Originally posted by eGumball

Well, not to be mean or anything, but people who are calling Guild Wars 2 a themepark seem also to not know what they are saying. Please, gather enough information about the MMO-Industry before talking.

GW2 is a '' HYBIRD '', combining sandboxy elements with the usual themepark style. We have to the breathing world here, all we need is housing and instanced/no-instanced areas to effect largly, something, that was confirmed by ArenaNet, to be added.

 

LOL Hybird my arse.

Archeage is a hybird , Shadowbane is kinda hybird, GW2 is about as themepark as you can get, and IT IS FINE it is a good game, a good themepark.

It's a sad day when people call a game like GW2 sandbox.

The sand and the tools are missing to create your own content, own stories, etc. There's nothing sandbox about GW2, as GW2 only provides ready-made content aka themepark-rides.

Originally posted by Creslin321

There are two definitions of sandbox floating around out there.

One is the original sandbox defintion, where a sandbox basically meant a free-roaming open-world with an emphasis on exploration, where the player can choose to ignore the "main" storyline if they want and go their own way.  This wiki page has more info:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world.  Under this defintion, games like GTA, Skyrim, Burnout:  Paradise, and Dark Souls, Minecraft, and UO are all sandboxes.

Then there is the "nuveau" MMORPG definition of sandbox where a sandbox is a world where the content and/or experiences are primarily player-created and driven.  This is a very narrow definition, and the only games that really fall under are games like UO, Eve, and Minecraft.

I will be honest, I do not like the nuveau definition.  I do not like it because...

A.  It causes arguments like these.

B.  It causes several posts where someone has an "epiphany" that if you change the definition of a genre, then games that used to be in that genre, no longer qualify.  IE, "OMG Skyrim is not a sandbox!"

C.  Along the lines of B, it creates a definition of sandboxes for MMORPGs that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the sandbox definition for SPRPGs...this isn't bound to cause confusion.

 

I don't see why we just can't call games like UO, Eve, and Minecraft "player driven," or "virtual world," instead of "stealing" the pre-existing term sandbox and then screaming at anyone that dares to use the ORIGINAL definition of sandbox that has been around for DECADES.

I wasn't around long enough to know the history of that word, nor do I feel like informing myself about it because it's not like I'll have any need to factually apply this to anything I say on here, honestly. But intuitively speaking, the purpose of a sandbox in real life on a playground is that it's just a box of plain sand that you can't do anything with unless given to tools to actually create the content of the box for yourself. That is almost completely in line with the "nuveau" definition of sandbox, and far more distinctively describes what players are searching for than "virtual worlds" or "player driven" which could be applied to "themeparks" also.

Example, I would actual get annoyed when people called GTA or Saints Row a sandbox game because I didn't understand the analogy at all. Sandbox is by and far the better term because it's actually the perfect term for what people are doing in some of these games. In what capacity does a sandbox have to do with anything being open or free form (that doesn't have to do with building)? If we're just talking about a sandbox without the ability to create, then you just put some 4 year old in a tiny box of sand, which is typically small on a playground and no tools to do anything with. Kids don't go in a sandbox because they want to be able to freely wander their little 5x5 foot area. 

Also, I believe you're missing another component of this argument, which others have implied at but not explicitly reference is that people knee-jerkingly treat the word themepark with malice. It's almost instant the raw hostility that follows when it's even mentioned on this site. I can only presume that is because "themepark" games such as WoW have developed a cult-like group of haters who will instantly shun it, never sparing to mention it's painfully limiting quest hub experience or mindnumbing end game gear grind. So, again, I presume they're associating the word "themepark" with linear quest hub level process and end game gear grind. So when I see topics like the OP mentions, whether they're trolling or not, the basis of it is that the confusion of the terms directly stems from a person's desire not to associate it with WoW model themeparks. 

The reality is that, and this is in my opinion the best current classifications of the terms, a themepark is the opposite of the aforementioned sandbox. Most people genuinely agree. Being themepark just means that the developers have actually created the content for you. No matter what direction you go or how you play the game, the primary content you will be experiencing is 1 or 0 degrees of seperation from what a developers coded in for specifically that purpose. Sandbox is instantly niched in this category, obviously, since the overwhelmingly vast majority of games created are built by the developers. 

GW2 has small spots of gray area where they can initiate content that will tumble out into the world for many other players to experience, but they're not actually creating anything. They didn't make the content. They didn't influence it's existence or meaning in any way. Guild Wars 2 is an amazing themepark but has other distinguishing factors that seperates it from a themepark like WoW. Those two terms are vague enough to be classified into two very large categories, but specific enough to clarify between two very different styles of play where the pros and cons can be effectively assessed. 

Man, people really don't read each other's post in these forums ... 

As been proven on last 3 pages with concrete definitions, GW2 does have a sandbox gamedesign. And as Creslin mentionned, most people's definition is not the one running around for ages, but something made up from their own fantasms of the perfect sandbox mmo.

I don't care if we're debating this around GW2 or Super Mario Bros. But what is kind of irritating when you read this thread, is how hordes of people mock the simple fact of daring to call GW2's gamedesign a sandbox oriented, without even caring to check the definition first. That speaks volumes about how easy people are on hitting the reply button without checking their facts first.

I mean .. there's a definition. It's clear. It's simple. No need to distort reality.

Originally posted by k-damage

Man, people really don't read each other's post in these forums ... 

As been proven on last 3 pages with concrete definitions, GW2 does have a sandbox gamedesign. And as Creslin mentionned, most people's definition is not the one running around for ages, but something made up from their own fantasms of the perfect sandbox mmo.

 

What is kind of irritating when you read this thread, is how hordes of people mock the simple fact of daring to call GW2's gamedesign a sandbox oriented, without even having cared about reading the definition first. That speaks volumes about how easy people are on hitting the reply button without checking their facts first.

Quoting Wiki doesn't means your post is better than others.

"A true "sandbox" is where the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play"

GW2 players can "modify" the world? Triggering a Dyanamic events is NOT "Modifying/Generating" . This is like saying Rift or Warhammer is sanbox because they can trigger the DE, or Swtor is a sandbox because it gives you "Choices" in the personal quest.

Bro. go play some sandbox before calling GW2 sanbox, and what's wrong with GW2 being a themepark?

Originally posted by k-damage

Man, people really don't read each other's post in these forums ... 

As been proven on last 3 pages with concrete definitions, GW2 does have a sandbox gamedesign. And as Creslin mentionned, most people's definition is not the one running around for ages, but something made up from their own fantasms of the perfect sandbox mmo.

 

What is kind of irritating when you read this thread, is how hordes of people mock the simple fact of daring to call GW2's gamedesign a sandbox oriented, without even having cared about reading the definition first. That speaks volumes about how easy people are on hitting the reply button without checking their facts first.

I mean .. there's a definition. It's clear. It's simple. No need to distort reality.

They don't agree with that defintion because it makes no sense and there's no other qualifying term to describe what they're actually referring to. You now mock those who would intuitively come to the conclusion that sandbox means player created and themepark means developer created. To many people the  definitions that's been "running around for ages", which I don't even personally understand how that even came to represent the sort of game design you're referring to, is impossible to distinguish between different styles of game. 

Originally posted by iamjason1989

Originally posted by k-damage

Man, people really don't read each other's post in these forums ... 

As been proven on last 3 pages with concrete definitions, GW2 does have a sandbox gamedesign. And as Creslin mentionned, most people's definition is not the one running around for ages, but something made up from their own fantasms of the perfect sandbox mmo.

 

What is kind of irritating when you read this thread, is how hordes of people mock the simple fact of daring to call GW2's gamedesign a sandbox oriented, without even having cared about reading the definition first. That speaks volumes about how easy people are on hitting the reply button without checking their facts first.

Quoting Wiki doesn't means your post is better than others.

 

"A true "sandbox" is where the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play"

GW2 players can "modify" the world? Triggering a Dyanamic events is NOT "Modifying/Generating" . This is like saying Rift or Warhammer is sanbox because they can trigger the DE, or Swtor is a sandbox because it gives you "Choices" in the personal quest.

 

Bro. go play some sandbox before calling GW2 sanbox, and what's wrong with GW2 being a themepark?

Once again : this is not the "most advanced" sandbox design, but by definition, it's certainly not a linear design.

- SWTOR choices don't affect the world, GW2's ones do (I chose not to help that NPC ? Then the village will be invaded and other chain events)

- Rift's rifts were a first step into a sandbox gamedesign, as invaders could kill quest givers, therefore change your experience for several quests.

- Warhammer Public quests didn't change anything, so it's not even starting to think Sandbox gamedesign.

So in the end, it's just that some people don't accept the fact that there are more or less sandbox designs, just like there are more or less RPG designs.

Nothing wrong with GW2 being a themepark :) except :

- when it's being thrown as a not-as-valuable-as-sandbox argument (= 90% of the time)

- when it's simply not 100% a themepark (as it's not 100% a sandbox)

In a word : we could be talking about sports, whatever, it's just that people are so absolute in their judgements, it's driving me crazy :/

Originally posted by Serelisk

They don't agree with that defintion because it makes no sense and there's no other qualifying term to describe what they're actually referring to. You now mock those who would intuitively come to the conclusion that sandbox means player created and themepark means developer created. To many people the  definitions that's been "running around for ages", which I don't even personally understand how that even came to represent the sort of game design you're referring to, is impossible to distinguish between different styles of game. 

Ok, then let's take the most official definition then : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game (which I already linked 3 pages ago, if people were reading each other's posts before arguing ...)

Where do you see that it has to include construction tools ?

Anyway this is kind of a sterile debate, as with any debate trying to redefine a word. So to each other's his own vision of his most 100% sandbox game. What's baffling me is just how people are hardcore at defending a non-definition.

Originally posted by iamjason1989

Triggering a Dyanamic events is NOT "Modifying/Generating" .

This is definitely not set in stone.

When you free an outpost from invasion, or fail to defend it resulting in an invasion and occupation, you definitely modify the world. Even in a sandbox, any modification is not permanent.

Originally posted by iamjason1989

Quoting Wiki doesn't means your post is better than others.

 

"A true "sandbox" is where the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play"

GW2 players can "modify" the world? Triggering a Dyanamic events is NOT "Modifying/Generating" . This is like saying Rift or Warhammer is sanbox because they can trigger the DE, or Swtor is a sandbox because it gives you "Choices" in the personal quest.

 

Bro. go play some sandbox before calling GW2 sanbox, and what's wrong with GW2 being a themepark?

GW2 fans think that GW2 can do everything and be everything for everyone. It's called the GW2 Effect.

Originally posted by Syno23
I hate themepark games where you go to one area get the quests and do them and move onto the next area. In GW2 you can explore every inch of every area. Don't have to do the story quest right away. Different areas to explore like all the starting areas for each race PLUS other areas. I don't feel like I'm in a linear game. But a nice relaxing sandbox style.

GW2 is just themepark, granted a themepark where you can choose what to ride and when, but still a themepark.

So far from Sandbox it's unreal.

Originally posted by k-damage

Originally posted by Serelisk

They don't agree with that defintion because it makes no sense and there's no other qualifying term to describe what they're actually referring to. You now mock those who would intuitively come to the conclusion that sandbox means player created and themepark means developer created. To many people the  definitions that's been "running around for ages", which I don't even personally understand how that even came to represent the sort of game design you're referring to, is impossible to distinguish between different styles of game. 

Ok, then let's take the most official definition then : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game (which I already linked 3 pages ago, if people were reading each other's posts before arguing ...)

Where do you see that it has to include construction tools ?

Anyway this is kind of a sterile debate, as with any debate trying to redefine a word. So to each other's his own vision of his most 100% sandbox game. What's baffling me is just how people are hardcore at defending a non-definition.

Why do you believe this is the most official definition? It is merely one person's definition, if few people agree with it than I suppose it's not very official.

Sandbox style games are something you just feel, I've played so many titles, EVE is definitely heavy on the sandbox side.

Haven't played GW2 yet, so can't say, maybe it is. 

But I'm guessing it favors the theme park style just a bit more.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by k-damage

Ok, then let's take the most official definition then : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game (which I already linked 3 pages ago, if people were reading each other's posts before arguing ...)

Where do you see that it has to include construction tools ?

Anyway this is kind of a sterile debate, as with any debate trying to redefine a word. So to each other's his own vision of his most 100% sandbox game. What's baffling me is just how people are hardcore at defending a non-definition.

Why do you believe this is the most official definition? It is merely one person's definition, if few people agree with it than I suppose it's not very official.

Sandbox style games are something you just feel, I've played so many titles, EVE is definitely heavy on the sandbox side.

Haven't played GW2 yet, so can't say, maybe it is. 

But I'm guessing it favors the theme park style just a bit more.

Because for such a hot topic as Sandbox games, Wiki's page must have been checked, checked again, and re-re-re-re-checked again by tons of mmo gamers, and very likely by professional gamedesigners ;)

And in general, Wikipedia is a good reference.

Originally posted by k-damage

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by k-damage

Ok, then let's take the most official definition then : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game (which I already linked 3 pages ago, if people were reading each other's posts before arguing ...)

Where do you see that it has to include construction tools ?

Anyway this is kind of a sterile debate, as with any debate trying to redefine a word. So to each other's his own vision of his most 100% sandbox game. What's baffling me is just how people are hardcore at defending a non-definition.

Why do you believe this is the most official definition? It is merely one person's definition, if few people agree with it than I suppose it's not very official.

Sandbox style games are something you just feel, I've played so many titles, EVE is definitely heavy on the sandbox side.

Haven't played GW2 yet, so can't say, maybe it is. 

But I'm guessing it favors the theme park style just a bit more.

Because for such a hot topic as Sandbox games, Wiki's page must have been checked, checked again, and re-re-re-re-checked again by tons of mmo gamers, and very likely by professional gamedesigners ;)

And in general, Wikipedia is a good reference.

And in that definition, it specifically states that sandbox is only "used" to describe an open world game among other terms such as non linear, but when they specifically go to define the meaning of a true sandbox games, they specifically state:

"A true "sandbox" is where the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play."

If you actually follow that link, it will take you to a page about non linear game design, and again mentions sandbox modes as a stem of this.

"In a game with a sandbox mode, a player may turn off or ignore game objectives, or have unlimited access to items. This can open up possibilities that were not intended by the game designer. A sandbox mode is an option in otherwise goal-oriented games and should be distinguished from open ended games with no objectives such as SimCity. It has a variety of different uses, the main being the sandbox gamemode, allowing you to do whatever you want with everydya normal items, or just have a firefight with your friends. The game is highly mod-able too."

Not all non linear games cane be classified as sandboxes because that term was not created to specifically refer to open world games. 

Originally posted by redman875

How does this thread even exist.

 

Now im convinced...GW2 fans have completely lost their mind.

It's like this since months: these GW2 fans speak their own language. From now on we shall call a car a toster, and what used to be called a toaster is now called an airplane. :)

See, GW2 even makes you fly!

Originally posted by Larsa

Originally posted by redman875

How does this thread even exist.

 

Now im convinced...GW2 fans have completely lost their mind.

It's like this since months: these GW2 fans speak their own language. From now on we shall call a car a toster, and what used to be called a toaster is now called an airplane. :)

See, GW2 even makes you fly!

The GW2 in game community is very decent and helpful, but outside of the game..oh god they're like a cult.

IT'S OUR MESSIAHHHH, join us or you shall banish into the oblivion and your opinons shall mean nothing.

Either admit GW2 is perfect or you're a hater, why can't they just accept GW2 is a damn fine game but not groundbreaking whatsoever?

Originally posted by iamjason1989

Originally posted by Larsa

Originally posted by redman875

How does this thread even exist.

 

Now im convinced...GW2 fans have completely lost their mind.

It's like this since months: these GW2 fans speak their own language. From now on we shall call a car a toster, and what used to be called a toaster is now called an airplane. :)

See, GW2 even makes you fly!

The GW2 in game community is very decent and helpful, but outside of the game..oh god they're like a cult.

 

IT'S OUR MESSIAHHHH, join us or you shall banish into the oblivion and your opinons shall mean nothing.

Either admit GW2 is perfect or you're a hater, why can't they just accept GW2 is a damn fine game but not groundbreaking whatsoever?

More annoying than people like that are the ones that act like a minority of the community is the entirety of the community.