from the game play (player) perspective.  The words like "limited" "how much" and "different ways to implement" are open to creativities of gamers and developers alike, but the core basic has to stay true.

These qualifiers make the classification subjective, not objective at all.  I could see where someone might think that a game like WoW features a dynamic world (with limited restrictions), freedom in character design through choice of classes, tradeskills, and talents, and has implemented community-based gameplay through guilds and an economic system.  Probably a bit too much wiggle room in those definitions.

You look at it as subjective, then by that logic, all things are subjective...  But in a design perspective, there must always be some space for creativities in the design.  If you are talking about WoW...  In the game design pespective (developer), the CORE game design are not changed.  But the on game play perspective, due to the new functions added on top of the core design, some might get the illusion of "sandbox", but in essence, that is based on the perception of the players, not developers.  The wiggle room isn't for players to define, but for developers to have the space for their own creativities to re-invent the implementation of the core systems.

This has to be clearly stated, and I was in a hurry so I left out this... (have a final in AI class today...)

If you want we can start another thread elsewhere to get into the deeper game design of WoW, but this thread isn't the place to do so (since in the core design WoW has nothing to do with sandbox.)

If the qualifiers make the categorization subjective, isn't is difficult to claim that the definition is concrete? 

If you are viewing it from the game play perspective, then probably you would think it is subjective.  But if you have the time to study different MMO design, then you can see that from the developer's perspective, sandbox definition are concrete with the above mentioned core element.

Moreover, don't the qualifiers demonstrate a continuum - a world can have more or less restrictions placed on it (from limited to unlimited), more or less freedom in character design (how much), and more or less community-based gameplay (since there are a lot of different ways to implement it)?  And if the "rest" of sandbox related features derive from these three core features, couldn't a game have more or less of these derived features (even if they are neither necessary or sufficient)?  Wouldn't that affect *how* sandboxy a game is - meaning a matter of degree and not one of type or kind?

You have to look at the bigger picture in order to see if the design is sandbox or not.  A simple way to judge it is this: does the systems offer players the ability to CHANGE the game world, not "their world", but the game world.  And on the design level, are these changes scripted (that means it WILL happen, regardless of anything.  The only thing is WHEN it will happen.) or non-scripted (this is the IF something will happen.  That means, the changes can be un-change by player effort.)

A simple way of looking at this using WoW... Can players seal the Dark Portal up, thus stop the Burning Legion?

 

 

Although I would love to talk about the following, but I have no personal experience with EVE, nor do I have sufficient knowledge of it to discuss in detail with you, thus I will bow out of the following and let others to take care of it...

Lastly, you've pointed out in other posts that others aren't being objective enough, but you present subjective definitions.  You've pointed out that in WoW you "cannot wipe anything out without it being reset" - isn't that ALSO true for NPCs in EVE, which you claim is a sandbox mmorpg?  You've scolded others for not answering your questions, but you've ignored my reasons why I believe that EVE violates the same core features that you've listed.  I'll repeat them below, classifed by your core features:

1. Freedom in character design - Character advancement - in my opinion, a "true" sandbox game would not have classes, levels, skills or skill points, character statistics, crafting proficiency or the like.  Everyone could do anything - and a "newbie" could do the same things as a "veteran", dependent on player (not character) skill
2. Dynamic world - Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are more areas in which to explore, but the security ratings of areas are a type of linearity just as much as difficulty of zones in other mmorpgs
3. Dynamic world - Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are different agents in the game (quest givers with a different abstract form of ? over their heads), but your "faction" with their corporation impose a type of linearity just as much as different level quest givers in other mmorpgs (you cannot go to *any* quest giver and ask what's up - you must work through prerequisites to be able to interact with them)
4. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design - race is a factor that cannot be overcome
5. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - there are (arbitrary) prerequisites for skills
6. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character advancement - there a time-based restriction on skills (which in my opinion is a different type of linear character advancement)
7. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces character level with a group of skill levels
8. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces "classes" with an associated set of skills needed to adequately perform a role in group play
9. Non-core - Restrictions on what different players are able to do based on loot
10. Dynamic world - Restrictions on available character actions - every action that is possible to do given the setting / genre / environment is not allowed - you cannot walk in a starbase, you cannot land on a planet, you cannot start a colony, etc.
11. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - if you kill an NPC, it will respawn some time later.  You cannot wipe out all pirates from the game forever, they are infinately spawning and any change that you make regarding NPCs will become undone over time if no further action is taken
12. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - what are the ways in which you can truly "affect" the world (besides building an outpost - what is the "affect" of that)?  Can you take over a starbase?  Can you create a new portal between zones?  Can you create a new asteroid field?  Can you create a new blueprint?
13. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - there is no in-game system to engage in politics and "change" the rules - can citizens get together in-game and lobby for changes in the security rating of a zone or how security forces operate?
14. Community-based gameplay - The economy is not completely character driven - NPCs offer manufactured goods and harvestable materials at prices which compete with player character created or harvested goods and materials
15. Community-based gameplay - The economy is not completely character driven - prices for goods get "reset" as there are arbitrary market controls
16. Dynamic world - The pvp is not truly "open" - there are systems (security rating / security forces) that attempt to regulate aggressive actions against new players who may choose to use them (stay in high security space) to avoid player aggression
17. Freedom in character design - You cannot be a "pure" crafter without *leveling up* (where level up = time instead of some other level)
18. Dynamic world - There not a "large" selection of things to do - this is solely an opinion, but the rather cookie cutter options of quest (ratting) / pvp / resource gathering / crafting / fed-exing goods from point a to point b does not seem quantitatively or qualitatively different from other "linear" mmorpgs
19. Dynamic world - There a "large" selection of player-generated goals that are possible - there are other goals than those listed in the actions above (such as those involving corporations), but these do not seem qualitatively different from guilds in other "linear" mmorpgs

Do these violate your core features of a "sandbox" mmorpg?  Are you making a completely objective decision?  "Sandbox" categorization is really a yes / no decision, and not a matter of degree?

Originally posted by Forcan

Originally posted by Zorndorf

1. Wow has a real player economy - based on crafting and professions that changes the characters and so changes the game and its challenges. The auction house is the best implemtented of ALL MMORPG's btw.

Best Auction house? maybe, best economy? nope.  It's your opinion stating it to be the best, not the fact.  Where's the proof?

 

Have to add my two cents here.. There is, in my opinion no real player economy in WoW the prices are set again and again by the gold farmers.  As for auctions... ok there is one, however, this cannot be an arguement for a 'sandbox' game because the quality of the 'Purple-Ultra-Kill'em-All' Sword is the same from Joe Blow as it is from a  10 year veteran <<yes I'm exaggerating>>  Meaning, since the quality of all resources are the same, there is no difference in the product, thus it isnt really a player run economy.. More of a "Stampbox" rather than a "sandbox" .. everything is cookiecutter.   Price is mostly determined on who is the best mass producer or the best farmer of items, which is usually the Gold Farmers.

Again this is only my opinion, but I thought I'd share it since I dont post often.

Originally posted by zantax

I think everyone is getting bogged down in a definitive definition of the phrase, "Sandbox MMORPG".  While I agree a true Sandbox game would have no barriers, and no levels everyone would be able to do anything, hence the "game" Second Life.  The only TRUE to the meaning of "Sandbox MMORPG" is Second Life.  Eve isn't true to the meaning, but it is very close, the reason being is the progression of skills, that is the only thing holding back Eve from being a full meaning of "Sandbox MMORPG".

...

You and Mahni make very convincing constructive posts. Something I will have to dwell on. I never made the distinction between Second Life and EVE Online. Thanks I agree with you guys point of view

Originally posted by Zorndorf

Originally posted by tvalentine

 

you .... did ...... not ..... just bring WoW into a sandbox thread ........................

 

Of course becaue WOW is the only real sandbox game.

Your character in the end game IS the sandbox.

The rest is prehistoric rambling of old age MMORPG's.

Ok, WOW is a sandbox game

Now...  change your Warrior to a bloodmage.   Even a Warrior/Bloodmage hybird? 

frick, and that would have proven your point to me, 

IMHO, sandbox is the ability to work on any ability for any player at any time. 

The last sandboxy game I played was Horizons, unfortunately it was plagued with bugs and lag and bad release....

However,even though it was class based I could play any class, any time and still keep the skills, I could learn every skill, spell, craft, everything in the game.  I had housing that was at least as customizable as SWG (just no functional stuff to put in it or even decorate it) and you could do things that significantly changed the world.

Sigh I so wanted that game to work.  Nuts.

Venge Sunsoar

Originally posted by Forcan

-snip-

You are making the strong claim that sandboxes are clearly defined, but your feature set uses words like "limited" restriction on how dynamic the world is, "how much" freedom there is in character design, and a "lot of [different] ways to implement" community-based gameplay. 

I look at it from the game design(developer) perspective, not just from the game play (player) perspective.  The words like "limited" "how much" and "different ways to implement" are open to creativities of gamers and developers alike, but the core basic has to stay true.

I'm looking at if from the perspective of someone who has studied categorization - rule-based categorization, exemplar theory, and prototype theory.  I'm now looking at it as a complete layperson.  Now I'm looking at it as a gamer.  Now I'm looking at it as a game designer.  That's weird, what the words "limited", "how much", and "different ways to implement" didn't change no matter how much I looked at it.  They are still qualifiers that would make a rule based categorization open to subjective opinion, whether that was the subjective opinion of a developer or a game player - whether that's a video game player or a hockey player.

The question was whether "sandbox" mmorpgs were clearly defined - you said yes and gave three rules that have qualifiers in them.  When the qualifiers were pointed out, you specify a need for a certain perspective to interpret them. 

Are you saying that you need that perspective in order to make the categorization?  Is the category only concrete to game developers?  Do game developers look at a word like "limited" and think ... ah yes "limited = 3 restrictions, no more". 

From your perspective of a game designer, is there a way to tell whether the core (game play principles) have stayed "true"?  Do you have a trueness thermometer you use to read the core temperature?  Can you tell whether a game is sandbox or not without looking at the design documents and asking the developers how things changed during development?

These qualifiers make the classification subjective, not objective at all.  I could see where someone might think that a game like WoW features a dynamic world (with limited restrictions), freedom in character design through choice of classes, tradeskills, and talents, and has implemented community-based gameplay through guilds and an economic system.  Probably a bit too much wiggle room in those definitions.

You look at it as subjective, then by that logic, all things are subjective... 

Whoa wait a second.  I don't want 1) another semantic argument taking place at the same time and 2) my poor head to explode because you are saying your perspective makes it not subjective.

Let's take a "what does objectivity mean" break brought to us from the English language perspective.  Quoting wikipedia.

Objectivity ... "a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity".

Let's flip it around and look at subjectivity.  Quoting wikipedia...

Subjectivity ... "refers to a subject's perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief."

Subjective means when the rules change based on perspective.  If you are going to list a set of rules ANYONE should be able to apply them if they are objective.  Even a hockey player!

But in a design perspective, there must always be some space for creativities in the design.  If you are talking about WoW...  In the game design pespective (developer), the CORE game design are not changed.  But the on game play perspective, due to the new functions added on top of the core design, some might get the illusion of "sandbox", but in essence, that is based on the perception of the players, not developers.  The wiggle room isn't for players to define, but for developers to have the space for their own creativities to re-invent the implementation of the core systems.

If you are saying a game is sandbox if the words "dynamic world", "freedom in character design", and "community-based gameplay" are in bold an italics in a game design document, then I can see how you are saying it is clearly defined. 

If you are saying you have to perform the kind of mind reading that only developers can do to know whether certain gameplay principles were at the core of the game design and if the developers stayed "true to the core", then I'm impressed by the mind reading stuff, that's cool and it makes me want to be a game developer.

This has to be clearly stated, and I was in a hurry so I left out this... (have a final in AI class today...)

Let's discuss Hopfield nets.  I studied old school AI while I was in grad school.  That was a long time ago, so I may be rusty.

If you want we can start another thread elsewhere to get into the deeper game design of WoW, but this thread isn't the place to do so (since in the core design WoW has nothing to do with sandbox.)

Let's not.  Let's stay here and continue our discussion about categorization (since I'm suggesting that a game developer perspective has nothing to do applying a set of rules that you've suggest make "sandbox" clearly defined).

If the qualifiers make the categorization subjective, isn't is difficult to claim that the definition is concrete? 

If you are viewing it from the game play perspective, then probably you would think it is subjective. 

If you knew what subjective means, then probably you would think it is subjective, too.  And you might appreciate just how funny your statement is with "perspective" and "subjective" in the same sentence.

But if you have the time to study different MMO design, then you can see that from the developer's perspective, sandbox definition are concrete with the above mentioned core element.

I'm too old and grumpy to take the time to learn another profession.  If you have the time to study categorization / classification, then you could see... well I'm no fortune teller, who knows what would happen.

Moreover, don't the qualifiers demonstrate a continuum - a world can have more or less restrictions placed on it (from limited to unlimited), more or less freedom in character design (how much), and more or less community-based gameplay (since there are a lot of different ways to implement it)?  And if the "rest" of sandbox related features derive from these three core features, couldn't a game have more or less of these derived features (even if they are neither necessary or sufficient)?  Wouldn't that affect *how* sandboxy a game is - meaning a matter of degree and not one of type or kind?

You have to look at the bigger picture in order to see if the design is sandbox or not. 

Does that mean I'm not looking at it with the right perspective again.  First I have to look at it with a game developer's perspective, now I back way the hell up so I can see the big picture.  Do you also need special glasses to tell a sandbox mmorpg apart using your clearly defined definition, devoid of subjectivity?

A simple way to judge it is this: does the systems offer players the ability to CHANGE the game world, not "their world", but the game world.  And on the design level, are these changes scripted (that means it WILL happen, regardless of anything.  The only thing is WHEN it will happen.) or non-scripted (this is the IF something will happen.  That means, the changes can be un-change by player effort.)

I like simple. 

This doesn't make it simple though, it throws out two features I thought you had proposed as "necessary" features for categorization and only leaves something related to "dynamic world".

Plus, there are some loose definitions here (though that may be due to my perspective).  What is "their world" - you mean, the player's world?  You mean the real world?  You must mean their own personal world - their inner world of the mind?  Or do you mean "their world" inside the game world?  Are you talking about sci-fi mmorpgs, where "their world" means a planet they have stuck their flag in?  This developer talk is way confusing here.

A simple way of looking at this using WoW... Can players seal the Dark Portal up, thus stop the Burning Legion?

Are you really making the argument in the sentence above that because you can find a scripted event (that changes the game world) in game X, that means it is not a sandbox?  We've got a logic problem now.  I think you meant to say that you need to find a non-scripted event in game Y to mean it is a sandbox.  Then my question is how many licks does it take to get to the center how many non-scripted events do you need for a sandbox?

Although I would love to talk about the following, but I have no personal experience with EVE, nor do I have sufficient knowledge of it to discuss in detail with you, thus I will bow out of the following and let others to take care of it...

That doesn't sound fun to talk with someone without personal experience and sufficient knowledge... wait a second, didn't you already claim EVE was a sandbox without that experience and knowledge???  Ah, maybe it was a hypothetical developer judgment you were making about EVE if certain objective conditions existed.  I'll bow out of the secret developer talks.

- snip -

 

-----------------> What ever happend to Sanbox MMOs?

one word

CATS!

seriously though, sandbox mmos are kinda a niche nowadays, people like hand holding.

Originally posted by Hrica

-----------------> What ever happend to Sanbox MMOs?

one word

 

CATS!

 

seriously though, sandbox mmos are kinda a niche nowadays, people like hand holding.

ROTFLMAO BEST POST EVER!!!!

If the closest we ever get to a sandbox again is WoW with an expansion I think I'll just give up on MMOs period

I'm hoping fallen earth and the new bioware mmo (maybe kotor maybe not) stay skill based with a good community if they don't and all we get are more fantasy clone grindathons to level 2000 with players who are afraid of grouping and like having their hand held until the end game, I will give up on all MMOs.

I wouldnt expect a Bioware MMO to be skill-based

  I should mention to be fair I buy Bioware RPGs all the time (MAss Effect was last one I beat and working on SW: KOTR atm). so if they employ Classes I am confident it will be a Fun game at least.

edit- removed mention of Damion in my post. I guess just because he is a designer on that team does not mean how the game will play out necessarily

Yeah I have a horrible feeling you will be right on the bioware mmo, sick of level games but the masses seem to like them and yeah I buy a lot of bioware rpg games too I just prefer mmos to be a bit more adventurous and evolved then level based single player games

Originally posted by Mahni

I'm looking at if from the perspective of someone who has studied categorization - rule-based categorization, exemplar theory, and prototype theory.  I'm now looking at it as a complete layperson.  Now I'm looking at it as a gamer.  Now I'm looking at it as a game designer.  That's weird, what the words "limited", "how much", and "different ways to implement" didn't change no matter how much I looked at it.  They are still qualifiers that would make a rule based categorization open to subjective opinion, whether that was the subjective opinion of a developer or a game player - whether that's a video game player or a hockey player.

The question was whether "sandbox" mmorpgs were clearly defined - you said yes and gave three rules that have qualifiers in them.  When the qualifiers were pointed out, you specify a need for a certain perspective to interpret them. 

Are you saying that you need that perspective in order to make the categorization?  Is the category only concrete to game developers?  Do game developers look at a word like "limited" and think ... ah yes "limited = 3 restrictions, no more". 

Unfortunately, when the perspective changes, the term used will differ slightly when used within the context of the specific field.  The idea of the gamer on "limited" would differ from the idea of the developers (even in the different genre of games the developers would use the standard/general core systems to see if their design has either 1) stray from the core system, 2) stay true to the core, or 3) re-invent or re-design a different system that is innovative and still stay true to the core system.  And the limitation they have is based on the core system design.)  As gamers we see "limited" as something we cannot effectively do, while for game designers, "limited" may just be that line which they shouldn't cross when comes to system design.  See the difference there?  So players' idea of sandbox are based on game play while developers' idea of sandbox are based on the actual core system which used in sandbox games. 

From your perspective of a game designer, is there a way to tell whether the core (game play principles) have stayed "true"?  Do you have a trueness thermometer you use to read the core temperature?  Can you tell whether a game is sandbox or not without looking at the design documents and asking the developers how things changed during development?

Yes, with some simple testing on what the game play offers in a game, one can tell if the core stays true or not.  It's similar with children doing multiplication problems first and then look up the multiplication chart for answer.  The parameter are given, and if the result are not in the range of the parameter, then it doesn't fall into the category...  In the case of children doing multiplication problem, is the right/wrong of the question.  In the case of sandbox/linear design, is the categorization of the type of games.

Whoa wait a second.  I don't want 1) another semantic argument taking place at the same time and 2) my poor head to explode because you are saying your perspective makes it not subjective.

Let's take a "what does objectivity mean" break brought to us from the English language perspective.  Quoting wikipedia.

Objectivity ... "a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity".

Let's flip it around and look at subjectivity.  Quoting wikipedia...

Subjectivity ... "refers to a subject's perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief."

Subjective means when the rules change based on perspective.  If you are going to list a set of rules ANYONE should be able to apply them if they are objective.  Even a hockey player!

Yes, which is why the core system are objectively listed as.  The subjectivity comes in with the gamers' view and developers' view.  Hence the debate on the different implementations of various systems.  But the core systems are defined objectively, and the associated systems will contain subjective views.  So which is why when compare games, the core design is the deciding factor to categorize the game, not based on the subjective systems...

If you are saying a game is sandbox if the words "dynamic world", "freedom in character design", and "community-based gameplay" are in bold an italics in a game design document, then I can see how you are saying it is clearly defined. 

If you are saying you have to perform the kind of mind reading that only developers can do to know whether certain gameplay principles were at the core of the game design and if the developers stayed "true to the core", then I'm impressed by the mind reading stuff, that's cool and it makes me want to be a game developer.

Which is why the core system are objectively listed as.  The subjectivity comes in with the gamers' view and developers' view.  Hence the debate on the different implementations of various systems.  But the core systems are defined objectively, and the associated systems will contain subjective views.  So which is why when compare games, the core design is the deciding factor to categorize the game, not based on the subjective systems...

Let's discuss Hopfield nets.  I studied old school AI while I was in grad school.  That was a long time ago, so I may be rusty.

My field is in game-design, and Hopfield nets isn't one of the topic we talked about in class.  We narrow the idea of A.I. down to how A.I. is in video games:  i.e. path-finding, decision-making, steering behaviors, and etc... 

Let's not.  Let's stay here and continue our discussion about categorization (since I'm suggesting that a game developer perspective has nothing to do applying a set of rules that you've suggest make "sandbox" clearly defined).

The reason I'm saying to start a new thread is that we have hijacked this thread for far too long, with the debate over definition and logic this thread is way off track form it's original purpose... Hence we should continue elsewhere...

If you knew what subjective means, then probably you would think it is subjective, too.  And you might appreciate just how funny your statement is with "perspective" and "subjective" in the same sentence.

It may seem funny, but in reality, game designers have to look objectively in their design and compare to whether they have stray from the core-design of the genre of games they are trying to make.  Which is why I said from a game play perspective, it's all subjective, because as gamers we judge game play with personal bias which is subjective.  Developers have to be able to stay objective in their view in order to see if there's any problem in their design, so one group's perspective CAN be objective.

I'm too old and grumpy to take the time to learn another profession.  If you have the time to study categorization / classification, then you could see... well I'm no fortune teller, who knows what would happen.

 

It sounds interesting, I will pick up some materials and study it a bit over the summer and maybe I'll see and get some new perspective on things...

Does that mean I'm not looking at it with the right perspective again.  First I have to look at it with a game developer's perspective, now I back way the hell up so I can see the big picture.  Do you also need special glasses to tell a sandbox mmorpg apart using your clearly defined definition, devoid of subjectivity?

It sounds weird, but it's true.  Game designer's perspective focus on the system design first, then they have to look at the big picture (the result when you combine different systems and how it is in relation to the core system.)  In the end, the core system are the deciding factor, not the derived systems. 

I like simple. 

This doesn't make it simple though, it throws out two features I thought you had proposed as "necessary" features for categorization and only leaves something related to "dynamic world".

Plus, there are some loose definitions here (though that may be due to my perspective).  What is "their world" - you mean, the player's world?  You mean the real world?  You must mean their own personal world - their inner world of the mind?  Or do you mean "their world" inside the game world?  Are you talking about sci-fi mmorpgs, where "their world" means a planet they have stuck their flag in?  This developer talk is way confusing here.

You have to compare and check systematically.   So the most simple method is to check if a game satisfy the first core system (dynamic wold).  Let's say if it works, then you can check the next system (freedom in character design).  And lastly, the community-based game play.  

The reason for the "their world" term is that I want to clean up some misconception here... Zorndorf wants to prove that because he can do certain action that a game is sandbox.  And then when the question comes down if the action he did affects the whole game world, he went on about "in my world..."  Which doesn't answer the question.  To clean up any misconception I stated that it's not "their world", but the whole game world.

Are you really making the argument in the sentence above that because you can find a scripted event (that changes the game world) in game X, that means it is not a sandbox?  We've got a logic problem now.  I think you meant to say that you need to find a non-scripted event in game Y to mean it is a sandbox.  Then my question is how many licks does it take to get to the center how many non-scripted events do you need for a sandbox?

First, what I stated is the ability to have non-scripted event...   In WoW, the Dark Portal is the gateway to the expansion, and from the world system, it is scripted (that it will happen,  and it's a matter of when.)  So does the players have the ability to do non-scripted action which affect the whole game world?  (seal up the portal... not supported by the core system of  the game world... hence not dynamic world... not a sand box...)  

Also, the ability to have game world-changing non-scripted events is but one aspect in dynamic world.  So the question is never about how many non-scripted events needed for a sandbox.  

That doesn't sound fun to talk with someone without personal experience and sufficient knowledge... wait a second, didn't you already claim EVE was a sandbox without that experience and knowledge???  Ah, maybe it was a hypothetical developer judgment you were making about EVE if certain objective conditions existed.  I'll bow out of the secret developer talks.

Yes, I claim EVE was a sandbox because even though I didn't play it, I have friends do, and from them I see the interactions of the systems.  As for myself not playing it, it's due to personal preference, hence I do not have enough information to either discuss your points or counter them.  So I stop myself from making unknown assumption of the present system, as for the core system, I've seen enough to claim it as a sandbox game.
 

Mahni, at least you are using logical steps to further the discussion, and when asked questions, you would answer to the best of your ability, and give more than just personal opinion.  So I do respect your opinions and the discussion here, even though I may disagree with them... 

But Zorndorf, on the other hand, use personal opinion and stating it as "facts", which makes his reasoning weak and without substance.  And when being asked about the ability of the game, Zorndorf dodge the questions by not answering them and continue to state his opinion as facts... 

Oh well, at least I had some better and more interesting discussion with you Mahni.  May I ask what is it that you do for a living?

Originally posted by fluxen

...the new bioware mmo (maybe kotor maybe not)...

Honestly, I don't know how Bioware fooled anyone into thinking they make games that are any good.  The fact is that their games are mediocre at best but have an incredibly strong story telling aspect.

The sole strong point of a Bioware title would be awful in an MMO if one is a sandbox fan.  It'll be a completely linear story progression.  And let's face it, you, that guy smoking a cigarette, Hef's three girlfriends, and Andrew Dice Clay know that any Bioware title is going to be class based, level based, and push everyone through a completely linear treadmill of content.

If you're a sandbox fan it's going to blow ass.  End of story.

Originally posted by Forcan
-snip-

Mahni, at least you are using logical steps to further the discussion, and when asked questions, you would answer to the best of your ability, and give more than just personal opinion.  So I do respect your opinions and the discussion here, even though I may disagree with them... 

 

But Zorndorf, on the other hand, use personal opinion and stating it as "facts", which makes his reasoning weak and without substance.  And when being asked about the ability of the game, Zorndorf dodge the questions by not answering them and continue to state his opinion as facts... 

 

Oh well, at least I had some better and more interesting discussion with you Mahni.  May I ask what is it that you do for a living?

 

Hmm, still feeling like we didn't get very far with that exchange, but I don't mind leaving it at that.  Your list of core systems lines up nicely with my own beliefs, but I'm having a hard time seeing them as being a set of objective measures that any group could apply to definitively categorize a game as being "sandbox".  I see it as being a continuum, where you see it being a dichotomy based on core features.  We can agree to disagree.

I enjoyed the conversation very much regardless of the disagreement.

Oof, what do I do for a living...

I've got a doctorate in Cognitive Psychology with a specialty in Quantitative Psychology from NYU.  My focus was on dual-process theories of memory, attention, and categorization for the most part.  I studied a lot of stats, and did a fair amount of programming to build computer simulations of cognitive processes (in Pascal - hardly anyone uses that nowadays, huh?).  I taught a few undergrad and graduate courses in cognition, statistics, and human-computer interaction.

I've worked as a usability engineer, a programmer for a project for Microsoft, a researcher, then as a statistical analyst and researcher helping companies make marketing decisions.  Nowadays, I mostly connect to databases and make sense of data.  I've used the same program for doing statistical analyses that I've used for the last 15 years - a great program called SPSS.

I think I give him that. I guess every game who is not strictly linear, like HL and super mario, can be a sandbox. I mean if the common opinion is that GTA classifies as a sandbox, why not WoW? In my world WoW is not a sandbox, but I will not force my opinion on others.

The reason I have used "sandbox" to label a mmorpg is that until now i have believed that everyone accepted the word "sandbox" as the right word to use when describing games like UO and SWG (to distinguish them from games like EQ2 and WoW). Maybe I should have said "worldy mmorpg" instead of "sandbox", if I had known that players from every mmorpg out there would demand the right to use that word to describe their game(s) too. "Sandbox" have always been a word for me to easy describe a type of mmorpg´s, so other people could understand what kind of game I mean (in this case a mmorpg´s who behave as a world more than a giant hack n slash arena). A mistake from my side, as everyone clearly not share that view.

Sorry for bad grammar.

Sandboxes in development right now:

Infiniti Earth (Amazing next gen version of EVE)

Fallen Earth (Check out the forum)

Well Online

Darkfall (Most likely an investment scam)

Mortal Online (Very early)

Earthrise (Very early)

As of right now, your best bet for a sandbox/skill-based game is Fallen Earth as it has been in development for several years and appears to be very much in a playable form.  After that who knows.

I'm not sure why you choose to bring up AoC Zorndorf; the game never hinted it would be a sandbox style type of game. Even it's sieges and playertowns would be placed in instanced zones (this probably to cut down on the systemhogging specs required for the game to run both on pc and xbox because of the gfx and loading times) and thus break the rule of the Dynamic World (it has no impact to the gameworld, only a specific instance and thus doesn't even exist for everyone). The feature may 'sound' like derived from a possible sandbox feature, but it clearly isn't.

Wether the avatar limitations in a zone are good or bad design, I'll leave that in the middle. Again, it could be down to system limitations because the game has to run on two different platforms instead of one. From personal experience I can tell you however that the Outpost sieges in Ryzom DID take place in the actual gameworld, not in instances, and that even the battles with about 200 players on each side did NOT lag the server cluster. I did NOT have system 'lag' either, untill the 100 or so NPC guards respawned all at once in the siege mini-game.

So claiming such a feature or a siege/battle with a large number of participants in an 'open' world could not work, is a worthless claim, and merely your own opinion derived from personal experiences, or hearsay in this case, as it has been tried and tested before to good effect. I'll agree however it would all depend on how the server architecture and game engine are designed for it. But it can work, and it has worked.

Zorndorf, I have a challenge for you.

I assume you are familiar with the caverns of time and that it is considered an end game, yet pre-raid area correct?

Okay children this thread has gone far enough. If you kids don't start behaving yourselves I'm going to have to give you all a carebear spanking. You hear?!?! And that goes double for you Zorndorf!!

Deep down you may think you are winning this war but you are sadly mistaken. In reality you are falling farther and farther behind. You better watch yourself son. Watch yourself well. Lord knows I'll be watching. I'll always be watching my children.

KingCarebear

Originally posted by Zorndorf

NEW element : important:

....

All good designed MMORPG have sandbox elements in them. Whether you like it or not.

No use bending this.

But it is trivial to discuss this because the total implementation of a real sandbox game is NON existent.

Why?

Look at Conan TODAY on these forums: they finally found out now that in allowing 100 people to ONE zone made the game not even playable. Immens FPS drops of course due to the laughable data manipulations needed to annimate the thing in the "sandboxes of siege sytems".

Guess what happens with so called "real real real sandbox games" where the players are totally FREE to change the worlds.

So I only see the evolution of SOME elements of sandboxes. Like crafting a house or a keep BUT VERY WELL preprogrammed AND controlled by the developpers.

Now keep on dreaming and look what I always stated : I believe in polished prepared MMORPG's with proper analysed gameplay (and here and there sandbox elelements).

All the rest is: PERSONAL definitions.

 

I can tell you never heard of Second Life. Players have full control server side of their worlds. so your little "theory" where players will ruin the server is flawed, deeply. Not to mention EVE Online you must not play very many mmorpgs do you?

Not to mention there are plenty of mmorpgs that can support over 100. Even WoW can go over that limit

So why is it all of sudden AoC cant go over that when even the original alpha MMOs went way beyond that limit. Hmm, makes you wonder doesn't it?