• Are my impressions of their differences shared or am I way off base?
• At what point does a Sandbox become a Themepark?
• Is it possible to have a game that includes both elements and is therefore neither?

The line is drawn into the sand ofc.

I just want a sandbox at my themepark.  T_T

It's pretty easy to mix them both up actually.

You need a core-world, where there's alot of premade content to play around with, i.e. quests and storyline and then you place areas around this core-world, where players can create their own content, like building bases, harvesting ressources, fighting for territories etc...

Simply said: EvE Online.

There's tons of players who only do missions and crafting and they play EvE like you would play a themepark, and then there's those interested in player-driven content ofc who venture out and build up their own empires and play the sandbox-part.

Tits in real life = (LARP)

Tits in Sandbox = your avatar can touch them (RPG)

Tits in themepark = you avatar can only watch them (?)

Originally posted by Areszero

Good morning!

 

These are questions I’ve long wondered about and been somewhat confused on.  Any insight or discussion is welcome.  I didn't find a specific thread that answered each of these so please pardon me if there is one that I missed.

 

I’ve played some games I’d consider Sandbox (Pre-NGE SWG for example) as well as ones dubbed Themepark.  My questions are more about what is used to define Sandbox or Themepark.  Most seem to be of the opinion that Themepark is a quest driven level based progression, with typically scripted fights.   To the contrary, Sandbox seems to be more open world, skill buy point character progression, limited developer generated content and/or quests allowing for predominately user generated content and freedom to create what they can within the world (houses and such).

 

I’ve actually got 3 questions about this:

 

• Are my impressions of their differences shared or am I way off base?
• At what point does a Sandbox become a Themepark?
• Is it possible to have a game that includes both elements and is therefore neither?

 

Thanks for reading and I look forward to seeing other’s opinions on the subject.

 

Cheers!

IMHO, you've got the gist of the two down.  The issue here is that the line between themepark & sandbox isn't "defined", as it were.  That line is purely subjective without that definition.  That being said, the subjectivity of it boils down to nitpicking.  Some might argue that pre-NGE SWG was a hybrid between the two (there was a fair amount of developer content, even if a lot of it was broken).  I personally consider it a sandbox with themepark elements.

Games are usually comprimised of elements from both of these gametypes, but in my opinion its what they all add up to that determines what I call it.  For me, the first experiences in a game can be the most telling.

For instance, when I created my first character in SWG (and I remember my first log in VIVIDLY), I remember going through the character creation process and finally logging in after an hour (hey that first Wookie that I never played was my perfect vision of Wookieness).  I did the tutorial and then ran around Coronet for a few minutes getting the hang of the controls and UI, before I started to feel a little....lost.  So what did I do? 

/yell So what do I do now?

Someone patient and kind answered "Whatever you want!"

At the time I was thinking "Yeah, thanks dick!"  But s/he was absolutely right.  My character could indeed be any class, go anywhere, and with the emote system pretty much do anything (I used to pick pockets and dole out wet willies, give me a break I was younger then).

Compare that to some other first in-game experiences like WoW, STO, CoX, etc. and you start to see the difference.  Create character, log in, go to first mission contact, run missions and get handed to the next contact(s).  Rinse and repeat.  Mix in a little in-game lore to the formula, and you've got what usually end up as your themeparks.  What my character could be was predetermined (to a certain extent) at creation, and there was never any question of what I should be doing.  The game told me specifically, "Go here, kill this, take this there, etc."

This is hardly the entirety of what defines themeparks and sandboxes to me, but it is a large part.  Personally, I feel that the first hour of gameplay will tell a LOT about what the game experience will be like as a whole.

Games that start off holding your hand rarely lead to a place where it lets you go (I can't think of any examples other than EVE, but I am certainly not all-knowing).  They walk you through the game's content at predetermined levels, until you get to the end of said content.  At which point you're going to be doing mostly the same things repeatedly.  Games that just kinda dump you into the world to let you figure it out with other players just leave you swinging in the wind, for the mostpart.  They allow you to experience the game's content how you choose.  Sometimes that means stumbling into places you have no business being (in terms of character progression) and getting your face beaten in or shot off.  Sometimes it means a true feeling of reward as you explore. 

In my opinion, I would have a LOT more fun in themeparks if once the treadmill ends you end up in a sandbox, but thats just me.  There is certainly something to be said for the guided experience of the themepark.  Sandboxes are far from meritless as well, even if the learning curve is a LOT steeper.  The sandboxes could also learn a thing or two from EVE's beginning (at character creation).  You do get your hand held, if you so choose, to learn the basic mechanics of the game.  Then you're tossed like a guppy into chummed & shark infested waters.

While there is a whole hell of a lot that makes up the differences between the sandbox & themeparks (ie, crafting, economic mechanics, player housing, etc.), I decided to highlight that first hour or two of gameplay.  For me, that's what really determines what I FEEL like I am playing in.

Originally posted by inBOIL

Tits in real life = (LARP)

Tits in Sandbox = your avatar can touch them (RPG)

Tits in themepark = you avatar can only watch them (?)

Brilliant!  This is by far the most straightforward explaination I have ever heard. 

Permission to quote the %^&@ out of you? (credited of course)

Great responses, all.  Thank you!  More are always welcome, as I really am curious to see how the community feels on this topic.

This topic has come up many times before and the only thing that can be agreed upon is there is no single definition of what makes a game a sandbox that everyone agrees upon.

To me there is a set of features and design decisions built into a theme park style game that limit player choices and freedom and tend to lead them through the game from one progression point to the next.  Contrast that with a design that basically provides a set of tools to the players and leaves it up to them to determine what sort of "game" they're going to make of it.

With this in mind, generally most players agree that themepark style games usually have levels, classes, character progression via questing, gameplay that leads the player from one place to another, riding the rails as it were. Themeparks often tend to be generally simplified with short travel times, crafting when it exists is pretty easy and frequently plays a smaller role vs dropped gear.  Speaking of gear, it generally plays a much greater role in the gameplay and frequently is used as a measure of progression.

Contrast this with sandbox style play and you'll find skills which are advanced either through using them in game, or train up in real time (a la EVE), no classes to speak of, or at least its up to the player to chose what skills to train to define their own role within the game world.  They generally have deeper crafting, sometimes allowing a progression path such that a player can follow to progress their character w/o participating in other aspects of the game such as combat.

Problem is, these features aren't really mutually exclusive, games such as Fallen Earth are sort of sandboxy, but employ many mechanics such as levels, classes and quest driven progression.  Even EVE which is considered a sandbox, it is a much higher order of sandbox (based on how much content it has) when compareed to a lower order sandbox such as Xyson.

So perhaps the real definitive factor between the two styles has less to do about what sort of design features are incorporated but more along the lines of how much player freedom is there to choose their own path within the game world vs how much of it is scripted by the developers and leads the player through the game.

To me it breaks down to simply order vs chaos.

Order: Themeparks direct the player along a orderly predefined progression. These always have an 'endgame'. WoW is the most known themepark example. Players generally feel like they can't impact the world and are just visitors.

Chaos: Sandboxes leave it up to the player to decide on what to do and how. These never have an end game defined. It's more up to the player to determine their own end game. Second Life is the most broad sandbox. Players feel they can impact the world or atleast many people.

Now most MMOs tend to be a hybrid of both, but the popular ones tend to be mostly thempark. My theory on this is that the school system punishes free thinking, and exalts conformity. But that's a different topic.

Its not just one thing.

Fallen Earth would be a great example of that o so thin line.  It has elements of both but in reality is neither which may be its biggest flaw IMO anyways.

I would say that it's INSANELY easy for a themepark game to become a sandbox with the right kind of expansion content.

If you release enough content that does not raise the 'max tier'(levels, damage output, or whatever) the game will eventually become a sandbox.   Just because of the level of horizontal advancement there is and how much content the player can choose to go through at any one time.

Eventually the developers will add advanced crafting mechanics, eventually some form of non-combat advancement, eventually just about anything else.   IF they were not allowed to mindlessly advance the 'max tier' and make more of the same.

They are both nebulous terms.  Most games will have elements of both.

There is no line, at least in the sense of both being able to coexist in the same game (sandbox and themepark features).

Especially since there is no absolute sandbox or themepark, the first because we are ultimately bound by lines of code (you can't have absolute freedom within a game world like you can in real life) and the second because that would be reduced to a video.

At least that is my opinion.

There is not clear distinction between the two terms, however there is very clear distinction between what people usually (and incorrecly) mean by those terms.

Sandbox is malleable world where your actions have lasting effect on the world and ultimately on other players.

Theme park is static world where your every action will be reverted in short order and will not have any lasting effect (outside of your character).

Originally posted by Kyleran

This topic has come up many times before and the only thing that can be agreed upon is there is no single definition of what makes a game a sandbox that everyone agrees upon.

To me there is a set of features and design decisions built into a theme park style game that limit player choices and freedom and tend to lead them through the game from one progression point to the next.  Contrast that with a design that basically provides a set of tools to the players and leaves it up to them to determine what sort of "game" they're going to make of it.

With this in mind, generally most players agree that themepark style games usually have levels, classes, character progression via questing, gameplay that leads the player from one place to another, riding the rails as it were. Themeparks often tend to be generally simplified with short travel times, crafting when it exists is pretty easy and frequently plays a smaller role vs dropped gear.  Speaking of gear, it generally plays a much greater role in the gameplay and frequently is used as a measure of progression.

Contrast this with sandbox style play and you'll find skills which are advanced either through using them in game, or train up in real time (a la EVE), no classes to speak of, or at least its up to the player to chose what skills to train to define their own role within the game world.  They generally have deeper crafting, sometimes allowing a progression path such that a player can follow to progress their character w/o participating in other aspects of the game such as combat.

Problem is, these features aren't really mutually exclusive, games such as Fallen Earth are sort of sandboxy, but employ many mechanics such as levels, classes and quest driven progression.  Even EVE which is considered a sandbox, it is a much higher order of sandbox (based on how much content it has) when compareed to a lower order sandbox such as Xyson.

So perhaps the real definitive factor between the two styles has less to do about what sort of design features are incorporated but more along the lines of how much player freedom is there to choose their own path within the game world vs how much of it is scripted by the developers and leads the player through the game.

This pretty much sums things up.