Originally posted by Mahni
Originally posted by Bladin
[snip]
23% somewhat wrong?
I've adjusted this to 75% wrong.
You're making the assumption when you say that [the definition for] sandbox has been corrupted that there ever was a clear (or universally accepted) definition.
The fact is, in the beginning sandbox just applied to games that were player driven in a open world. rather then linear progression. Now it has game mechanics tied onto it.
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics. If you are standing by your assertion that the definition has been corrupted by claiming it is "fact", some evidence of a clear (and universally accepted) definition would provide a basis for your claim.
And I still believe this to be the heart of the issue - that because the term "sandbox" and "sandbox mmorpg" did not have a clear definition, it has led to people making subjective definitions. Due to the fact that there still is no clear (and universally accepted) definition, when people use the term they often have to propose their own definition when they do so (what you are calling "everything they want in a mmo").
I'd have to agree with that, and it does seem silly to make claims about whether some else's definition is correct without offering a definition. Moreover, if one were to criticize someone else's definition for a specific reason, you would think that they would want to be sure that their own definition was subject to the same criticism.
That makes the assumption that such a critic would offer their own definition, and that definition their definition be concrete enough to be subject to meaningful analysis.
Do you mean something other than "a sandbox game is one where you have freedom"?
Precisely, not a definition that is so vague that it is rendered meaningless.
You're also making the assertion that others are using the term sandbox to mean "everything you want in a mmo", and I disagree with that. I like what I consider to be sandbox games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, and I enjoy aspects of sandbox gameplay in some mmorpgs (for example, I'm playing Ryzom again since it has been resurrected). But while I consider a game like EVE Online to have many sandbox elements, I personally don't like some of the mmorpg mechanics and I don't find it fun to play. I acknowledge that it is very sandboxy and that it is a mmorpg, but it certainly is not what I want in a mmorpg.
See heres the thing, yes GTA is a sandbox game.
If that is indeed "the thing", then why? I agree that the GTA series has sandbox features, but you are making the claim that others are using the term "sandbox" incorrectly. While criticizing others for their misuse, are simply asserting certain games are sandbox because you consider them to be "sandbox"? Why couldn't someone make the argument that "sandbox" has been corrupted in this thread to mean "whatever features Bladin wants it to be"? How can you (in good conscience) educate others as to what you believe a sandbox game (or sandbox mmorpg) to be without offering a definition yourself?
What you are missing, is that I have said that games are a sandbox, yet not everything in the games is sandbox dependant(or a requirement). I'm never said I want anything in a sandbox, beyond a world with a character in it. You are missing(at a guess i'd say willfully) that I am merely trying to avocate that people are operating under a assumption that sandbox has required features suitable to them.
I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I made the claim that you said "everything in the games is sandbox dependent". Likewise, I never said you did want anything in a sandbox.
In an attempt to make it clearer for you:
I am saying that you are criticizing others for proposing a definition when you have not offered your own definition. You are saying they are wrong but not saying how they are wrong. You are saying they are wrong without saying what is right.
I am saying that you have criticized others for having a subjective opinion about what a sandbox mmorpg is (whatever they want it to be) but you do not seem to want to acknowledge that your opinion about what is a sandbox mmorpg can be seen as just as subjective (your definition could seem to be whatever you want it to be).
I do understand that you are trying to suggest that others are operating under incorrect assumptions. What you have not done is clarify in any way what you believe would be "correct" for others to say in regards to the definition of a sandbox mmorpg.
Did anyone notice that when asked why GTA was a sandbox game, there was no reply? Was this a willful exclusion or just an error on the part of the respondent?
Ah, I did notice that, thanks - hopefully there will be some clarification on this.
But does that mean that every console sandbox has to be stealing cars, killing people, and and doing mini games? No, the thing about mmorpgs is that while UO is(was) a sandbox, that doesn't mean other sandboxes have to emulate exactly UO's setup to still be a sandbox.
To reiterate, you made the suggestion that others were using the term in "sandbox" in error. Specifically, you made the assertion that people are using the term incorrectly in that the definition has become something specific - a list of all features in an mmo that they like. I demonstrated that was not true for me, and gave an example of something I considered a sandbox mmorpg which is not "everything I want in an mmo". Where you make the argument that the definition has been made specific and incorrect, I am suggesting the definition has never been clear, still is not clear, and is not universally accepted. In my view, it is no wonder that others use the term "sandbox" in regards to a mmorpg in ways that would not match my concept of a "sandbox" mmorpg.
I never stated(or at least intended to) imply that you yourself were operating with the assumption that sandboxes had required rules.
I was not sure if I would be subject to the blanket generalization implicit in your OP.
The defininition isn't clear, but it is what it is.
It is what it is? What does that mean? I haven't seen a definition from you at all. And while you are making the argument that other people are wrong in how they define sandbox, since you haven't offer a clear definition of sandbox mmorpg I believe that would support my suggestion that there has not and is not a clear definition, and that any such "fuzzy" definition is not universally accepted.
In the case that there is not a clear and universally accepted definition, wouldn't it make sense for others to offer varying definitions that included different subsets of features of (subjective) exemplars of sandbox mmorpgs.
I'm not trying to label sandbox as a game with certain features, i'm argueing against a sandbox having a requirement for features assigned to it by the person using it.
It seems like you are reluctant to label what would make a mmorpg a "sandbox" at all. At the same time, you are arguing that since your (personal, secret) definition of sandbox mmorpg does not match certain other people's definition, they must be wrong (and should not share their views).
I would agree with you that it is not specific game mechanics that "make" a game sandbox or not. But again:
I believe that in the beginning the term "sandbox" did not have a clear definition, and that has led to some people making these associations with various game mechanics.
I'll agree with you
Then it would be impossible for the term to be "corrupted" as you claimed in the OP. And I would think that if you realized that the term "sandbox" never had a clear defintion, and that it was this lack of clear definition that had led to others making associations between game mechanics and the term "sandbox mmorpg", that you would not be so critical of those associations.
I believe there is inherent tension between the "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components in sandbox mmorpgs - and I would suggest that a sandbox mmorpg cannot be solely defined by whether there are restrictions on character advancement (classes and levels or skills, etc.) as every rpg will likely have some mechanics that restrict character development for the sake of gameplay.
I would agree, and was the point of my post you quoted.
My point (given the context of the rest of my post, which may have become lost in this paragraph by paragraph reply) was that this inherent tension between "sandbox" and "mmorpg" components leads to an amorphous concept (or set of prototypical features) for a "sandbox mmorpg" - I'm suggesting the term may be "fuzzy" or ill-defined for good reason (because of the tension between the components).
Yes, when trying to combine two things into one, generally one loses it's identity or gain properties of the other. Such as mixing ketchup and mayo, you get a new sauce which tastes different then both but retains what it was originally. But it still has ketchup in it, and the ketchup is still ketchup, the new mixture is not ketchup. To use this example to fit my arguement. After the mix was made, someone would point at it, and say, that's ketchup. Another person replaces the mayo with mustard, and says, no that's ketchup. repeat for various sauces.
Yes it was ketchup to begin with, but what it is now, is no longer ketchup, and is not a requirement for it to be ketchup
Instead of a condiment metaphor, I prefer oil and water. They are difficult to mix, but they can be mixed through thoughtful action (emulsification).
The individual i quoted to begin with was implying that sandboxes are unrestricted character advancement, i simply meant that, that's not a default part of the base sandbox structure, but rather a element that can be added on.
It seems odd (hypocritical) that you are criticizing others for using a term that you have not defined yourself but still have used (in your assertion that UO is (was) a sandbox game. In doing so, you support my reply (that the term is not well defined), thank you very much (I guess, it isn't that important to me that you support my reply to be honest).
The thing about sandbox is that it includes a ton of features and gameplay, but at the same time it is NOT all of the features and gameplay.
I'm saying it is hypocritical for you to criticize others for the use of the term when you have not defined it yourself. Saying what it is NOT does not tell others what you think it IS.
Like i said you can't define it beyond a character in a world, so if you wanted a definition from me, i'd say a world with a character. Since the game doesn't have to have combat, it doesn't have to have crafting, it doesn't have to have much of anything.
And you still don't see where it would be hypocritical for you to criticize others definitions as being subjective when your own definition seems to be equally subjective?
A world with a character is no definition at all, sandbox or otherwise.
So how can i define it?
I tried to offer some suggestions in my original reply for how a sandbox mmorpg could be defined (as a constellation of features driven by developer motivations to offer freedom of choice while minimizing character and gameplay restrictions). In addition, I suggested that "sandbox" could be seen as not as "either-or" (ie., UO is / was not a sandbox game (as a category), it is *more* sandboxy than others).
Honestly, I'm getting skeptical that you could define it, at least to your own satisfaction (that is to say, in a way that is not subject to your own criticism).
It merely can incoporate them. This post is merely in regards to the fact that people have forgotten sandbox is simply a WIDE genre, not a set of rules.
As I previously said, I believe that the term "sandbox" never had a clear definition, so there's nothing to "forget".
Just because something doesn't have a clear definition, doesn't mean you can create definition of it to suit you.
Isn't that what you did in your response above (a world with a character)???
Just because something doesn't have a clear definition doesn't mean you shouldn't work with people to build a consensus defintion.
You mean instead of just criticizing them for offering their own views on what they feels makes a "sandbox mmorpg"?
Precisely.
I can't define it because of that.
But you did define it (world with a character).
You can't define it, but it's okay to to tell others that they are using it incorrectly.
What if someone would have replied to your OP by saying that "you are wrong - I can't tell you what is right, but believe me you are wrong"...
Surely you can add more to the discussion than that. You don't even need to have your own clear definition of "sandbox mmorpg" right now, just openly discussing it and considering the views of others may add to a better understanding.
This arguement is the same as people who go "you can't make a mmorpg who are you tell them how to make one".
Not at all, let me try to help you understand.
The argument is "you can't tell someone they are wrong (about a definition) when you don't know the definition yourself without being hypocritical"
Game players can give advice to developers?
Yes, developers actually seek feedback from game players, in various ways (qualitative and quantitative).
And it still doesn't hold water.
That may be because it is leaking, I'm sure it was holding water for a while.
Sarcastically: Amusing. Nope, you are right it wasn't holding water. But that was never the argument. It wasnt about building games at all.
I said i can't define it, because it doesn't have a definition. Just that you can't call it something you want it to be just because you feel it should be that way.
So you are saying it doesn't have a definition, but others are not correct in offering their views on how it should be defined.
Wait, didn't you call GTA and UO a sandbox, even while you are saying there is no definition? Are they just sandboxes because you say they are?
No, you wait, didn't you say there WAS a definition (a world with a character)?
The reason i can't call UO a sandbox now, is not because of the pvp changes(it doesn't mean it's not a sandbox) but because i simply don't know the state of the game as it stands, it's had a bunch of xpacs and i've never followed up on them. So it would be unfair for me to still call it a sandbox when for all i know it has changed into a instanced battlegrounds game.(which I know it hasn't)
You have not offered the rationale why at any point in the past you would have considered UO to be a sandbox game.
Your in a world, and you do things you want to do. That's a base definition, i could have listed other games.
You do realize how many mmorpgs could meet that definition. I'm sure that there are a lot of WoW players that would say that they are in a wrold doing the things they want to do.
You are suggesting that WoW is a sandbox game, but you are critical of other people's definitions of sandbox mmorpgs.
For shame!
I agree that that the term isn't well defined, and as i will restate again.
And that's why it seems very hypocritical to me that you would criticize others for the use of the term rather than trying to build a consensus definition through a discussion with other mmorpg enthusiasts.
The problem with this, no mmorpg fan will ever share his opinions with anyone else.
An interesting psychological analysis. However, I've found most mmorpg fan to be very vocal with their opinions.
Trying to define something with a group of people who all have different opinions is impossible.
Especially if you do not try!
Especially online where backing down shows your weakness, but I would be interested in seeing how a discussion such as that would go along.
It's not a weakness to be a party to a rational conversation.
It shows far more weakness to continue to be willfully ignorant or not make any concessions.
If you were to start a topic regarding it, send me the link and i will take a look at it.
Oh there have already been some crazy discussions :)
Because it's a genre(like saying third person shooter, and assuming it has a cover system, squad team mates, and online death match).
Assuming a sandbox has the features you personally like in it, and then just saying "i want a sandbox, which is _______" when really it should be "I want a game with _______ in a sandbox world".
Are you suggesting that there is some other motivation or goal behind the (perceived) misuse of "sandbox" such as some type of advocacy? I believe any (real or imagined) "misuse" of the term is because the definition is unclear. Why you are making the assertion that the definition has become specific (a list of desired features) rather than ambiguous, as you have offered no evidence to support that assertion at all?
Sandbox is becoming the new carebear and pvp'r arguement. Of "true mmo" and "console game" instead of the previous pvp and carebear.
But if you follow threads, see where sandbox is used, and see how people relate it to everything they personally want "i want a true sandbox game with palyers crafting everything" Which is assuming that a true sandbox is player crafting heavy.
Normally, if you make these kind of paragraph-by-paragraph responses, you would actually respond to the paragraph above. Instead, you seemed to have ignored my suggestion that you claimed in your OP that the definition has become specific (features of the subjectivelly optimum mmorpg) rather than ambiguous (as you agreed above).
You mean the point of these insertions is to provide a direct response to an individual component of a discussion?
That would be correct, in theory.
But doesn't it completely destroy the context of the discussion?
That it does, I'm afraid that is part of the downside. It can become nearly impossible to have a meaningful conversation as each sentence gets taken on its own instead of in context.
What are other methods for reading and responding to someone else's comments?
Well, you could take the time to read the entire comment as a whole, and contemplate what the "big picture" might be. Then you could take the time to determine whether you agree or disagree with this "big picture", and provide a cohesive reply rather than getting bogged down in individual details.
It's a novel idea, but I'm doubtful that it would catch on.
Have faith, my friend.
