Originally posted by toddze

I agree with your example of how kids are raised now as well. Kids expect to be entertained now, and that translates to every part of their life.

When I was a kid i grew up on a farm, i didnt have cable tv, we had an antenna. The only cartoons I got were saturaday morning on fox. As for toys I only had a few ninja turtles. That was it, the rest of my entertainment came from my imgaination. Hell I had to make my own sandbox on the side of a sandy hill. Id go out and TRY and build my own little forts. I had to build my own play swords out of wood. being on a farm I had all of the tools I need to make my own fun. I would not trade my childhood for anything. Its translated into adulthood. I dont need someone showing me whats fun, because I know how to make my own entertainment. 90% of the time what other people thinks entertainment, I dont. To this day I still dont watch much TV, it seems like every year I watch less and less. The crap on TV just gets stupider (if thats a word haha) and stupider.

I hear people talking at work about the younger generation being self entitlists. All I can do is grin to myself because its true this has been a major debate in the MMO genre for a long time now. When I hear people not even remotly associated with the MMO genre talking about this upcomming generation being self entitlists it just rings a bell thats so true. That self entitlist generation will be the future of this county one day. We already see where this country is headed, and its not pretty.

Yes, you are right. I love playing on my phone, computer, console etc. I am an entitlist (is that even a word?). I am selfish and all that stuff. You have the new generation totally figured out.

Back to being entertained by my themepark games.

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

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.

buahahahahah....  ;-)

I will agree that it feels a bit limitting that in Skyrim I can't simply build a house ANYWHERE, but, to it's defense, mods are amazing.   I now have many houses in different places, even underground ;D

This, and many other threads, stand as constant reminders of what people take "sandboxes" and "themepark" to mean.

The general defenitions usually seem to be the same but the finer details get a lot of bickering.

It's sad because modern themeparks tend to act like sandbox elements (like being able to create permanent changes in the world, just aren't doable, like non-instanced housing/guild housing).

WoW, for instance, has been fighting tooth-and-gryphon-claw against player requests for guild housing or guild airships/zeppelins when--while surely it's a lot of work and something that you'd want to save for a major patch or expansion--it is quite doable.

Originally posted by gimmesome

Originally posted by Cuathon

 

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.

buahahahahah....  ;-)

 

I will agree that it feels a bit limitting that in Skyrim I can't simply build a house ANYWHERE, but, to it's defense, mods are amazing.   I now have many houses in different places, even underground ;D

 

True you can mod the game. But that isn't an option for your character. He cannot change the world. You have to exit the game and kick into a mod to change things, and sometimes it won't let you use an old character on a modified world file, although maybe they fixed that for skyrim.

Originally posted by MMOarQQ

ArcheAge will save us.

Maybe...

Hopefully it'll be worth the wait. I think it's a pretty smart move on their part to integrate the two as a 'Sandpark'. I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.

Even the most linear themepark games that I've tried have always felt like there was plenty of room for a multitude of sandbox systems, and what better way to introduce those that have never really been off the rails to sandbox systems than if the themepark was surrounded on all sides by a sandbox that was available to explore but not required? It would have probably kept me playing longer during the clone years. Who wouldn't want more to do and more horizontal growth opportunities?

Anyway, I just don't see any valid reason why the two haven't been intelligently combined before AA. Although I'm pretty eager to try out ArcheAge, I do hope they take their time as most of the videos do seem to show some rather clunky play (which shouldn't be a huge problem as there isn't even an English publisher yet).

Originally posted by troublmaker

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 Cuathon

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.

And this is the real reason most companies stay away from making a sandbox title. What is a sandbox title for one person is a non linear themepark for another. Every single feature seems to lower the number of your target audience.

Story- Add it/ don't add it. Your target audience got smaller, cause some people want it and others don't

FFA PVP- This is a big one and can potentially cut your target audience in half. 

Now if you decide to go with ffa pvp you can then decide if you want full loot or not.

I've kinda convinced myself a pure sandbox mmo target audience may be the most hardest niche market to devolop a game for. On top of all this difficulty where every choice dramaticly affects your products reception you have no real proof even if you make the greatest sandbox every made. You can make as much money as even a f2p themepark. 

@Deathofsage:

I see what you mean.   Prime example is what was misunderstood between Cua and myself.  I think Skyrim is sandbox, he doesn't.   

Why he says it isn't:  can't change the terrain/environment

Why I say it is:  Can choose how to play and what activities to spend your time doing, whenever you want.

I suppose another thing that seems to be a counter-perspective when it comes to defining what a sandbox really is.   

Videogames still need a theme, or a setting, wouldn't you say?   For instance, let's say a Western, cowboys'n'indians style MMO were to be developed.    But let's say the devs went more towards sandbox instead of themepark, so the players would be expected to build towns, run saloons, set up duels/shootouts, form law enforcement, etc...  well,  given a certain level of tools and freedom, someone is bound to eventually attempt creating something far from western in style.     i.e. someone builds a spaceship saloon that can hover and shoot lazers (shrug)... well, that would pretty much ruin the feel and immersion for many other players, so you have to limit the amount of freedom given to players in their creativity in order to maintain the flavor of the gameworld itself.     So, because of this regulation over "keep it western and low tech and ...brown.." would the game cease to be a sandbox?    

I think not.    Hence, why I think Skyrim is still a sandbox.   It would be 'more' sandboxy IF there were tools/mechanics in place to let players build where they wanted, or light a forest on fire, or tailor their character to specialize in killing mobs with lazers that shoot out their eyes, but it would probably nullify the purpose of the setting and theme the developers created for you to "play in"  

this touches on my thoughts on how lately, sandboxers are misunderstood.   

Originally posted by evicton

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

And this is the real reason most companies stay away from making a sandbox title. What is a sandbox title for one person is a non linear themepark for another. Every single feature seems to lower the number of your target audience.

Story- Add it/ don't add it. Your target audience got smaller, cause some people want it and others don't

FFA PVP- This is a big one and can potentially cut your target audience in half. 

Now if you decide to go with ffa pvp you can then decide if you want full loot or not.

I've kinda convinced myself a pure sandbox mmo target audience may be the most hardest niche market to devolop a game for. On top of all this difficulty where every choice dramaticly affects your products reception you have no real proof even if you make the greatest sandbox every made. You can make as much money as even a f2p themepark. 

 

 

Themeparks work the same way. Some features are make or break for many people in themeparks too. Besides, I still liked skyrim and paid for and played it. It not being a sandbox didn't stop me.

http://lifeisfeudal.com/

Will save us all!!!! 

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by MMOarQQ

ArcheAge will save us.

Maybe...

Hopefully it'll be worth the wait. I think it's a pretty smart move on their part to integrate the two as a 'Sandpark'. I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.

Even the most linear themepark games that I've tried have always felt like there was plenty of room for a multitude of sandbox systems, and what better way to introduce those that have never really been off the rails to sandbox systems than if the themepark was surrounded on all sides by a sandbox that was available to explore but not required? It would have probably kept me playing longer during the clone years. Who wouldn't want more to do and more horizontal growth opportunities?

Anyway, I just don't see any valid reason why the two haven't been intelligently combined before AA. Although I'm pretty eager to try out ArcheAge, I do hope they take their time as most of the videos do seem to show some rather clunky play (which shouldn't be a huge problem as there isn't even an English publisher yet).

If you look outside the MMO world, it has been done before with the X series of space sims.

Those have a storyline to follow like a typical themepark game, but the player is free to ignore it and do something else instead (and come back later). There is something else to do as well, you can explore the universe and build stations that play a part in the game's economy. All in all, those are rather sandboxy games that cover the themepark aspect as well.

If someone (Arch Age?) will do that kind of  "sandpark" in MMOs too, I'm all for it

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by evicton

Originally posted by Cuathon

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.

And this is the real reason most companies stay away from making a sandbox title. What is a sandbox title for one person is a non linear themepark for another. Every single feature seems to lower the number of your target audience.

Story- Add it/ don't add it. Your target audience got smaller, cause some people want it and others don't

FFA PVP- This is a big one and can potentially cut your target audience in half. 

Now if you decide to go with ffa pvp you can then decide if you want full loot or not.

I've kinda convinced myself a pure sandbox mmo target audience may be the most hardest niche market to devolop a game for. On top of all this difficulty where every choice dramaticly affects your products reception you have no real proof even if you make the greatest sandbox every made. You can make as much money as even a f2p themepark. 

 

 

Themeparks work the same way. Some features are make or break for many people in themeparks too. Besides, I still liked skyrim and paid for and played it. It not being a sandbox didn't stop me.

With a thempark game you can answer yes, no, no to those same questions with no impact on your playerbase. With a sandbox however you answer those question will define if its a game they will even play if you listen to alot of sandboxers.

If you lose a part of you potential themepark audience its still more likely to be larger then your potential target audience with a themepark.

Look at it this way, if you remove all pvp from HiSec in eve, how many subs do you lose, versus say making a safe area from pvp on all pvp servers in a themepark (most themeparks already do this) the impact for themepark would be very small. 

Look at the whole incara in Eve (I'm not picking on eve but its the most successful sandbox). The adition of cash shops plus leaked corporate memos had eve losing subs + in game protests. Yet tons of themeparks add cash shops and they thrive eve lost a significant amount of subs, enough to make the company back peddle.

Well I started with FFXI so I can't be placed in either. But if I had to choose judging by what I know about both Sandbox and Themepark then I would choose Sandbox.

Its got nothing to do with younger / older generations. The difference is in the numbers. Back in the 'good old days' there werent anywhere near as many MMO players. It was a niche market and grind, community and time wasting was pretty much the name of the game for the MMO crowd. Then came WoW, and delivered a watered down experience for the casual gamer. The same proportion of old EQ1 / DAOC players still love the old school MMO style, its just they are outnumbered by the casual WoW gamers now.

So who do MMO developers target? The niche? Or the majority? Throw in the fact that sandboxers / old school MMOers are quite jaded, bitter and very harsh on any failures to deliver the perfect MMO world.... thats why we are where we are.

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.

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

Pretty much this.  While I never had an Atari, I did have an Intellivision, and a Texas Instruments computer (don't remember hte model number) that I had to program the games myself and save them onto cassette tapes.  I started on Ultima in January 1999 and thought it was great that I could be in the world with all these other people.  Then I jumped ship for EQ1 when it came out, so I went from sandbox to the first available themepark.  Then when wow came out I jumped ship again and played on and off for 7 years.  So, I grew up in the same generation and I prefer themeparks.

Ironically, my son on the other hand loves EVE.  I like the fact that he plays eve because I only have to pay for a few months out of the year, most months he buys his own ingame.  Though I do not let him get on vent/teamspeak ect.  I let him listen in if he is on the other computer in my room so I can listen in, otherwise not allowed. 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

 

Bullshit to the Nth degree.

Did you ever spend any amount of time playing during the early yrs?  From the onset they gave us rides in the form of camps. Do this camp, get your prize, then move on to the next. Then they went all hard core with the raiding in Kunark & beyond, and you were needing to complete prior raid content from previous expansions to make it into the next expansion.

EQ being open world, and full of lore gave it a sandboxy feel, but it was full on themepark. Cutting my MMO teeth on EQ, I can tell ya those "sandboxes" that are clamored for are just a total RP/lack of PVE to me. I have no use for it.

BTW there was someone clamoring about playing with their turtles in the 80s, and liking sandboxes cause I assume they are more "adult" is the notion they were trying to put forth. Being born in 68, and growing up on things like Evel Kenival, The 6M Dollar Man, and Star Wars, I can flat out say age has nothing to do with what a person enjoys in gaming. Spare us the stereotypes. Sandboxes appear to appeal to those that were into PnP, or PVP, where as themeparks appear to appeal to those that enjoy PVE content.

There isnt some magic stigma which so many here wanna associate with it. Sheesh

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Ironically, my son on the other hand loves EVE.  I like the fact that he plays eve because I only have to pay for a few months out of the year, most months he buys his own ingame.  Though I do not let him get on vent/teamspeak ect.  I let him listen in if he is on the other computer in my room so I can listen in, otherwise not allowed. 

Ironic indeed!   I've not yet met a "successful" and wealthy EVE player under the age of 16 and rare at that. Mostly a seemingly older crowd and is also ironically, a reason I always end up back in the world of EVE.   Most of the invested playerbase are mature, patient, and "look at the big picture" types of people, which tend to be older and/or generally more mellow and sociable people.

There is a lot of math, economics, politics, and even psychology in EVE, and all that even comes in to play when you get into combat strategy and tactics.   

Short of being a market/industrial/trade guru, making billions of ISK in EVE takes a lot of playtime

So, if you're son is that vested in EVE enough to be successful and able to afford to pay for PLEX with ISK, I suggest you funnel his efforts towards something more beneficial and rewarding IRL, like... getting a good accounting job and paying your bills for you

;-)

that's awesome tho :D

Originally posted by Palladin

I think todays issues are more about this than anything else. Many of us old school gamers frm the 80s grow up in a day and age pre PC when you wrold told by your parentss "get the &*(& outside and play> So we did and we found ways to entertain ourselves. So when games systems and PCs came out games were more about finding ways to entertain yourself.

 

Nowadays kids "expect" to be entertains they do not know how and do not try to entertain themselves. They grow up in the age where the TV, phones, ipads, MP3, game consoles do all the entertainment for them.

 

My question would be this:

What is the core issue?

My answer is this:

We have 2 competing game styles communities that do not mix well.

Theme Park vs Sandbox(I personally I am of the later breed)

Themepark games "in general" donot allow players to impact the world

Sandbox games do allow players to impact the world and is the central theme of the game.

Is it possible to mix the two styles of play? I say yes.

 

A good example of mixing the  two styles is Fallen Earth. Clunky and issue ridden as it is it works well enough for a f2P game.

 

I look for games that will give me what I want but not exclude other game styles. I want more social interaction in my games not exclusion. In my opinion all game styles are valid but I am only concerned whith what I WANT.

WHAT I WANT:

1) more people ingame..jam the newb areas with people make the game run smoth( one world not 50-1000 servers)

2)Choice of things to do not a train ride through the park

3)Huge land mass that is wide open so i can explore all around it not some path to walk down(like in Aion)

4)PVP I am not hardcore so it should not be full world

5) Player owned teritory.

 

Looks like you are waiting for the same game I am, and that game is ArchAge.

Originally posted by Slampig

Originally posted by Palladin

I think todays issues are more about this than anything else. Many of us old school gamers frm the 80s grow up in a day and age pre PC when you wrold told by your parentss "get the &*(& outside and play> So we did and we found ways to entertain ourselves. So when games systems and PCs came out games were more about finding ways to entertain yourself.

 

Nowadays kids "expect" to be entertains they do not know how and do not try to entertain themselves. They grow up in the age where the TV, phones, ipads, MP3, game consoles do all the entertainment for them.

 

My question would be this:

What is the core issue?

My answer is this:

We have 2 competing game styles communities that do not mix well.

Theme Park vs Sandbox(I personally I am of the later breed)

Themepark games "in general" donot allow players to impact the world

Sandbox games do allow players to impact the world and is the central theme of the game.

Is it possible to mix the two styles of play? I say yes.

 

A good example of mixing the  two styles is Fallen Earth. Clunky and issue ridden as it is it works well enough for a f2P game.

 

I look for games that will give me what I want but not exclude other game styles. I want more social interaction in my games not exclusion. In my opinion all game styles are valid but I am only concerned whith what I WANT.

WHAT I WANT:

1) more people ingame..jam the newb areas with people make the game run smoth( one world not 50-1000 servers)

2)Choice of things to do not a train ride through the park

3)Huge land mass that is wide open so i can explore all around it not some path to walk down(like in Aion)

4)PVP I am not hardcore so it should not be full world

5) Player owned teritory.

 

Looks like you are waiting for the same game I am, and that game is ArchAge.

I'm not holding my breath or following the game. I'm not a fan of pansy Asian anime

Please read the stickied threads before starting a discussion. This discussion belongs here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/317478/Sandbox-vs-Themepark-Discussion-Thread.html

Locking this.