Originally posted by asdar

The very definition of sandbox is a game that lets players build/do what they want.

I'd say most players want an unfair and dominant advantage over other players. You can't have that, the math doesn't work so they limit what you can do with the sand down to the level that it's not fun.

Just a simple example would be that I'd love to make quests. Think of a world where everyone that wanted to could form up their own quests. Sounds great, but what would happen is that players would immediately make quests for friends to do for in-game gold.

I like housing, let's let players build houses where they want. Players intentionally block doors to other players houses.

I like designs, and designing armor. Players start making x-rated designs and running around in game with them.

It's gotten so that you can't give the players sand or they'll ruin the very thing they want. You can't have a sandbox game when there's so many cats running around wanting to do their business in any sandbox that's available.

So I think there's no hope for a successful sandbox game.

 

Tell that to Notch

Originally posted by asdar

Just a simple example would be that I'd love to make quests. Think of a world where everyone that wanted to could form up their own quests. Sounds great, but what would happen is that players would immediately make quests for friends to do for in-game gold.

 

I think this is very doable. You would have to offer some of your own money and or items as a quest reward. Say you need x amount of a certain item as a crafter. You go to a quest giver in the area set up the quest and then PvE players can run them for the reward/xp and you get your mats.Essentially you would be creating the kill x rats type of quest but at least it would have a real purpose.

Indie sandbox developers should think more about "what they can do without" rather than "what more can they do". Feature lists I've seen are usually unfocused and have too many features (many of them non-critical and many of them "half-arsed"). That would be a good first step toward better indie sandbox MMOs, I think.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 
"There's not even a toolkit for MMORPG. " - Lizardbones
 
There's actually LOTS of them. Here's a few:
2D - http://www.genesis2d.net  http://www.explore-rpg.com
3D - http://realmcrafter.com
I'm not even remotely suggesting that you could build WOW, EVE, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc out of any of these, but they exist and, in most cases, are very affordable.
 
"The available tools have nothing to do with the commercial success of theme park games." - Lizardbones
 
Very true. The choice of game that one designs with any of the engines or toolkits is entirely up to them.
 
 

---

Well, I should definitely have qualified my statement a little further. The statement I was responding to was, "There are so many Theme Park MMORPG because of the ready availability of Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits". None of the theme park games recently released use a toolkit unless the developer made the toolkit themselves (like Cryptic has done). They may have used a game engine, but they did not use an MMORPG Toolkit, much less a Theme Park MMORPG Toolkit.

 

U have no logical point to stand on.

Because none of the recently released MMO are what He's talking about. The run-of-the-mill MMO's, are the ones you see advertized all over this website. Rusty Hearts,  Dragon Nest, Fieststa Online, etc. 

The point is, they are ALL zoned  games.

Lizard.. 

You simply are unable to connect that Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters),   ...are just zones & instances.

Thus, the Developers are religated to pushing "Public Quests/Rift" in your face, to hide & bemuse people. To get them to strategically move throughout their world, as the developers want you to.

IE: Moving to one area ride, to the next.. but with just a slightly different theme, aka themepark. Thus, the only way to play their game. Hiding the fact, that just behind that house and over that rockpile is that Hermit cave thats a 20 minute run from there, etc. (ie shallow gameplay, not real, not immersive)

So themeparks, instantly create non-sensicle content, that doesn't add to the game.  Trying their best to hide the fact that just 200 feet away.. you cannot actually go behind that house. It is essentially the end of the game.

Sandboxes are Open World designs. They are completely and fundmentally different & you havn't a clue of what you are talking about. You do not even hint at, or pertain to include knowledge in any of your posts.

Other than a few MAJOR titles, predominantly most MMOs released each month ARE from "Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits ".

BUT.. it is only because the HARDWARE to run these "Themepark/Zone-based"  MMo's..  can cost as little as $85k  -vs-  millions.

Hance, very little upstart cost verse knowing you will need $Millions for a server farm for an open world design MMO like ArcheAge, etc.

You argument is moot

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 
"There's not even a toolkit for MMORPG. " - Lizardbones
 
There's actually LOTS of them. Here's a few:
2D - http://www.genesis2d.net  http://www.explore-rpg.com
3D - http://realmcrafter.com
I'm not even remotely suggesting that you could build WOW, EVE, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc out of any of these, but they exist and, in most cases, are very affordable.
 
"The available tools have nothing to do with the commercial success of theme park games." - Lizardbones
 
Very true. The choice of game that one designs with any of the engines or toolkits is entirely up to them.
 
 

---

Well, I should definitely have qualified my statement a little further. The statement I was responding to was, "There are so many Theme Park MMORPG because of the ready availability of Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits". None of the theme park games recently released use a toolkit unless the developer made the toolkit themselves (like Cryptic has done). They may have used a game engine, but they did not use an MMORPG Toolkit, much less a Theme Park MMORPG Toolkit.

 

 

U have no logical point to stand on.

 

Because none of the recently released MMO are what He's talking about. The run-of-the-mill MMO's, are the ones you see advertized all over this website. Rusty Hearts,  Dragon Nest, Fieststa Online, etc. 

The point is, they are ALL zoned  games.

 

 

 

Lizard.. 

You simply are unable to connect that Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances. Thus, they are religated to Dev's using Public Quests/Rift to bemuse people to get them to strategically move over the their world, as the developers want you to.

Because it is the only way to play the game, otherwise their server structure and actual game world.. would be too small to play in.

So themeparks, instantly create non-sensicle content, that doesn't add to the game.  Trying their best to hide the fact that just 200 feet away.. you cannot actually go behind that house. It is essentially the end of the game.

 

Sandboxes are Open World designs. They are completely and fundmentally different & you havn't a clue of what you are talking about. You do not even hint at, or pertain to include knowledge in any of your posts.

Other than a few MAJOR titles, predominantly most MMOs released each month ARE from "Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits ".

BUT.. it is only because the HARDWARE to run these "Themepark/Zone-based"  MMo's..  can cost as little as $85k  -vs-  millions.

Hance, very little upstart cost verse knowing you will need $Millions for a server farm for an open world design MMO like ArcheAge, etc.

 

You argument is moot

 

 

 

 

 

Zones and instances have nothing to do with themepark or sandbox.  You can have full player driven content, economy, skills... with zones as well as open-world.

Ryzom is zoned.  Istaria is open world.  Both are considered sandbox (although I have my own opinion of Ryzom).  And the cost is virtually shared between them as well.  WoW ~50 million, SWTOR, 75+ million, Darkfall 10 million, Istaria 10 Million, Eve less than 10 million.

There really is no difference in costs between themepark and sandbox.  The costs are all derived by the content they choose to put in (both can have a little or a lot) and the number of devs/man hours of devs they have creating it.

Venge

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 
"There's not even a toolkit for MMORPG. " - Lizardbones
 
There's actually LOTS of them. Here's a few:
2D - http://www.genesis2d.net  http://www.explore-rpg.com
3D - http://realmcrafter.com
I'm not even remotely suggesting that you could build WOW, EVE, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc out of any of these, but they exist and, in most cases, are very affordable.
 
"The available tools have nothing to do with the commercial success of theme park games." - Lizardbones
 
Very true. The choice of game that one designs with any of the engines or toolkits is entirely up to them.
 
 

---

Well, I should definitely have qualified my statement a little further. The statement I was responding to was, "There are so many Theme Park MMORPG because of the ready availability of Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits". None of the theme park games recently released use a toolkit unless the developer made the toolkit themselves (like Cryptic has done). They may have used a game engine, but they did not use an MMORPG Toolkit, much less a Theme Park MMORPG Toolkit.

 

 

U have no logical point to stand on.

 

Because none of the recently released MMO are what He's talking about. The run-of-the-mill MMO's, are the ones you see advertized all over this website. Rusty Hearts,  Dragon Nest, Fieststa Online, etc. 

The point is, they are ALL zoned  games.

 

 

 

Lizard.. 

You simply are unable to connect that Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances. Thus, they are religated to Dev's using Public Quests/Rift to bemuse people to get them to strategically move over the their world, as the developers want you to.

Because it is the only way to play the game, otherwise their server structure and actual game world.. would be too small to play in.

So themeparks, instantly create non-sensicle content, that doesn't add to the game.  Trying their best to hide the fact that just 200 feet away.. you cannot actually go behind that house. It is essentially the end of the game.

 

Sandboxes are Open World designs. They are completely and fundmentally different & you havn't a clue of what you are talking about. You do not even hint at, or pertain to include knowledge in any of your posts.

Other than a few MAJOR titles, predominantly most MMOs released each month ARE from "Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits ".

BUT.. it is only because the HARDWARE to run these "Themepark/Zone-based"  MMo's..  can cost as little as $85k  -vs-  millions.

Hance, very little upstart cost verse knowing you will need $Millions for a server farm for an open world design MMO like ArcheAge, etc.

 

You argument is moot

 

 

 

 

 

Zones and instances have nothing to do with themepark or sandbox.  You can have full player driven content, economy, skills... with zones as well as open-world.

Ryzom is zoned.  Istaria is open world.  Both are considered sandbox (although I have my own opinion of Ryzom).  And the cost is virtually shared between them as well.  WoW ~50 million, SWTOR, 75+ million, Darkfall 10 million, Istaria 10 Million, Eve less than 10 million.

There really is no difference in costs between themepark and sandbox.  The costs are all derived by the content they choose to put in (both can have a little or a lot) and the number of devs/man hours of devs they have creating it.

Venge

You are utterly wrong.

They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you.

Secondly, Ryzom server structure is old, insignificant to my remarks. But even so,, look at EQ2, vs DAOC & WoW. All zoned games.. all presented differently to the end-user.

DAOC had seamless zones & most of WoW's were seamless. EQ2 strait up had loading screens (thnx Smedly).

So..  in your own ignorance you cannot compartmentalize what a Zone wall is? ...means?

It means^ the developer had to "cheese" the game. (due to the limitation in hardware) 

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 
"There's not even a toolkit for MMORPG. " - Lizardbones
 
There's actually LOTS of them. Here's a few:
2D - http://www.genesis2d.net  http://www.explore-rpg.com
3D - http://realmcrafter.com
I'm not even remotely suggesting that you could build WOW, EVE, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc out of any of these, but they exist and, in most cases, are very affordable.
 
"The available tools have nothing to do with the commercial success of theme park games." - Lizardbones
 
Very true. The choice of game that one designs with any of the engines or toolkits is entirely up to them.
 
 

---

Well, I should definitely have qualified my statement a little further. The statement I was responding to was, "There are so many Theme Park MMORPG because of the ready availability of Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits". None of the theme park games recently released use a toolkit unless the developer made the toolkit themselves (like Cryptic has done). They may have used a game engine, but they did not use an MMORPG Toolkit, much less a Theme Park MMORPG Toolkit.

 

 

U have no logical point to stand on.

 

Because none of the recently released MMO are what He's talking about. The run-of-the-mill MMO's, are the ones you see advertized all over this website. Rusty Hearts,  Dragon Nest, Fieststa Online, etc. 

The point is, they are ALL zoned  games.

 

 

 

Lizard.. 

You simply are unable to connect that Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances. Thus, they are religated to Dev's using Public Quests/Rift to bemuse people to get them to strategically move over the their world, as the developers want you to.

Because it is the only way to play the game, otherwise their server structure and actual game world.. would be too small to play in.

So themeparks, instantly create non-sensicle content, that doesn't add to the game.  Trying their best to hide the fact that just 200 feet away.. you cannot actually go behind that house. It is essentially the end of the game.

 

Sandboxes are Open World designs. They are completely and fundmentally different & you havn't a clue of what you are talking about. You do not even hint at, or pertain to include knowledge in any of your posts.

Other than a few MAJOR titles, predominantly most MMOs released each month ARE from "Theme Park MMORPG Toolkits ".

BUT.. it is only because the HARDWARE to run these "Themepark/Zone-based"  MMo's..  can cost as little as $85k  -vs-  millions.

Hance, very little upstart cost verse knowing you will need $Millions for a server farm for an open world design MMO like ArcheAge, etc.

 

You argument is moot

 

 

 

 

 

Zones and instances have nothing to do with themepark or sandbox.  You can have full player driven content, economy, skills... with zones as well as open-world.

Ryzom is zoned.  Istaria is open world.  Both are considered sandbox (although I have my own opinion of Ryzom).  And the cost is virtually shared between them as well.  WoW ~50 million, SWTOR, 75+ million, Darkfall 10 million, Istaria 10 Million, Eve less than 10 million.

There really is no difference in costs between themepark and sandbox.  The costs are all derived by the content they choose to put in (both can have a little or a lot) and the number of devs/man hours of devs they have creating it.

Venge

 

You are utterly wrong.

They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you.

 

 

If your assumption was correct then it would be impossible to make a sandbox with zones or a themepark without zones, or a cheap/expensive sandbox, or cheap/expensive themepark.  However there are games like that, therefore you are wrong.

All I need to do to disprove your theory isfind one game.  Done. Ryzom, a zoned sandbox.

Venge

read above

Originally posted by Talint

Hello MMORPG Community,

 

So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game.  I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers.  Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides)  And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this.  Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas.  Take Skyrim for example.  The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level.  You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something.  If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same.  Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.

 

Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.

 

Talint

Money.

Originally posted by Phelcher

read above

I did.  You stated, "Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances"  and, "Sandboxes are Open World designs." and this is because, "They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you."

If that were completely true it would be impossible to create a Sandbox game with zones.  However since there are sandbox games with zones your theory must be false.

Now you can stated that it may be harder but you can't state that a sandbox or themepark is what they are because of zones.  That has been proven false.

Venge 

edit - and Vanguard is an example of the other.  A themepark game with an open world.

I think it's primarily about money. Most game developers are in it for money, and themepark games typically have much easier learning curves and a "hand holding" feel that attracts a very large amount of players and play types.

Of course there are companies that are breaking the mold, such as Aventurine with Darkfall, but most publishers and developers are in it for the money.

It's a shame really, because there are a lot of us old-school gamers like myself that are looking for a good sandbox MMO but no one has really made one yet (with the exception of EVE if you like that style). I still have faith that Aventurine's Darkfall 2.0 will deliver what so many of us crave, but only time will tell.

The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.

Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.

In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.

Originally posted by Vryheid

The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.

Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.

In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.

Skyrim is what you make of it. it can be a themepark or it can be a sandbox..the beauty of the elder scrolls games is that the choice is yours. I definitely wouldn't describe it as an outright themepark.

Originally posted by Vryheid

The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.

Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.

In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.

I wouldn't describe sandbox as a quintessential themepark, but not completely a sandbox.  The ability to go where I want, create the character I want are definatly sandboxish features.  And the ability to impact the world is definately sandbox and here is where it's iffy.  I can't create my own building or become a yarl, but I can become a thane, and I do own property.  So I would say more of a hybrid. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Vryheid

The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.

Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.

In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.

I wouldn't describe sandbox as a quintessential themepark, but not completely a sandbox.  The ability to go where I want, create the character I want are definatly sandboxish features.  And the ability to impact the world is definately sandbox and here is where it's iffy.  I can't create my own building or become a yarl, but I can become a thane, and I do own property.  So I would say more of a hybrid. 

I can accept Skyrim as being close to a hybrid. All it needs is the ability to build and it would cross the line to sandbox.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Phelcher

read above

I did.  You stated, "Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances"  and, "Sandboxes are Open World designs." and this is because, "They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you."

 

If that were completely true it would be impossible to create a Sandbox game with zones.  However since there are sandbox games with zones your theory must be false.

Now you can stated that it may be harder but you can't state that a sandbox or themepark is what they are because of zones.  That has been proven false.

Venge 

edit - and Vanguard is an example of the other.  A themepark game with an open world.

You keep reference your quote, NOT THE ACTUAL POST>  which has & was edited before you even made your original post..! 

Then, u ignorantly keep trying to argue a moot point. Ovr.. & ovr.

Secondly, what is your point? I've already said "almost always".. nothing I've said is difinitive.

So honestly.. grow up a tad. There are many people here who take the time to impart knowledge on situation that seem "off track" in terminology & function. Given 2012 being around the corner, and 128 core blade servers are getting cheaper.. you'll see every Major titale go back to open world designs.

Everquest Next (ie: EQ3) will feature an open world, as does PlanetSide2. ArcheAge (again) is another.

Lastly, if you believe that Vanguard was "themepark" then, I know for certain that you're pure derp!

Originally posted by Wharg0ul

No one dedicates a serious budget to their development.

And for some reason people seem to think that a Sandbox games just HAS to have FFA full loot PVP.

I refuse to play any game with FFA PVP.  And I certainly wouldn't play one that causes me to lose gear if I die.

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Phelcher

read above

I did.  You stated, "Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances"  and, "Sandboxes are Open World designs." and this is because, "They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you."

 

If that were completely true it would be impossible to create a Sandbox game with zones.  However since there are sandbox games with zones your theory must be false.

Now you can stated that it may be harder but you can't state that a sandbox or themepark is what they are because of zones.  That has been proven false.

Venge 

edit - and Vanguard is an example of the other.  A themepark game with an open world.

 

You keep reference your quote, NOT THE ACTUAL POST>  which has & was edited before you even made your original post..! 

Then, u ignorantly keep trying to argue a moot point. Ovr.. & ovr.

 

 

Secondly, what is your point? I've already said "almost always".. nothing I've said is difinitive.

So honestly.. grow up a tad. There are many people here who take the time to impart knowledge on situation that seem "off track" in terminology & function. Given 2012 being around the corner, and 128 core blade servers are getting cheaper.. you'll see every Major titale go back to open world designs.

Everquest Next (ie: EQ3) will feature an open world, as does PlanetSide2. ArcheAge (again) is another.

 

Lastly, if you believe that Vanguard was "themepark" then, I know for certain that you're pure derp!

The point is zones have nothing to do with sandbox or themepark, never have, never will and trying to say that zones make a game one or the other is complete garbage.

The rest of your post about toolkits I don't really care about, nor do I have anything to say about that.

And Vangaurd is a quest hub, linear driven themepark through and though.  No doubt about that.

Venge

and lastly your telling me to grow up, then using "derp' references is more than a little uncalled for and entirely hypocritial.  Pot meet kettle.

Originally posted by Vryheid

The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.

Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.

In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.

Nah, Skryim IS a sandbox.

I think you are trying to assert that because one can't do anything and everything they come with then it's not a sandbox.

With that reasoning, a sandbox isn't a sandbox. There's only so much one can do with a sandbox and its tradtional tools. I suppose you can make the argument that one can add those in. so one couldn't make an oil painting in a sandbox but then one could include those tools and have at it. By that reasoning, with the toolset, one can do the same in an elderscrolls game.

Sims is a sandbox but I can't do anything and everything I want in a SIMS game. i can only follow the tools and parameters that the designers have included.  If  I remember correctly, I can't take over "SIMS" world and install my own dictatorship and send them to work in my sugar mines.

The whole sandbox vs themepark game play argument stems from whether or not a game allows one the freedom to explore his/her ideas within the set parameters of a game.

So, I just installed "Hunted: The Demon's forge" and it's a linear game. I knew this, and it's not a prerequisite for a game to be a "sandbox" for me to enjoy it" but the game goes in a linear fashion from one set piece to another. Whereas in an elderscrolls game or similar game I can pretty much do what I want within the context of the game world.. Oh, I can't build things but that's not really within the scope fo the game. Just like me setting up a military dictatorship in the sims isn't within the scope of that game.

In "The Hunted" if I dont' want to go forward and experience each set piece then there's little else for me to do other than to watch the screen. In an Elderscrolls (or similiar) game one can follow any number of ideas that may close off content to you but you can let your imagination run wild and use the included "bits" to make your own good time. So in "The Hunted" I can't make my own creepy serial killer house but of course someone actually did this in Skyrim.

There are always going to be rules and parameters for a sandbox. A sandbox is about your box of sand, some toys and then let your imagination run amok. But it still doesn't allow you to do anything and everything you want. It's only a box of sand. And maybe some of those platic starfish things...

i can put  pot on an old womans head, that makes skyrim a sandbox :)