Originally posted by 5thofFikus

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...

• Sandbox = freedom
• Themepark = directed game play

 

Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?

In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)

The lack of other people doesnt make skyrim a themepark. No matter how much you wish. Add 10 people and its sandbox would shine and the themepark fails because there are no rides in skyrim. There is only the world, and the role playing game.

Skyrim is a VW game. thats how it works and why it's so successful. Single player or multiplayer. Immersion is king and VW's are the king of immersion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just skimming through this topic at this point, but I wanted to point out something here. I don't have the inclination to read all the posts these days, since MMORPGs are pretty much dead to me.

If you took Skyrim and made it multiplayer, and IF you could scale the game for all the players, it would still PLAY LIKE a Sandbox. But if you couldn't scale the game for all the players, then it starts NOT ACTING like a Sandbox. Then you'd have to start zoning the content to character levels, and that's Themepark.

And the more numbers of players, the harder it gets to scale the content without instances, which again is not Sandbox.

That's the big issue. How to make a game with levels, or even skills, to play like the single player Skyrim, to play like a single world (per "shard"). And that's why I've always held that a good Sandbox needs to reduce the power gaps between levels to something somewhat more realistic. But you don't have to lose the excitement of advancement. You can have what many call "sideways advancement", new abilities and powers, just don;t go wild on the power boosts with them.

So Skyrim, as it is, made Massively Multiplayer, would almost certainly turn into a Themepark game and require zones, or heavy instancing.

It's all in how a game plays.

Sandbox vs theme park is like;

free climbing vs hiking,

hunting vs shopping,

off-road vs highway,

champagne vs lager,

Janis Joplin vs Lady Gaga,

and so on.... ;)

What if I don't like neither Gaga nor Joplin? =P

Is Sarah McLachlan more sandbox or theme park?

Originally posted by Creslin321

Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world.  And you know what?  It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game.  And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR.  Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.

The term (open world) is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";^[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,^[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"^[5] of playing the game.

This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world.  The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.

And honestly, I find it annoying.  Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.  

So you know what?  How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.

And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine.  But you need to use a different term.  Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.

See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what?  We all agreed back then.  So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE

 

Nobody's arguing that "sandbox" is used interchangably with open world.

But nothing about that quote implies themeparks can't also be open world.  (A being Y doesn't mean B can't be Y.)

Skyrim struggles to fit this rough wikipedia definition.  The avenues the player can "play creatively" are very limited (the progression system and housing are the only two features which involve much creativity.  The rest of the world is largely static.)  It certainly fits the "no right way" part of the definition, but that applies to plenty of games (notably: WOW.)

My definition of themepark vs. sandbox isn't "super narrow".

• It's broad.  It cleanly splits games between player-driven and dev-driven.
• It's crystal clear.  By defining features in terms of player or dev creation/manipulation, there's no argument whether something is sandbox or not.  It's obvious to anyone partaking in the experience.
• It fits the analogy.  Sandboxes have sand (players create/manipulate), themeparks have rides (devs create/manipulate.)

Using sandbox interchangably with open world makes little sense because

• We already have a clearer term (if you mean open world, use "open world"!)
• It often doesn't fit the analogy at all (games like Skyrim or GTA involve very little which can be considered "sand" and share a long list of similarities with real-world themeparks.)

Originally posted by Suraknar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?

In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)

The terms, when taken in the way we mean, are opposites. Freedom to go where you want, like in Skyrim. Directed game play to have to go where the devs direct you, like in WoW zones.

I'm not going through all this again. We've done this so many times before and I don't care anymore. The subs are speaking much louder than anyone here. 

Did you fail to read my post?

You're not directed to go anywhere in a real themepark.  Direction or linearity have nothing to do with the defintion of a videogame themepark.

They may be loosely related by common association, but they've never been part of the core definition.

Themepark vs. Sandbox is purely a question of who creates the core experience (the thing you log on each session to do.)

• In Skyrim you're playing the devs' game.
• In Drawception, you're playing and creating the players' game.
• In FarmVille, you're creating your own farm.
• In EVE, you're creating and controlling the players' economy and territory.
• In WOW, you're playing the devs' game.
• In Minecraft, you're creating your own world.

I agree with you Axe, from a Designer's point of view, but I think that, from aplayer's point of view, we have to consider that the the phrase of " you are creating your own world", implies and translates as freedom, and the phrase "you are playing the dev's game" implies and translates as Direction

Ahh, a voice of reason from the other side.

But let me kick your can a little bit.

WE coined the phrase, and we know what we meant. But you guys, developers, have changed the meaning, and now are insisting on using your meaning. That brings up 2 issues....

• A) You're ignoring what we meant to say, and what we mean when we say it now.
• B) Changing the meaning not only loses the value of what we, the customers, are saying, but it's insulting. It's also deceptive. You can now claim "Sandbox" when you give us the features you claim are "Sandbox" in a Themepark game.

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan
I guess the lack of people enjoying sandbox games is the reason why Minecraft, despite its dated graphics, is such a huge success.

 

/sarcasm

---

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world.  And you know what?  It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game.  And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR.  Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.

The term (open world) is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";^[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,^[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"^[5] of playing the game.

This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world.  The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.

And honestly, I find it annoying.  Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.  

So you know what?  How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.

And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine.  But you need to use a different term.  Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.

See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what?  We all agreed back then.  So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE

 

Nobody's arguing that "sandbox" is used interchangably with open world.

But nothing about that quote implies themeparks can't also be open world.  (A being Y doesn't mean B can't be Y.)

Skyrim struggles to fit this rough wikipedia definition.  The avenues the player can "play creatively" are very limited (the progression system and housing are the only two features which involve much creativity.  The rest of the world is largely static.)  It certainly fits the "no right way" part of the definition, but that applies to plenty of games (notably: WOW.)

My definition of themepark vs. sandbox isn't "super narrow".

• It's broad.  It cleanly splits games between player-driven and dev-driven.
• It's crystal clear.  By defining features in terms of player or dev creation/manipulation, there's no argument whether something is sandbox or not.  It's obvious to anyone partaking in the experience.
• It fits the analogy.  Sandboxes have sand (players create/manipulate), themeparks have rides (devs create/manipulate.)

Using sandbox interchangably with open world makes little sense because

• We already have a clearer term (if you mean open world, use "open world"!)
• It often doesn't fit the analogy at all (games like Skyrim or GTA involve very little which can be considered "sand" and share a long list of similarities with real-world themeparks.)

I question whether you have even played Skyrim...

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by 5thofFikus

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...

• Sandbox = freedom
• Themepark = directed game play

 

Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?

In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)

The lack of other people doesnt make skyrim a themepark. No matter how much you wish. Add 10 people and its sandbox would shine and the themepark fails because there are no rides in skyrim. There is only the world, and the role playing game.

Skyrim is a VW game. thats how it works and why it's so successful. Single player or multiplayer. Immersion is king and VW's are the king of immersion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just skimming through this topic at this point, but I wanted to point out something here. I don't have the inclination to read all the posts these days, since MMORPGs are pretty much dead to me.

If you took Skyrim and made it multiplayer, and IF you could scale the game for all the players, it would still PLAY LIKE a Sandbox. But if you couldn't scale the game for all the players, then it starts NOT ACTING like a Sandbox. Then you'd have to start zoning the content to character levels, and that's Themepark.

And the more numbers of players, the harder it gets to scale the content without instances, which again is not Sandbox.

That's the big issue. How to make a game with levels, or even skills, to play like the single player Skyrim, to play like a single world (per "shard"). And that's why I've always held that a good Sandbox needs to reduce the power gaps between levels to something somewhat more realistic. But you don't have to lose the excitement of advancement. You can have what many call "sideways advancement", new abilities and powers, just don;t go wild on the power boosts with them.

So Skyrim, as it is, made Massively Multiplayer, would almost certainly turn into a Themepark game and require zones, or heavy instancing.

It's all in how a game plays.

Maybe. Depends on the vision.  

You did not discribe what "massive" means to you in numbers.

I disagree with your opinion.

Why? because no one can tell if such a crowd is there or not right now.

For once there has not been a AAA quality sandbox mmorpg yet.

Example world of warcraft. I bet that before developement of WOW those calling the shots what games get made had the same stance as you. No way this would attract so many people and make so much money.

If there would be such a crowd for that it would already exist right?

If project TITAN turns out to be a well made sandbox like mmorpg, then according to you only a small niche crowd would play it?

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

What if I don't like neither Gaga nor Joplin? =P

Is Sarah McLachlan more sandbox or theme park?

As long as she is singer-songwriter, so, I suppose yes. ;)

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by 5thofFikus

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...

• Sandbox = freedom
• Themepark = directed game play

 

Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?

In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)

The lack of other people doesnt make skyrim a themepark. No matter how much you wish. Add 10 people and its sandbox would shine and the themepark fails because there are no rides in skyrim. There is only the world, and the role playing game.

Skyrim is a VW game. thats how it works and why it's so successful. Single player or multiplayer. Immersion is king and VW's are the king of immersion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just skimming through this topic at this point, but I wanted to point out something here. I don't have the inclination to read all the posts these days, since MMORPGs are pretty much dead to me.

If you took Skyrim and made it multiplayer, and IF you could scale the game for all the players, it would still PLAY LIKE a Sandbox. But if you couldn't scale the game for all the players, then it starts NOT ACTING like a Sandbox. Then you'd have to start zoning the content to character levels, and that's Themepark.

And the more numbers of players, the harder it gets to scale the content without instances, which again is not Sandbox.

That's the big issue. How to make a game with levels, or even skills, to play like the single player Skyrim, to play like a single world (per "shard"). And that's why I've always held that a good Sandbox needs to reduce the power gaps between levels to something somewhat more realistic. But you don't have to lose the excitement of advancement. You can have what many call "sideways advancement", new abilities and powers, just don;t go wild on the power boosts with them.

So Skyrim, as it is, made Massively Multiplayer, would almost certainly turn into a Themepark game and require zones, or heavy instancing.

It's all in how a game plays.

I thnk you could handle scaling by making the mosnter spawns dependent on who is in the area. If it's a bunch of noobs then the goblin spawns would spit out goblin scouts and grunts, but if a tougher opponent came into the area then it could spawn harder creatures like a Goblin Warlord, or Goblin Mage. Something like that (Sorry for Darkfall goblin references).

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world.  And you know what?  It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game.  And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR.  Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.

The term (open world) is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";^[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,^[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"^[5] of playing the game.

This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world.  The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.

And honestly, I find it annoying.  Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.  

So you know what?  How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.

And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine.  But you need to use a different term.  Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.

See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what?  We all agreed back then.  So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE

 

Nobody's arguing that "sandbox" is used interchangably with open world.

But nothing about that quote implies themeparks can't also be open world.  (A being Y doesn't mean B can't be Y.)

Skyrim struggles to fit this rough wikipedia definition.  The avenues the player can "play creatively" are very limited (the progression system and housing are the only two features which involve much creativity.  The rest of the world is largely static.)  It certainly fits the "no right way" part of the definition, but that applies to plenty of games (notably: WOW.)

My definition of themepark vs. sandbox isn't "super narrow".

• It's broad.  It cleanly splits games between player-driven and dev-driven.
• It's crystal clear.  By defining features in terms of player or dev creation/manipulation, there's no argument whether something is sandbox or not.  It's obvious to anyone partaking in the experience.
• It fits the analogy.  Sandboxes have sand (players create/manipulate), themeparks have rides (devs create/manipulate.)

Using sandbox interchangably with open world makes little sense because

• We already have a clearer term (if you mean open world, use "open world"!)
• It often doesn't fit the analogy at all (games like Skyrim or GTA involve very little which can be considered "sand" and share a long list of similarities with real-world themeparks.)

Really I could care less what you want to define "themepark" as.  My only concern here is your attempt to redefine "sandbox" to be something that it didn't mean when people started using the terms to define video game.  Specifically, to be a sandbox DOES NOT require that the game have player-created content.  All it requires is that the game is a non-linear open world.  That's it.

As for Skyrim...ummm, I'm sorry but you're wrong.  Skyrim very easily fits into the Wikipedia definition of sandbox.  If you don't think you can play Skyrim creatively, then well...you must not be a very creative person :).

As for your bulleted points, hey they make a lot of sense.  Unfortunately, they don't matter at all because the term sandbox is already well-defined and has been for some time.  So nit-picking its actual accepted definition as compared to your interpretation of its etmyology is pointless.

It would be like if I said:

"RPG stands for role playing game, therefore any game where you play the role of someone else should be considered an RPG.  As such, I consider Halo an RPG because you play the role of the Master Chief."

When you read this, you were probably thinking "that's stupid."  And you know what?  It is.  Everyone knows what RPG means.  Everyone knows that the accepted definition doesn't exactly adhere to the literal meaning of the words in the acronym.  No one cares.  Don't try to confuse things by redefining words that everyone already has an accepted definition for.

Finally, the funny thing is that it seems like the only folks here that are insisting that games like Skyrim and GTA are not sandboxes is the anti-sandbox crowd!  So it almost seems like you guys are just trying to prove that sandboxes are not commercially viable by shifting your definition so that any successful "sandbox" game is no longer defined as a sandbox.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world.  And you know what?  It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game.  And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR.  Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.

The term (open world) is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";^[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,^[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"^[5] of playing the game.

This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world.  The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.

And honestly, I find it annoying.  Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.  

So you know what?  How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.

And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine.  But you need to use a different term.  Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.

See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what?  We all agreed back then.  So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE

 

Nobody's arguing that "sandbox" is used interchangably with open world.

But nothing about that quote implies themeparks can't also be open world.  (A being Y doesn't mean B can't be Y.)

Skyrim struggles to fit this rough wikipedia definition.  The avenues the player can "play creatively" are very limited (the progression system and housing are the only two features which involve much creativity.  The rest of the world is largely static.)  It certainly fits the "no right way" part of the definition, but that applies to plenty of games (notably: WOW.)

My definition of themepark vs. sandbox isn't "super narrow".

• It's broad.  It cleanly splits games between player-driven and dev-driven.
• It's crystal clear.  By defining features in terms of player or dev creation/manipulation, there's no argument whether something is sandbox or not.  It's obvious to anyone partaking in the experience.
• It fits the analogy.  Sandboxes have sand (players create/manipulate), themeparks have rides (devs create/manipulate.)

Using sandbox interchangably with open world makes little sense because

• We already have a clearer term (if you mean open world, use "open world"!)
• It often doesn't fit the analogy at all (games like Skyrim or GTA involve very little which can be considered "sand" and share a long list of similarities with real-world themeparks.)

There is a right way to play WOW. The way that gives the most reward for the effort. That is the "best" way to play, and why everyone does it. It gives 100x's the reward.

Originally posted by 5thofFikus

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world.  And you know what?  It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game.  And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR.  Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.

The term (open world) is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";^[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,^[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"^[5] of playing the game.

This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world.  The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.

And honestly, I find it annoying.  Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.  

So you know what?  How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.

And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine.  But you need to use a different term.  Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.

See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what?  We all agreed back then.  So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE

 

Nobody's arguing that "sandbox" is used interchangably with open world.

But nothing about that quote implies themeparks can't also be open world.  (A being Y doesn't mean B can't be Y.)

Skyrim struggles to fit this rough wikipedia definition.  The avenues the player can "play creatively" are very limited (the progression system and housing are the only two features which involve much creativity.  The rest of the world is largely static.)  It certainly fits the "no right way" part of the definition, but that applies to plenty of games (notably: WOW.)

My definition of themepark vs. sandbox isn't "super narrow".

• It's broad.  It cleanly splits games between player-driven and dev-driven.
• It's crystal clear.  By defining features in terms of player or dev creation/manipulation, there's no argument whether something is sandbox or not.  It's obvious to anyone partaking in the experience.
• It fits the analogy.  Sandboxes have sand (players create/manipulate), themeparks have rides (devs create/manipulate.)

Using sandbox interchangably with open world makes little sense because

• We already have a clearer term (if you mean open world, use "open world"!)
• It often doesn't fit the analogy at all (games like Skyrim or GTA involve very little which can be considered "sand" and share a long list of similarities with real-world themeparks.)

There is a right way to play WOW. The way that gives the most reward for the effort. That is the "best" way to play, and why everyone does it. It gives 100x's the reward.

 

 

Also, the "right" way to play WoW is to get level up and then eventually grind gear at max level.  Yes, you have choices in how you do this, it's not 100% linear.  But it still is fairly linear because your level dictates what you can do in the game.

A level 1 cannot do the same things a level 30 can do.  Level 30 zones will be impossible for a level 1.  And a level 30 cannot do the same things a level 1 can do because the level 1 zones will not reward them at all.  So the "linearness" of the game is created by segmenting content off the certain levels.

Yes, you do have some choices of how you level (dungeons, questing, battlegrounds), but it doesn't change the fact that the game is very specifically designed to give you a quasi-linear progression from level 1 to max level.

Contrast this with Skyrim where you can go almost everywhere in the game world from the moment you are plopped down in it.

I think the point that Axe is missing is that, while Themepark MMORPGs typically do have an "open world" in the sense that you can theoretically adventure everywhere from the start.  The world is not open in a practical sense because having any success in a specific place really requires that you are within a certain level range.

So basically, the level segmentation of zones and gameplay modes is the mechanism through which a themepark MMO accomplishes its linearity.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan
I guess the lack of people enjoying sandbox games is the reason why Minecraft, despite its dated graphics, is such a huge success.

 

 

/sarcasm

---

Lots of people enjoy sandbox games. I run a Minecraft server, and the people who play on it do so because they can play with their friends, without having to worry about all the other people that would show up on an MMORPG server. Enjoying sandbox games does not necessarily translate into enjoying sandbox MMORPG.

 

Yeah, I guess that's why "MMORPG like" Minecraft servers are the most popular ones, at the top of every chart. Or could it be because many people crave for a GOOD sandbox MMORPG and just play MC MMO servers because there's nothing better for now on the market?

Originally posted by Creslin321

Also, the "right" way to play WoW is to get level up and then eventually grind gear at max level.  Yes, you have choices in how you do this, it's not 100% linear.  But it still is fairly linear because your level dictates what you can do in the game.

A level 1 cannot do the same things a level 30 can do.  Level 30 zones will be impossible for a level 1.  And a level 30 cannot do the same things a level 1 can do because the level 1 zones will not reward them at all.  So the "linearness" of the game is created by segmenting content off the certain levels.

Yes, you do have some choices of how you level (dungeons, questing, battlegrounds), but it doesn't change the fact that the game is very specifically designed to give you a quasi-linear progression from level 1 to max level.

Contrast this with Skyrim where you can go almost everywhere in the game world from the moment you are plopped down in it.

I think the point that Axe is missing is that, while Themepark MMORPGs typically do have an "open world" in the sense that you can theoretically adventure everywhere from the start.  The world is not open in a practical sense because having any success in a specific place really requires that you are within a certain level range.

So basically, the level segmentation of zones and gameplay modes is the mechanism through which a themepark MMO accomplishes its linearity.

My point was themepark gameplay (instanced dungeons, questing, battlegrounds) are the main ways to advance in WOW because the rewards are 100x's that of their counterparts which are usually considered sandbox play. Mob grinding, open dungeons, open pvp, crafting and economy.

If one were to look at the data, one may think themepark gameplay is obviously what people want, not the massive rewards used to bribe people to partake.

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan I guess the lack of people enjoying sandbox games is the reason why Minecraft, despite its dated graphics, is such a huge success.     /sarcasm

---

Lots of people enjoy sandbox games. I run a Minecraft server, and the people who play on it do so because they can play with their friends, without having to worry about all the other people that would show up on an MMORPG server. Enjoying sandbox games does not necessarily translate into enjoying sandbox MMORPG.  

---

Yeah, I guess that's why "MMORPG like" Minecraft servers are the most popular ones, at the top of every chart. Or could it be because many people crave for a GOOD sandbox MMORPG and just play MC MMO servers because there's nothing better for now on the market?

---

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Ahh, a voice of reason from the other side.

But let me kick your can a little bit.

WE coined the phrase, and we know what we meant. But you guys, developers, have changed the meaning, and now are insisting on using your meaning. That brings up 2 issues....

• A) You're ignoring what we meant to say, and what we mean when we say it now.
• B) Changing the meaning not only loses the value of what we, the customers, are saying, but it's insulting. It's also deceptive. You can now claim "Sandbox" when you give us the features you claim are "Sandbox" in a Themepark game.

If you add "player created content" to WoW, such as building houses anywhere they'd fit, or clearing out an instance (already there!), does that make it a Sandbox? Hell no. Period.

 

And that makes me bluud boil, because it's just another deception to continue this lunatic Themepark craze.

"We" the developers haven't changed the meaning.  I'm one dude.  I don't change shit.  If a thousand players use the less logical bizarro definition then that's the agreed-upon meaning.

Doesn't stop me from pointing out that (a) a better term exists for what they're trying to communicate and (b) what they're trying to communicate doesn't have anything to do with the word they're using to communicate it.

A game's core experience makes it sandbox or themepark.  If WOW added sandbox feature(s) and for 51%+ of players that was the #1 thing they engaged with most, then WOW would be considered a sandbox.

Even if the definition was changed by developers, it's not like it'd matter to players.  Nothing would change in regards to what types of games that get made.  Big devs would continue creating stuff which appeals to the masses and small/indie devs would continue experimenting with innovative (non-MMO) titles and filling niches.

Originally posted by 5thofFikus

There is a right way to play WOW. The way that gives the most reward for the effort. That is the "best" way to play, and why everyone does it. It gives 100x's the reward. 

There is a right way to play Skyrim.  The way that lets players consume all the content at the fastest possible rate.

There is a right way to play EVE.  The way which generates the most money, advances to the most useful skills quickest, loads out a ship the most powerful with the least cost with the least skill required to fly, and conquers the most territories the fastest (and also the safest.)

But generally speaking, if someone has fun pickpocketing in Skyrim or mining in EVE or PVPing or crafting or exploring in WOW, they are not considered "wrong" and are free to play however they want.

...otherwise we have to concede that there are no sandboxes on the market at all because there's always a fastest path to any given goal (and in WOW's case you've made an assumption that one goal is "the right goal".)

Originally posted by Creslin321

Really I could care less what you want to define "themepark" as.  My only concern here is your attempt to redefine "sandbox" to be something that it didn't mean when people started using the terms to define video game.  Specifically, to be a sandbox DOES NOT require that the game have player-created content.  All it requires is that the game is a non-linear open world.  That's it.

As for Skyrim...ummm, I'm sorry but you're wrong.  Skyrim very easily fits into the Wikipedia definition of sandbox.  If you don't think you can play Skyrim creatively, then well...you must not be a very creative person :).

As for your bulleted points, hey they make a lot of sense.  Unfortunately, they don't matter at all because the term sandbox is already well-defined and has been for some time.  So nit-picking its actual accepted definition as compared to your interpretation of its etmyology is pointless.

It would be like if I said:

"RPG stands for role playing game, therefore any game where you play the role of someone else should be considered an RPG.  As such, I consider Halo an RPG because you play the role of the Master Chief."

When you read this, you were probably thinking "that's stupid."  And you know what?  It is.  Everyone knows what RPG means.  Everyone knows that the accepted definition doesn't exactly adhere to the literal meaning of the words in the acronym.  No one cares.  Don't try to confuse things by redefining words that everyone already has an accepted definition for.

Finally, the funny thing is that it seems like the only folks here that are insisting that games like Skyrim and GTA are not sandboxes is the anti-sandbox crowd!  So it almost seems like you guys are just trying to prove that sandboxes are not commercially viable by shifting your definition so that any successful "sandbox" game is no longer defined as a sandbox.

It seems intrinsically obvious that, given the terms used, my version's actually what it started out as.  Otherwise they wouldn't have used the terms.

A sandbox without sand (player manipulation) isn't a sandbox.  It's a large cement area for the player to freely wander around in.  It contains rides for players to play.  Players can't change the rides.  Sound familiar?

Of course I think creativity is involved in Skyrim!  I applied creavitity even to WOW!  But that doesn't mean that either game is like Minecraft or Terraria.  In those games nearly all the gameplay is about creating or manipulating inside a game world.

As for your tinfoil-hatting, that's utter nonsense because singleplayer sandboxes (the real ones like Terrarria and Minecraft) are successful.  They're successful specifically because they're singleplayer.  But GTA and Skyrim's successes are obviously themepark-style success (with rides the player can't change.)  The only difference between them and WOW is their focus on open world gameplay (which you should call "open world" gameplay, because (a) calling it themepark makes no damn sense and (b) you will never have a 15-page thread discussing the meaning of open world gameplay because it's obvious.)