That a Sandbox game is simply a world simulation?

As I saw answers to my previous questions, it becomes apparent that most of us want to talk about a good Sandbox game, not just any ol' thing. This is legitimate, in my mind. If it's not good, what good is it? (not a real question)

Someone mentioned humorously that a sandbox game has sand and buckets and shovels. This is actually a very good example. You could have a game world that's full of sand, surrounded by 4 walls of granite cliffs, dump trucks and bulldozers and backhoes. Players could move sand around and build walls of sand into whatever they wanted. It would be a better game if you had repair stations for the equipment, gas stations, and sales lots, all run by players. It would be better yet if those granite cliffs could be quarried and stone cut and buildings raised. It would be even better if groups could organize to work with contracts that can be filled, plans of construction to perform. On and on. From basic to really good (if you'd like that sort of game).

Question 1)
As a world simulation, "good" seems to be not only what's included, but how well it's done. If you can make and sell items, but you get no animations for the actions, that's "Sandbox", but not well implemented. But what makes a good Sandbox game certainly includes options. The included features. The more the better. And the more well implemented the better. Would we all agree on this? 

Question 2)
Do social aspects add critical "goodness" to Sandbox games? (Note the colors as they are related)
-trading in person
-guilds and other social organizations
-city building and customization by players through an organized system

Question 3)
Do "extra" features placed in the game help in some areas to round out the game?
-being able to leave the game but keep your business running?
-guild bulletin boards and town cryers, ranking structures and rules
-political aspects, positions, and rules to govern by

Question 4)
Is it fair to say that a Sandbox game with more social aspects is better? The more social the better?

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

I know what a sandbox is, and what makes it good. I'm trying to see what gamers here think and agree to.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

 

I know what a sandbox is, and what makes it good. I'm trying to see what gamers here think and agree to.

Then you can take the two examples I provided and apply them to what I consider a proper sandbox.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 

I know what a sandbox is, and what makes it good. I'm trying to see what gamers here think and agree to.

Little to nothing and I'm not joking.  This is one of the reasons why no developer (well quality developer) has tried to tackle a sandbox game.  The sandbox niche is breaks down into niches that can't find any common ground.

---

Originally posted by Amaranthar
I know what a sandbox is, and what makes it good.

---

Considering all the threads and posts you made regarding this topic, I doubt it very much...

For me, the sandbox idea is still good if one recognizes it's not about simulating reality (all one has to do get a bit of reality is simply go outside for a little while and explore what other human beings are doing...), but about adding a means for narrative structures to be controlled or manipulated by the other users (to the point that even conflicting narratives evolve and alter the course of other narratives in the game). In essence, a sandbox from my point of view is the means to tell a story in such a way that others can see it unfolding too (although from their own perspective).

Well I think all of the above sounds great.

Why should a developer have to focus on one sub-niche of the sandbox genre? Add all of it!

In a true sandbox game you have something for all. Big battles and wars for the hardcore badass, city building for the politician, banks and shops for the entrepreneur in us all. Right there you have 3 huge genres.

Think about it like this: obviously if you're reading this you probably like MMO's, and each part of a sandbox game has its own genre of games sold seperately and single player.....

So given that point, if a developer were to combine them all, in theory would said developer not be gaining a multitude of gamer crowds?? To me that makes sense, of course as with all my posts if you legitimately disagree, let me know.

Unfortunately, just about every game out there is focused on combat and it just makes no sense.  There isn't any equivalent way to make as much XP doing non-combat related activities as you can get whacking someone's head off.  This is especially true of healers.  Exactly how does a doctor, who presumably took something like the Hippocratic Oath not to harm anyone, get better at healing by killing people?

I'd like to be able to play a game where I never have to touch a weapon and can still level just as fast as the fighters doing things that are appropriate to my class.  Same with crafters.  How does hacking someone to death make you better at building something?  Makes no sense.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

That a Sandbox game is simply a world simulation?

As I saw answers to my previous questions, it becomes apparent that most of us want to talk about a good Sandbox game, not just any ol' thing. This is legitimate, in my mind. If it's not good, what good is it? (not a real question)

Someone mentioned humorously that a sandbox game has sand and buckets and shovels. This is actually a very good example. You could have a game world that's full of sand, surrounded by 4 walls of granite cliffs, dump trucks and bulldozers and backhoes. Players could move sand around and build walls of sand into whatever they wanted. It would be a better game if you had repair stations for the equipment, gas stations, and sales lots, all run by players. It would be better yet if those granite cliffs could be quarried and stone cut and buildings raised. It would be even better if groups could organize to work with contracts that can be filled, plans of construction to perform. On and on. From basic to really good (if you'd like that sort of game).

Question 1)
As a world simulation, "good" seems to be not only what's included, but how well it's done. If you can make and sell items, but you get no animations for the actions, that's "Sandbox", but not well implemented. But what makes a good Sandbox game certainly includes options. The included features. The more the better. And the more well implemented the better. Would we all agree on this? 

Question 2)
Do social aspects add critical "goodness" to Sandbox games? (Note the colors as they are related)
-trading in person
-guilds and other social organizations
-city building and customization by players through an organized system

Question 3)
Do "extra" features placed in the game help in some areas to round out the game?
-being able to leave the game but keep your business running?
-guild bulletin boards and town cryers, ranking structures and rules
-political aspects, positions, and rules to govern by

Question 4)
Is it fair to say that a Sandbox game with more social aspects is better? The more social the better?

I would answer yes to all 3. Yes the more social the better too. But, only enough social aspects to fit right in the game your making. The world sets the rules and gameplay must "attempt" to be beleivable or acceptable. 

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

You also have EVE Online (Theme park within Sandbox) and Darkfall (most bloody sandbox).  Also Second Life, because its 99% player built.

Questions to ask: Does the player create the politics of the game or does the lore/developers?  Do players shape the game in any way, as in destory anothers guilds city or loot all of their gear after killing them?  Is the market controlled by players or by the developers?

 Sandbox = Freedom 

I think that nearly all video games simulate the real world to some extent.

My broad response:

I first want to state my understanding of sandbox. "Sandbox" is a conceptual construct that, in the MMO gaming community, is paired with the "Theme Park" construct. The two exist on opposite ends of a dimensional spectrum. The sandbox construct is principally aimed toward including interaction options for the sake of creative liberty while the theme park construct is principally aimed toward excluding interaction options for the sake of simplicity.

If we can consider games as nothing more than virtual realities which differ from what we call ‘real life’, an extreme theme park reality is one that you cannot interact with but can only perceive (i.e. a movie) while an extreme sandbox reality is one where any conceivable form of interaction is possible (i.e. a dream). No game reality has been more sandbox than real life, and even real life falls somewhere between sandbox and theme park. In fact, if you can imagine that real life were simply an MMO, the laws of physics would be the game engine. We could even say that real life is theme park because the ability for me to throw fireballs at my neighbor and fly away isn’t an interaction option that was included by The Developer(s).

So getting back to the question, featuring MORE interaction options will make a given game more of a theme park, but not necessarily more enjoyable. Determining which interaction options will make a game enjoyable is complicated, but I think that if (1) the interaction options foster goal-setting behavior; (2) the interaction options allow players to do something in virtual reality that they seldom (or never) get to do in real life; (3) the interaction options ‘fit’ with the design principles of the game reality (i.e. don’t put cell phones in a fantasy MMO); (4) the interaction options can be used to facilitate the accomplishment of players’ goals; then such interaction options will add to the enjoyment of the game.

Originally posted by -Zeno-

Questions to ask: Does the player create the politics of the game or does the lore/developers?  Do players shape the game in any way, as in destory anothers guilds city or loot all of their gear after killing them?  Is the market controlled by players or by the developers?

That's a good checklist, Zeno. Another would be : Does each player/guild have their own history or does each one mirror every other one before and after it?

---

Originally posted by Cephus404
Exactly how does a doctor, who presumably took something like the Hippocratic Oath not to harm anyone, get better at healing by killing people?

---

I think developers are trying to mimic real life:

Posted by Amaranthar on 9/21/09 at 8:31:15 AM

That a Sandbox game is simply a world simulation?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

YES!  This is basically what many have been trying to get across all along.  A WORLD, not a themepark or arena or stageplay (as some linear quest games are fast approaching).

Just a wonderful fantasy world to explore, adventure, and live in.

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

I don't know about Asheron's Call (since I never played it), but I would not consider UO a sandbox game.  UO is a niche game (FFA PVP).  A niche game would be the opposite of a sandbox game.

To me, a sandbox game is all about player freedom.  The player should be able to play however they want and still be able to progress and compete.  Forcing someone into one particular playstyle all of the time (despite thier wishes) is counter to this.

Originally posted by Kyntor

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

 

I don't know about Asheron's Call (since I never played it), but I would not consider UO a sandbox game.  UO is a niche game (FFA PVP).  A niche game would be the opposite of a sandbox game.

 

To me, a sandbox game is all about player freedom.  The player should be able to play however they want and still be able to progress and compete.  Forcing someone into one particular playstyle all of the time (despite thier wishes) is counter to this.

 

I would not consider Edisons invention a telephone. It is just a niche device, and that would be the opposite of a telephone.

Originally posted by Kyntor

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.

Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

 

I don't know about Asheron's Call (since I never played it), but I would not consider UO a sandbox game.  UO is a niche game (FFA PVP).  A niche game would be the opposite of a sandbox game.

 

To me, a sandbox game is all about player freedom.  The player should be able to play however they want and still be able to progress and compete.  Forcing someone into one particular playstyle all of the time (despite thier wishes) is counter to this.

 

You're sort of contradicting yourself. FFA PVP stands for FREE for all player vs player. 'Free' being the operative word. The freedom to attack whoever you want is a huge piece of the sandbox archetype.
 

Originally posted by MIchael-333

You're sort of contradicting yourself. FFA PVP stands for FREE for all player vs player. 'Free' being the operative word. The freedom to kill whoever you want is a huge piece of the sandbox archetype.
 

No.  The terms "sandbox" and "FFA PvP" are NOT co-dependant, in any way, shape, or form.

 I simple think a sandbox MMOs is a game were you need to interact with all kinds of players to achieve something in a special area. Example build a city, fight a war, sell a stockpile of weapons, travel etc etc.

If im capable of doing this without interacting with others, its not a sandbox.

I'm convinced noone knows what the fuck a sandbox game is on this forum.

Tell you what if a developer considers its game a sandbox then we should all agree it's a sandbox.

Games where the Developers considered their games a sandox game or sandbox hybrid.

UO, AC, AO, SWG, EvE, Ryzom, Second Life, Wurm, DF, FE. 

Soon to be released: Earthrise, Mortal Online.

I know im missing a couple but those are the sandboxy games, it doesn't matter what any of you think because the Devs call these games sandbox and they know better than any of you.

K bye.

Originally posted by Maligar

Originally posted by MIchael-333

You're sort of contradicting yourself. FFA PVP stands for FREE for all player vs player. 'Free' being the operative word. The freedom to kill whoever you want is a huge piece of the sandbox archetype.
 

 

No.  The terms "sandbox" and "FFA PvP" are NOT co-dependant, in any way, shape, or form.

I think you should explain why you think that. What exactly do you think the term "sandbox" means? Is real life "sandbox"?

Originally posted by Amaranthar

That a Sandbox game is simply a world simulation?

[...]

In my opinion yes, a good sandbox game should be simply a world / universe simulator.

Originally posted by MIchael-333

Originally posted by Maligar

No.  The terms "sandbox" and "FFA PvP" are NOT co-dependant, in any way, shape, or form.

I think you should explain why you think that. What exactly do you think the term "sandbox" means? Is real life "sandbox"?

Simply because not every game to wear the "sandbox" moniker has been FFA PvP and were still popular.  So assuming that FFA PvP must be involved because some sandbox title some time ago had it is a tad bit presumptious, don't you think?  If you want examples...

SWG (Pre NGE) - Not FFA PvP.

EVE (Current) - Probably the most popular sandbox title currently open in the western market. Not FFA PvP throughout the entire game.  Probably one of the very reasons why it has become so widely popular.  It is very much sandbox, but allows players to forego FFA PvP by staying in Empire space.

Like I said, they are not co-dependant terms.  They can and have been seen together, on more than one occasion.  However, in the truest sense, they are very much independant variables.