I simple think a sandbox MMOs is a game were you need to interact with all kinds of players to achieve something in a special area. Example build a city, fight a war, sell a stockpile of weapons, travel etc etc.

If im capable of doing this without interacting with others, its not a sandbox.

I'm convinced noone knows what the fuck a sandbox game is on this forum.

Tell you what if a developer considers its game a sandbox then we should all agree it's a sandbox.

Games where the Developers considered their games a sandox game or sandbox hybrid.

UO, AC, AO, SWG, EvE, Ryzom, Second Life, Wurm, DF, FE. 

Soon to be released: Earthrise, Mortal Online.

I know im missing a couple but those are the sandboxy games, it doesn't matter what any of you think because the Devs call these games sandbox and they know better than any of you.

K bye.

Originally posted by Maligar

Originally posted by MIchael-333

You're sort of contradicting yourself. FFA PVP stands for FREE for all player vs player. 'Free' being the operative word. The freedom to kill whoever you want is a huge piece of the sandbox archetype.
 

 

No.  The terms "sandbox" and "FFA PvP" are NOT co-dependant, in any way, shape, or form.

I think you should explain why you think that. What exactly do you think the term "sandbox" means? Is real life "sandbox"?

Originally posted by Amaranthar

That a Sandbox game is simply a world simulation?

[...]

In my opinion yes, a good sandbox game should be simply a world / universe simulator.

Originally posted by MIchael-333

Originally posted by Maligar

No.  The terms "sandbox" and "FFA PvP" are NOT co-dependant, in any way, shape, or form.

I think you should explain why you think that. What exactly do you think the term "sandbox" means? Is real life "sandbox"?

Simply because not every game to wear the "sandbox" moniker has been FFA PvP and were still popular.  So assuming that FFA PvP must be involved because some sandbox title some time ago had it is a tad bit presumptious, don't you think?  If you want examples...

SWG (Pre NGE) - Not FFA PvP.

EVE (Current) - Probably the most popular sandbox title currently open in the western market. Not FFA PvP throughout the entire game.  Probably one of the very reasons why it has become so widely popular.  It is very much sandbox, but allows players to forego FFA PvP by staying in Empire space.

Like I said, they are not co-dependant terms.  They can and have been seen together, on more than one occasion.  However, in the truest sense, they are very much independant variables.

Originally posted by metalhead980

I'm convinced noone knows what the fuck a sandbox game is on this forum.

Tell you what if a developer considers its game a sandbox then we should all agree it's a sandbox.

Games where the Developers considered their games a sandox game or sandbox hybrid.

UO, AC, AO, SWG, EvE, Ryzom, Second Life, Wurm, DF, FE. 

Soon to be released: Earthrise, Mortal Online.

I know im missing a couple but those are the sandboxy games, it doesn't matter what any of you think because the Devs call these games sandbox and they know better than any of you.

K bye.

That's silly. First of all, I challenge you to back up the claim that the developers for each of those games have publically stated that they considered those games "sandboxes". Second of all, defining a sandbox game by what a developer calls it means that you don't know what a sandbox game is either because your understanding of the term is based solely on what the developers tell you it is.

---

Originally posted by Sengi

---

Originally posted by Kyntor

---

Originally posted by Arcilite_I

Ultima Online and Asheron's Call (specifically Darktide) are realistically the only two true sandbox MMO's to ever hit the market.
Want to know what a solid sandbox MMO looks like?  Check either one of those.

---

 
I don't know about Asheron's Call (since I never played it), but I would not consider UO a sandbox game.  UO is a niche game (FFA PVP).  A niche game would be the opposite of a sandbox game.
 
To me, a sandbox game is all about player freedom.  The player should be able to play however they want and still be able to progress and compete.  Forcing someone into one particular playstyle all of the time (despite thier wishes) is counter to this.
 

---

 
I would not consider Edisons invention a telephone. It is just a niche device, and that would be the opposite of a telephone.

---

.....

..........

What?

I agree with UO being a sandbox game, but there is another that is really unique.

A Tale in the Desert

A Tale in the Desert is a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game set in ancient Egypt.

Originally posted by Maligar

Originally posted by MIchael-333

Originally posted by Maligar

No.  The terms "sandbox" and "FFA PvP" are NOT co-dependant, in any way, shape, or form.

I think you should explain why you think that. What exactly do you think the term "sandbox" means? Is real life "sandbox"?

 

Simply because not every game to wear the "sandbox" moniker has been FFA PvP and were still popular.  So assuming that FFA PvP must be involved because some sandbox title some time ago had it is a tad bit presumptious, don't you think?  If you want examples...

SWG (Pre NGE) - Not FFA PvP.

EVE (Current) - Probably the most popular sandbox title currently open in the western market. Not FFA PvP throughout the entire game.  Probably one of the very reasons why it has become so widely popular.  It is very much sandbox, but allows players to forego FFA PvP by staying in Empire space.

Like I said, they are not co-dependant terms.  They can and have been seen together, on more than one occasion.  However, in the truest sense, they are very much independant variables.

I think we’re arguing different points. First of all, if you think that there is no FFA PvP in EVE Empire space, then your understanding of FFA PvP is different than mine. If the game engine allows anyone to attack anyone else, then I call it FFA PvP. Just because Concord will attack your aggressors in Empire space doesn’t mean people can’t attack you (and even kill you). Yes they will be penalized for it, but they can still do it. If you don’t consider that FFA PvP, then I concede based on semantic discontinuity.
Secondly, what it seems like you’re saying is that a game can be considered ‘sandbox’ without featuring FFA PvP. I don’t disagree with that. However, monikers (aka “what the majority considers a thing to be”) don’t always reveal a thing’s true nature. Rabbits wear the ‘rodent’ moniker, violet wears the ‘purple’ moniker, and the Oxford Comma wears the ‘correct’ moniker, but that doesn’t mean that they actually are those things. My statement regarding FFA PvP was that FFA PvP is a big piece of the “sandbox archetype”. If we can agree that the essence of sandbox games is freedom of action, and that FFA PvP is an expansive form of such freedom, then the truest and sandboxiest of sandbox games must feature FFA PvP. Likewise, any MMO featuring FFA PvP will be more sandbox than any MMO not featuring FFA PvP.

 

I hate the term "sandbox"!  When I was a kid growing up the grwon-ups never let me do whatever i wanted to in the sandbox, i.e. throw sand in the little girls hair I liked, take a toy I wanted, punch Tommy Benson in the face for ruining my sandcastle, ...  When I hear "sandbox" that doesn't speak to freedom in any way.  Lame term for a bunch of games that want to draw in a niche of players.  UO was a FFA PvP game, I guess a "sandbox" by my above definition as I couldn't always punch Tommy in the face, but when I did there were consequences, but it was not a truely open player driven game world (OPDGW).