Originally posted by Skooma2

A point I like to point out in the themepark/sandbox discussions is, the game is only a sandbox for those who are in the game at the beginning.  If you come into the game much later, it is no longer a sandbox.  It is a themepark created by those who came before you.

Originally posted by Ecoces

Originally posted by phantomghost

Originally posted by Ecoces

well if you played EQ1 and loved that game don't lump yourself in as a sandbox player. EQ1 was a themepark i don't know why people say its a sandbox.

It was more of a sandbox.

No it wasn't it was a pure themepark game. take the rose colored glasses off.

 

You had to obtain gear, spells, and skills to play your role.  You had to learn your role which was defined by the class you chose to play.  Each role could have minor changes.  Maybe you would focus your war as a tank maybe as a dps... depended on what was needed.

you do that in WoW.

 

You had consequences.  You could attack (on purpose or by accident) a friendly npc.  If you died you loss xp, you had to go on a corpse run.

that doesn't make it a sandbox at all.

 

You never had a direct path to follow.  You had variety of things to do.  If you did not want all of your spells you would not go farm for them.  It was not just a simple, go to a trainer and he teaches you everything, the only option for you is, do I buy it or not.

The game was not laid out so that you could run from a low level zone and never have to cross through a high level zone to get to another low level zone.  If I wanted to level somewhere at level 25, I may have needed to run through a level 50 zone to get there.

more rose colored glasses the zones were laid out, sure there were more branches but you still had to follow a specific path of zones in order to level.

You did not follow  quests that lead you from one zone to another.

 

If you believe EQ is a themepark MMO, you do not know anything.

EQ has everything WoW has except WOW took out the tedium that EQ1 had. rigid classes, can't impact that world, no player housing, nothing to do at the endgame but farm gear. no real player choice. sure maybe it didn't hold your hand as much as say WoW but that doesn't make it any less of a themepark.

pure themepark

 

I am not saying it was a pure sandbox mmo, but it certainly was not a themepark mmo.

 

it was the first themepark MMO. compare EQ1 to games like UO, EVE and even darkfall then compare it to say WoW and Rift and you will find EQ1 is more similar to WoW and Rift than EVE, UO and Darkfall.

that should tell you its a Themepark

 

 

Originally posted by ChuvarHrama

These hipster gamer threads are boring... 

Go back to ur oldschool games and stop whining.

I disagree with the "us" vs "them" mentality in agism.

I was a child of the 80s and my friend owned an Atari and my dad had an IBM.

Playing for me even imaginary playing was structured.  It had rules and it had a path to follow.  You can't play Ninja Turtles or He-Mann at the same time.  It just doesn't make sense and ruins the fantasy.  It was very linear as you were always going after the "bad guy" of the time.

When you play tag it has rules.  You can't just run anywhere at all or else your parents will get worried and get angry at you.

Games of the 80s were all linear.  All of those flight simulators, Pacman, and text investigation puzzles.  All of them were designed to be played the exact same way every single time to assure success.  You couldn't just leave the map of Pacman... you'd just re-appear from another corner... like a constant Portal.

Packaging games in a linear manner is not something generational having to do with the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s.  Everyone has this glorified view of "when I was a kid."  I'm sure we've all heard these stories of our parents walking up hill both ways.  Same shit here.

The reason why games are being made theme park is simply because the big gaming market right now is 21-35 and these are people who grew up with linear theme-park games.  The 10-21 crowd who you have deemed as the people purchasing theme parks and hating sandboxes are the second highest buying audience.

I saw a similar argument made about RTS games and RPGs whereas dumb people play RPGs and smart people play RTS'.

I mean you want that to be true if you play an RTS but there is no data to support that supposition.  All it is, is a grandios claim that makes you feel better about yourself.

EDIT: Also the NES came out in 85 so I'm not entirely sure what console-less computer-less 80s you were living in.

Originally posted by Ecoces

Originally posted by phantomghost

Originally posted by Ecoces

well if you played EQ1 and loved that game don't lump yourself in as a sandbox player. EQ1 was a themepark i don't know why people say its a sandbox.

It was more of a sandbox.

No it wasn't it was a pure themepark game. take the rose colored glasses off.

 

You had to obtain gear, spells, and skills to play your role.  You had to learn your role which was defined by the class you chose to play.  Each role could have minor changes.  Maybe you would focus your war as a tank maybe as a dps... depended on what was needed.

you do that in WoW.

 

You had consequences.  You could attack (on purpose or by accident) a friendly npc.  If you died you loss xp, you had to go on a corpse run.

that doesn't make it a sandbox at all.

 

You never had a direct path to follow.  You had variety of things to do.  If you did not want all of your spells you would not go farm for them.  It was not just a simple, go to a trainer and he teaches you everything, the only option for you is, do I buy it or not.

The game was not laid out so that you could run from a low level zone and never have to cross through a high level zone to get to another low level zone.  If I wanted to level somewhere at level 25, I may have needed to run through a level 50 zone to get there.

more rose colored glasses the zones were laid out, sure there were more branches but you still had to follow a specific path of zones in order to level.

You did not follow  quests that lead you from one zone to another.

 

If you believe EQ is a themepark MMO, you do not know anything.

EQ has everything WoW has except WOW took out the tedium that EQ1 had. rigid classes, can't impact that world, no player housing, nothing to do at the endgame but farm gear. no real player choice. sure maybe it didn't hold your hand as much as say WoW but that doesn't make it any less of a themepark.

pure themepark

 

I am not saying it was a pure sandbox mmo, but it certainly was not a themepark mmo.

 

it was the first themepark MMO. compare EQ1 to games like UO, EVE and even darkfall then compare it to say WoW and Rift and you will find EQ1 is more similar to WoW and Rift than EVE, UO and Darkfall.

that should tell you its a Themepark

 

 

I disagree as WoW itself started out less of a themepark than it has become today. 

And I agree it has elements of both, so I was wrong to say it was not a themepark, but in reality I was going for it was not strictly a themepark mmo, but it did come across differently.  Which imo is why it was and still is the greatest MMO to ever come out because it offered both genres.

But to say it is not sandbox is wrong, to say it is themepark is wrong.   Not commenting on all your statements because it will take too long.  But where you said you do that in WoW, you do... but I do not consider running to a trainer in a safe zone to get abilities nearly the same thing as having to farm mobs to drop something that you turn in for the possibility of receiving a spell you want.

In EQ you had skills, that could impact your role slightly.  You had specializations.  Dfferent weapon types.  It was not simply you can or cannot use this.  If you could use it you still needed to train in it.

You were not limited.  I could role an iksar and be liked by only iksars.  But if I chose.  I could increase my reputation with other races by killing their enemies.  Consequently, this may have a negative impact on my other factions.  This could change zones I level in by making it easier or more difficult (travel, mobs to kill, having guards to run to etc).

My first mmo was the themepark Meridian 59 in 1996. Your impact on the world there was about the same as in wow.

You make it sound like all the old MMOs were sandboxes but that is very far from the truth.

I think most people just want a good fun game. I don't care if it is a themepark or a sandbox and I have a feeling the majority of the MMO players, new or old feels the same.

Sandboxes seems to have become a religion.

You know what? Even the Wow generation play single player sandboxes like Skyrim and enjoy it.

The reason so few people play sandbox games right now is not because they love themeparks but because most modern sandboxes sucks big time. Right now only Eve have some quality and it is from 2003, that is ancient.

Preach to the devs and the publishers so they make a good sandbox instead.

I agree with the poster above.   WoW was much less of a themepark at least in the linear sense that it is today.

old WoW, or "vanilla" wow pretty much isn't what's usually being discussed when people mention WoW in comparison to other games.    Although, most WoW players today weren't even wow players back when it was vanilla, it still seems that if vanilla wow is the topic at hand, "old" or "Vanilla" is always included as to express the blatent differences between what it is now and what it used to be.

Originally posted by troublmaker

I disagree with the "us" vs "them" mentality in agism.

I was a child of the 80s and my friend owned an Atari and my dad had an IBM.

Playing for me even imaginary playing was structured.  It had rules and it had a path to follow.  You can't play Ninja Turtles or He-Mann at the same time.  It just doesn't make sense and ruins the fantasy.  It was very linear as you were always going after the "bad guy" of the time.

When you play tag it has rules.  You can't just run anywhere at all or else your parents will get worried and get angry at you.

Games of the 80s were all linear.  All of those flight simulators, Pacman, and text investigation puzzles.  All of them were designed to be played the exact same way every single time to assure success.  You couldn't just leave the map of Pacman... you'd just re-appear from another corner... like a constant Portal.

Packaging games in a linear manner is not something generational having to do with the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s.  Everyone has this glorified view of "when I was a kid."  I'm sure we've all heard these stories of our parents walking up hill both ways.  Same shit here.

The reason why games are being made theme park is simply because the big gaming market right now is 21-35 and these are people who grew up with linear theme-park games.  The 10-21 crowd who you have deemed as the people purchasing theme parks and hating sandboxes are the second highest buying audience.

I saw a similar argument made about RTS games and RPGs whereas dumb people play RPGs and smart people play RTS'.

I mean you want that to be true if you play an RTS but there is no data to support that supposition.  All it is, is a grandios claim that makes you feel better about yourself.

Originally posted by Loke666

My first mmo was the themepark Meridian 59 in 1996. Your impact on the world there was about the same as in wow.

You make it sound like all the old MMOs were sandboxes but that is very far from the truth.

I think most people just want a good fun game. I don't care if it is a themepark or a sandbox and I have a feeling the majority of the MMO players, new or old feels the same.

Sandboxes seems to have become a religion.

You know what? Even the Wow generation play single player sandboxes like Skyrim and enjoy it.

The reason so few people play sandbox games right now is not because they love themeparks but because most modern sandboxes sucks big time. Right now only Eve have some quality and it is from 2003, that is ancient.

Preach to the devs and the publishers so they make a good sandbox instead.

Skyrim is not a sandbox. You cannot change the world aside from killing mobs and only maybe dragon kills are persistent.

Skyrim is a semi non linear themepark.

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by troublmaker

I disagree with the "us" vs "them" mentality in agism.

I was a child of the 80s and my friend owned an Atari and my dad had an IBM.

Playing for me even imaginary playing was structured.  It had rules and it had a path to follow.  You can't play Ninja Turtles or He-Mann at the same time.  It just doesn't make sense and ruins the fantasy.  It was very linear as you were always going after the "bad guy" of the time.

When you play tag it has rules.  You can't just run anywhere at all or else your parents will get worried and get angry at you.

Games of the 80s were all linear.  All of those flight simulators, Pacman, and text investigation puzzles.  All of them were designed to be played the exact same way every single time to assure success.  You couldn't just leave the map of Pacman... you'd just re-appear from another corner... like a constant Portal.

Packaging games in a linear manner is not something generational having to do with the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s.  Everyone has this glorified view of "when I was a kid."  I'm sure we've all heard these stories of our parents walking up hill both ways.  Same shit here.

The reason why games are being made theme park is simply because the big gaming market right now is 21-35 and these are people who grew up with linear theme-park games.  The 10-21 crowd who you have deemed as the people purchasing theme parks and hating sandboxes are the second highest buying audience.

I saw a similar argument made about RTS games and RPGs whereas dumb people play RPGs and smart people play RTS'.

I mean you want that to be true if you play an RTS but there is no data to support that supposition.  All it is, is a grandios claim that makes you feel better about yourself.

 

I do not mean to troll you or be insulting but I think if your imaginary play was structured, that shows somewhat OCD or autistic tendencies rather than anything to do with the computer games market.

 

I was born in 1971 and had a console/computer since 79, yes many games were linear back then but there were sandboxes even back then, Elite from 83 or 84 or Lotus Esprit (GTA made in 1986) were pure unstructured sandboxes, you were dumped in a world and you went and had fun, the game didn't tell you what you should be doing.

Please refrain from being ableist. Lack of imagination or preference for structure is not an OCD trait. You can have those traits without OCD or Autism.

Originally posted by Loke666

My first mmo was the themepark Meridian 59 in 1996. Your impact on the world there was about the same as in wow.

You make it sound like all the old MMOs were sandboxes but that is very far from the truth.

I think most people just want a good fun game. I don't care if it is a themepark or a sandbox and I have a feeling the majority of the MMO players, new or old feels the same.

Sandboxes seems to have become a religion.

You know what? Even the Wow generation play single player sandboxes like Skyrim and enjoy it.

The reason so few people play sandbox games right now is not because they love themeparks but because most modern sandboxes sucks big time. Right now only Eve have some quality and it is from 2003, that is ancient.

Preach to the devs and the publishers so they make a good sandbox instead.

Yes, I break it down into 2:

1. FUN gameplay  eg I'm anticipating GW2 the combat skills should be fun in pve & pvp for even if the experience feels a bit linear or static world.
2. World with CONSEQUENCES: eg any of: Political factions that break apart, permadeath, a city annexed or a stronghold built and an economy between nations growing etc

So Fun gameplay can be the core mechanic in a game and that's good enough. But I'd like to see mmorpgs with consequences, which even if the core gameplay is a bit ponderous, the long-term pay-off is worth it.

TBH, I think most people would like one or the other as well and ideally both, but seems 2) is more tricky to develop and maybe a naturally smaller market (less gamers who enjoy delayed gratification, afterall gaming is often about instant gratification, isn't it?).

Verdict: I don't think there's a great divide, but a bigger market is satisfied by eg themepark with strong core mechanic + presentation vs a smaller market with more complexity to produce a mmorpg with consequences. : )

I think an important aspect of this conversation and many other threads I've read/posted in is being ignored by too many people and causing a rather undeserved stigma onto us "sandboxers"  

That aspect is that somehow sandboxers think all videogames shouldn't have a 'point' in playing them, and should all be empty deserts where people are expected to design, create, build, code, and structure all the content and rules themselves.

This is so untrue.    I dare say I don't speak for myself, but, sandboxers don't only want sandbox videogames.   Everyone knows Super mario bros, sonic the hedgehog, megaman, contra, castlevania were great games.  legendary.  as well as super linear and themepark-esque (if you have to put one of those labels on them)    -- Sandboxers don't have a problem with that.  

We have a problem with a genre [mmorpg] that flourished BECAUSE of the fact that it offered sandboxy experiences, outside of the norm of linear videogames, is now changing into a genre that has nothing really special about it compared to console titles.   

We sandboxers instead want the atmosphere to be a little bit more resemblant to how it used to be when MMORPGs were the videogame haven for the creative, imaginitive, social, and critical/analytical thinking gamers to spend their time.  Time to build a community, make friends, adventure/explore the unknown, develop their character and watch them grow and improve, while leaving the rest of the ENTIRE GAMING INDUSTRY to remain linear and themeparkish as always.

Instead of saying to sandboxers "why don't you shut up and go play your sandboxes then?"   We should say to everyone else:  "Why do you have to leave your themepark just to come ruin our sandbox and turn it into another themepark???"

You don't see 'purist sandboxers' in the communities of games like Halo or Marvel vs Capcom or Gears of War, voicing how much the games suck because they need more sandbox elements.     

I wish one day, all console game devs decide to do what MMO devs did in reverse.  I want to see the console community's heads spin in rage as their favorite games are CHANGED and DISREGARDED by the devs and replaced by over-the-top social networking portals.   Gears of War-book.  Add as friend?    -- "Hey what happened to my awesome pew pew game? what is this social media crap?" ->  'Sorry, pal... it makes more money.  Justified, right?"

It's not a themepark vs. sandbox issue in my eyes, more like bad games vs. good games. Most of mmorpgs across the board are rubbish imo, but there are a few that are entertaining to me, none of them are sandbox games but I often wish they had more sandboxy features. I'd propably play a sandbox game rather than a themepark but the problem is there's nothing worth playing, and if the game is otherwise good then it's butchered with some stupid mechanics that for some reason are forced on you in about every sandbox game.

Originally posted by gimmesome

I think an important aspect of this conversation and many other threads I've read/posted in is being ignored by too many people and causing a rather undeserved stigma onto us "sandboxers"  

That aspect is that somehow sandboxers think all videogames shouldn't have a 'point' in playing them, and should all be empty deserts where people are expected to design, create, build, code, and structure all the content and rules themselves.

 

This is so untrue.    I dare say I don't speak for myself, but, sandboxers don't only want sandbox videogames.   Everyone knows Super mario bros, sonic the hedgehog, megaman, contra, castlevania were great games.  legendary.  as well as super linear and themepark-esque (if you have to put one of those labels on them)    -- Sandboxers don't have a problem with that.  

 

We have a problem with a genre [mmorpg] that flourished BECAUSE of the fact that it offered sandboxy experiences, outside of the norm of linear videogames, is now changing into a genre that has nothing really special about it compared to console titles.   

We sandboxers instead want the atmosphere to be a little bit more resemblant to how it used to be when MMORPGs were the videogame haven for the creative, imaginitive, social, and critical/analytical thinking gamers to spend their time.  Time to build a community, make friends, adventure/explore the unknown, develop their character and watch them grow and improve, while leaving the rest of the ENTIRE GAMING INDUSTRY to remain linear and themeparkish as always.

Instead of saying to sandboxers "why don't you shut up and go play your sandboxes then?"   We should say to everyone else:  "Why do you have to leave your themepark just to come ruin our sandbox and turn it into another themepark???"

You don't see 'purist sandboxers' in the communities of games like Halo or Marvel vs Capcom or Gears of War, voicing how much the games suck because they need more sandbox elements.     

I wish one day, all console game devs decide to do what MMO devs did in reverse.  I want to see the console community's heads spin in rage as their favorite games are CHANGED and DISREGARDED by the devs and replaced by over-the-top social networking portals.   Gears of War-book.  Add as friend?    -- "Hey what happened to my awesome pew pew game? what is this social media crap?" ->  'Sorry, pal... it makes more money.  Justified, right?"

 

 

This.

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

Skyrim is not a sandbox. You cannot change the world aside from killing mobs and only maybe dragon kills are persistent.

Skyrim is a semi non linear themepark.

umm excuse me?

I really don't mean so sound rude, or pick fights, because I get annoyed with needless bickering, but really?  How is Skyrim not a sandbox?  Because there's a story you can choose to follow?   Because you can't drive a DeLorean through a castle?

You can play Skyrim how you see fit.  That alone puts it in Sandbox status.      

You can follow a story and do the quests they give you... or you can just kill everyone, including the NPCs giving quests...  you can take over towns.  You can have housing, and decorate the houses as you see fit.   You can progress your character and tailor them to play your way, not some predefined class role.    You can go where you want, when you want, without waiting for a scripted game mechanic to first trigger before you gain access.    you can....     you know what?   is this just a troll reply that i'm falling for and responding to? 

The more I think about it, the more unreasonable it is to hear "skyrim is not a sandbox but instead a semi non linear themepark" ... 

I suppose EVE online is a semi non linear themepark because your forced to fly in a spaceship instead of a hot-air balloon?

My appologies for assuming you were trolling Cau.

I guess I couldn't help but defend lol

Many of us oldschool gamers from the 80s entered the MMORPG era understanding what good gameplay was.

Timesinks and tedium are not good gameplay, yet that's what characterized early MMORPGs.  It's what characterizes most sandboxes.

Themepark games are not the only type of MMORPG capable of having fun moment-to-moment gameplay, but thus far it's been extremely rare for sandboxes to offer that.

(reading the rest of the replies, seems like Unlight already made this point in a more eloquent way.)

Originally posted by RefMinor
I do not mean to troll you or be insulting but I think if your imaginary play was structured, that shows somewhat OCD or autistic tendencies rather than anything to do with the computer games market.

 

I was born in 1971 and had a console/computer since 79, yes many games were linear back then but there were sandboxes even back then, Elite from 83 or 84 or Lotus Esprit (GTA made in 1986) were pure unstructured sandboxes, you were dumped in a world and you went and had fun, the game didn't tell you what you should be doing.

The metaphor of rules and games is really really common in philosophy.  Witgenstein wrote in Philosophical Investigations (Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations) about how language is like a game and games have rules.  If you played games without rules that means you are probably socially dysfunctional (based on modern psychology).  Playing with structure is and has always been important to children.  You might go play in the woods, but you never go too far from home in fear of being lost.  When you play hide and seek you don't go hide in Harlem, you stay in your neighborhood.

Even when children are playing alone with toys, there is a structure to their play.  You can tell this because if you try to play with them and you play in such an awkward way they will tell you "NO" as in, that is not how you play this game.

The OP is stating that everyone who grew up inthe 80s played sandboxes then and everyone who likes theme-park adventures now is a teenager thus it is a generation thing.  My refutation is simply to say that the vast majority of games in the 80s were theme park adventures.  I also brought up my own childhood experience to say that even growing up as a child is a theme-park adventure controlled by mum or dad.

The OP's post is entirely to say that older people are better than younger people whe in fact the current trend of theme-parked games is entirely based on the demands of people like me who grew up in the 80s.  Although there were SOME sandbox games in the 80s they are small in number.

Originally posted by gimmesome

My appologies for assuming you were trolling Cau.

 

I guess I couldn't help but defend lol

Its all about assumptions really. I do not consider skyrim a sandbox because you can't alter the landscape, and you can only really buy premade houses AFAIK. Classless is also possible in themeparks.

I really think its just a non linear themepark. You can go where you want its true, but isnt that mostly a function of level scaling?

Different people put the line in the sand, damn you you filthy pun, in different places.

Someone coined the phrase (I believe with EVE) "The players are the content" Current Sandbox developers saw this as the easy shortcut. They can release something without the same level of production. Instead they create the framework and a few areas and release the game. But just because you don't need to build "quest hubs" doesn't mean you don't need something else instead? You can't just leave it blank  from a development standpoint and expect players are going to buy that. They need as much content and development as any Themepark. But the content needs to be discovered, brought out, built or what have you, but by the players.

P.S. Jeez, MMORPG.com, get a WYSIWYG editor that works huh?