Originally posted by Zindaihas

Stop Bladin and Mahni, your psychedelic colors are giving me a headache

I've got no idea what you mean.

Originally posted by Bladin

Originally posted by Mahni

Originally posted by Bladin

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.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Bladin

Originally posted by Mahni

Originally posted by Bladin
[snip]

23% somewhat 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.

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?

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 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 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).

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.

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".

I can't define it because of that.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

Originally posted by Bladin

Originally posted by Ciredric

I highly disagree with your definition.  Sandbox has nothing to do with a large world, what it does have to do with is unrestricted character development.   Hence classes definitely have no place in a sandbox game as they restrict character development. 

100% totally wrong.

Sandbox to YOU means that.  But that's not what a sandbox is.  For example, gta games are generally regarded as a sandbox, but you don't develop yourself at all.

Also UO, it is(was) a sandbox game, and guess what? you are restricted in character development, you can only have so many skills and stats.

You proved my OP thank you very much.

Everyone look at this post, it's a big example of what i meant by sandbox being corrupted.

and just p.s. I wasn't saying don't say sandbox, just don't assume everything what you want in a mmo is called a sandbox.

23% somewhat 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.

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. 

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. 

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).

It seems to me that if you want to be helpful you could help to build a consensus definition through discussion rather than simply complaining that others aren't using the word "sandbox" correctly (or to your liking).

Originally posted by Bladin

What is a sandbox?

...snip...

The term sandbox has been so corrupted that now it means "whatever style mmorpg i personally want"

So i'd like to ask everyone here, please don't use the term sandbox as if it was your personally mmorpg dream.  And that every single quality you like is a base sandbox.

I'm not sure it solves the problem to simply ask people not to use the term sandbox.  I do agree with you that I think people's definitions vary, as I've mentioned on other threads.  But I also think it is a valuable concept.

To borrow from another thread, I believe that the problem with definitions of "sandbox" has to do with...

The term "sandbox" as it applies to mmorpgs is not clearly defined

But...I think there are a constellation of features that could be seen as being prototypical of a "sandbox" mmorpg and I believe there are a handful of concepts that could be seen as being the motivating factors for developing / playing a "sandbox" mmorpg such as "freedom of choice"

"Sandbox" mmorpgs do not have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features

I do not believe that they have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features because there is not a rule-based definition.  Some may put forth a series of "necessary" features, and some would argue that they are missing a necessary feature, or others would argue that one of the features was not "truly necessary".  I believe arriving at a consensus about features that would be "sufficient" would likely be hopeless.

"Sandbox" mmorpg is not a concrete concept, but is an aspirational concept

I think that there are a set of features of a prototypical sandbox mmorpg that serve an aspirational purpose.  I am skeptical about how much of a broad appeal it has as an aspirational concept (not everyone agrees that "sandbox" is "better" than linear / themepark.  I am skeptical about how much of a mass market appeal a "sandbox" mmorpg would have given competition from more "linear" mmorpgs.

"Sandbox" is a matter of degree - not a "type" or "kind" of game or mmorpg

I believe that "sandbox" lies on a continuum - it is a matter of degree.  I see a mmorpg such as EVE Online as being more sandbox than a mmorpg like WoW - but I wouldn't say that EVE is the epitome of sandbox and WoW is the antithesis of sandbox.  Rather I would think there is a continuum where neither of these mmorpgs would be at the "end points".

But that being said, I do think there is a "constellation of features" that can be used to describe an "sandbox" exemplar.  Reaching a consensus on which of these features should be included may be difficult, but I believe such a set of features the exemplar would contain some of the following:

A playing environment that:

• Is Large (full of content for players to interact with)
• Is Unitary (existing within a single instance or server shard)
• Is Dynamic (responsive to player interaction rather than being static)
• Is Persistent (effects of player interactions remain in effect unless otherwise acted upon - whether these actions are warfare, economic, housing, politics, etc.)
• Is Non-linear (navigation or exploration of the world is not dictated in a linear fashion by the environment)
• Supports many players (the massively multiplayer part of mmorpg)

Character design and advancement that:

• Is mostly free of restrictions (such as arbitrary classes, levels, or prerequisites for various skills)
• Supports characters that advance in abilities through gameplay (the rpg part of mmorpg)

Gameplay that:

• Is mostly free of restrictions (most player interactions are available to all players, not dependent on character advancement or loot possession - although the probability of success may differ)
• Supports a large selection of player-generated goals (such as adventuring, exploring, crafting, socializing, competing etc.)
• Has a large selection of tools to use to interact with the environment (where tools and be skills or gameplay features that support various goals)
• Has a large selection of things to interact with in the environment
• Supports interactions between players (again, the rpg part of mmorpg)

I think it would be great to see a consensus definition here.  I've seen the term "sandbox" thrown around with different explicit and implied definitions many, many times.

To pull from a previous thread, I believe it may be difficult to reach a consensus opinion because...

I believe the term "sandbox" as it applies to mmorpgs is not clearly defined

But...I think there are a constellation of features that could be seen as being prototypical of a "sandbox" mmorpg and I believe there are a handful of concepts that could be seen as being the motivating factors for developing / playing a "sandbox" mmorpg such as "freedom of choice"

I believe "sandbox" mmorpgs do not have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features

I do not believe that they have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features because there is not a rule-based definition.  Some may put forth a series of "necessary" features, and some would argue that they are missing a necessary feature, or others would argue that one of the features was not "truly necessary".  I believe arriving at a consensus about features that would be "sufficient" would likely be hopeless.

I believe "sandbox" mmorpg is not a concrete concept, but is an aspirational concept

I think that there are a set of features of a prototypical sandbox mmorpg that serve an aspirational purpose.  I am skeptical about how much of a broad appeal it has as an aspirational concept (not everyone agrees that "sandbox" is "better" than linear / themepark.  I am skeptical about how much of a mass market appeal a "sandbox" mmorpg would have given competition from more "linear" mmorpgs.

I believe "sandbox" is a matter of degree - not a "type" or "kind" of game or mmorpg

I believe that "sandbox" lies on a continuum - it is a matter of degree.  I see a mmorpg such as EVE Online as being more sandbox than a mmorpg like WoW - but I wouldn't say that EVE is the epitome of sandbox and WoW is the antithesis of sandbox.  Rather I would think there is a continuum where neither of these mmorpgs would be at the "end points".

But I think if we list the "constellation of features" I referred to, the following could be included:

A playing environment that:

• Is Large (full of content for players to interact with)
• Is Unitary (existing within a single instance or server shard)
• Is Dynamic (responsive to player interaction rather than being static)
• Is Persistent (effects of player interactions remain in effect unless otherwise acted upon - whether these actions are warfare, economic, housing, politics, etc.)
• Is Non-linear (navigation or exploration of the world is not dictated in a linear fashion by the environment)
• Supports many players (the massively multiplayer part of mmorpg)

Character design and advancement that:

• Is mostly free of restrictions (such as arbitrary classes, levels, or prerequisites for various skills)
• Supports characters that advance in abilities through gameplay (the rpg part of mmorpg)

Gameplay that:

• Is mostly free of restrictions (most player interactions are available to all players, not dependent on character advancement or loot possession - although the probability of success may differ)
• Supports a large selection of player-generated goals (such as adventuring, exploring, crafting, socializing, competing etc.)
• Has a large selection of tools to use to interact with the environment (where tools and be skills or gameplay features that support various goals)
• Has a large selection of things to interact with in the environment
• Supports interactions between players (again, the rpg part of mmorpg)

Originally posted by tuppe99
...snip...

Why can't the developers of the latest MMOs see and understand that the majority of players hate instancing? Yes, I know that instancing is essential for performance reasons and whatever, but if Blizzard could do it, then surely the others can as well?

Do we have to wait for a renowned developer like BioWare to release a MMO to finally take WoW on?

Aren't the Battlegrounds in Blizzard's World of Warcraft instanced?  Am I missing something there?

Originally posted by Evasia

Originally posted by Mahni [snip]

They have no clue what a sandbox game is:P
 

And for ryzom its easy as hell its not difficult at, i play ryzom and i never ask anybody how things work and is not hard at all to learn.

The problem is these days less and less are willing to put little effort to learn the game by themselfs they need to be taken by the hand and game lead you through it.

 

Take starter area in ryzom, peeps asking in chat where trainers are WTF, and say how can i find anything if there are no ! ? above npc's or markers on map OMG, thats how it is these days:(.

It seems they can read anymore ryzom is even a very simple sandbox game its very casual friendly altho some claim its high learning curve i disagree is very easy, you just have to use your brain again thats all:P

Totally agree that Ryzom is not difficult to learn.  I hear you re: the starter area in Ryzom. 

I do think that there are expectations that have emerged about mmorpgs - expectations of ease of learning / play ( the ? and ! markers above quest givers), of ease of character advancement (no need for excessive grinding or repetitive play), of lack of permanent consequence for failure (no harsh death penalty or permanent death), of quick access to appropriate content (mostly linear design of the world, directing the player from lower level content to higher level content) - and I have no doubt in my mind that some of these expectations are due in large part to the commercial success of WoW. 

In Ryzom you'll often hear new players asking why you can't jump - even though there is no need to in the game (it serves no purpose in terms of game mechanics) - but it's obvious there is the expectation that one should be able to jump (and that expectation is so strong that players feel that the game is not "immersive" if they can't see their avatar and every other avatar bunny-hopping across the world).

I'm not saying mmorpgs should meet these expectations to make a better game, or a game that is truly "easy to learn and play" - I think you could make a great game that violates these expectations and would be fun to play.  But I do think that developers realize that meeting these expectations = more mass appeal.  For better or worse.

Originally posted by Camisado

Originally posted by Mahni

FYI: There is already a 27 page thread lamenting about the lack of sandbox mmorpgs, what is the definition of a sandbox mmorpg, and starting on the second page, whether or not WoW is a sandbox game.

 

Yes but does it cover the fact that all MMos of 2008 failed ...because of a nonpersistent world.

 

No it does not - I was just pointing out there was another thread with a similar topic.  Thought it might have been educational for you to read since you've seemed to imply that WoW was a sandbox mmorpg, and I anticipated that if you continued to promote that argument, you'd be met with a similar amount of scorn and ridicule.

But now you seem to be claiming that

• WoW is a sandbox game
• WoW has a "persistent" world whereas "nothing in 2008" has a persistent world
• That WoW is a "free-roaming" world (implying other mmorpgs are not?)
• That WoW has "atmosphere" (while AoC and WAR have "window dressing")

The first three of these points are mentioned in the thread that I linked - as well as many more comparisons of "sandbox" criteria to WoW's design (whether hidden zoning really = open world, whether multiple servers versus single shard [EVE Online] has an effect on persistence, etc.).  If you truly are interested in whether others feel that WoW is a sandbox game, I would think you would have been interested in the thread.

But when you claim that:

• That mmos of 2008 (Tabula Rasa, Hellgate London, AOC, and WAR) failed in terms of linear gameplay and design (implying that WoW does not have linear gameplay and design?)
• That mmos of 2008 are failures because players wouldn't leave WoW for a linear game
• That mmos of 2008 are failures because they are "non-persistent" worlds
• That the failure of mmos of 2008 indicate a win for sandbox, persistent world games (which games are those?)

It seems you are pushing some other kind of agenda.  It's hard for me to imagine that you are really lamenting a lack of sandbox games in 2008 because you offer WoW as an exemplar of the type of game you'd liked to have seen (instead of something along the lines of EVE Online, Saga of Ryzom, etc).  You also seem to be pushing the "persistence" button a lot, and the thread I linked to also contains a debate about whether WoW has any persistent sandbox elements (or whether everything is essentially reset at intervals other than a few minor highly scripted events) compared with a game like EVE (where players can build structures that are persistent until acted upon by other players).

That being said, it seems part of your argument is that:

A sandbox game in 2008 would have performed better than mmorpgs that were released in 2008

You've offered no rationale behind that at all.  I like sandbox games (and am playing Ryzom right now since it has been resurrected) but I'm skeptical that they would be more commercially viable than a easy to learn and play, highly linear mmorpg (ala WoW) that would have broad appeal and perhaps leverage an existing IP(Conan, Warhammer) or come from respected developers (ex-Diablo, ex-Ultima).  I attribute the failures of mmorpgs of 2008 to other factors (not enough development time / cash, early release) and I have no idea how Warhammer will fare at this point.

FYI: There is already a 27 page thread lamenting about the lack of sandbox mmorpgs, what is the definition of a sandbox mmorpg, and starting on the second page, whether or not WoW is a sandbox game.

Originally posted by Forcan
-snip-

Mahni, at least you are using logical steps to further the discussion, and when asked questions, you would answer to the best of your ability, and give more than just personal opinion.  So I do respect your opinions and the discussion here, even though I may disagree with them... 

 

But Zorndorf, on the other hand, use personal opinion and stating it as "facts", which makes his reasoning weak and without substance.  And when being asked about the ability of the game, Zorndorf dodge the questions by not answering them and continue to state his opinion as facts... 

 

Oh well, at least I had some better and more interesting discussion with you Mahni.  May I ask what is it that you do for a living?

 

Hmm, still feeling like we didn't get very far with that exchange, but I don't mind leaving it at that.  Your list of core systems lines up nicely with my own beliefs, but I'm having a hard time seeing them as being a set of objective measures that any group could apply to definitively categorize a game as being "sandbox".  I see it as being a continuum, where you see it being a dichotomy based on core features.  We can agree to disagree.

I enjoyed the conversation very much regardless of the disagreement.

Oof, what do I do for a living...

I've got a doctorate in Cognitive Psychology with a specialty in Quantitative Psychology from NYU.  My focus was on dual-process theories of memory, attention, and categorization for the most part.  I studied a lot of stats, and did a fair amount of programming to build computer simulations of cognitive processes (in Pascal - hardly anyone uses that nowadays, huh?).  I taught a few undergrad and graduate courses in cognition, statistics, and human-computer interaction.

I've worked as a usability engineer, a programmer for a project for Microsoft, a researcher, then as a statistical analyst and researcher helping companies make marketing decisions.  Nowadays, I mostly connect to databases and make sense of data.  I've used the same program for doing statistical analyses that I've used for the last 15 years - a great program called SPSS.

Originally posted by Forcan

-snip-

You are making the strong claim that sandboxes are clearly defined, but your feature set uses words like "limited" restriction on how dynamic the world is, "how much" freedom there is in character design, and a "lot of [different] ways to implement" community-based gameplay. 

I look at it from the game design(developer) perspective, not just from the game play (player) perspective.  The words like "limited" "how much" and "different ways to implement" are open to creativities of gamers and developers alike, but the core basic has to stay true.

I'm looking at if from the perspective of someone who has studied categorization - rule-based categorization, exemplar theory, and prototype theory.  I'm now looking at it as a complete layperson.  Now I'm looking at it as a gamer.  Now I'm looking at it as a game designer.  That's weird, what the words "limited", "how much", and "different ways to implement" didn't change no matter how much I looked at it.  They are still qualifiers that would make a rule based categorization open to subjective opinion, whether that was the subjective opinion of a developer or a game player - whether that's a video game player or a hockey player.

The question was whether "sandbox" mmorpgs were clearly defined - you said yes and gave three rules that have qualifiers in them.  When the qualifiers were pointed out, you specify a need for a certain perspective to interpret them. 

Are you saying that you need that perspective in order to make the categorization?  Is the category only concrete to game developers?  Do game developers look at a word like "limited" and think ... ah yes "limited = 3 restrictions, no more". 

From your perspective of a game designer, is there a way to tell whether the core (game play principles) have stayed "true"?  Do you have a trueness thermometer you use to read the core temperature?  Can you tell whether a game is sandbox or not without looking at the design documents and asking the developers how things changed during development?

These qualifiers make the classification subjective, not objective at all.  I could see where someone might think that a game like WoW features a dynamic world (with limited restrictions), freedom in character design through choice of classes, tradeskills, and talents, and has implemented community-based gameplay through guilds and an economic system.  Probably a bit too much wiggle room in those definitions.

You look at it as subjective, then by that logic, all things are subjective... 

Whoa wait a second.  I don't want 1) another semantic argument taking place at the same time and 2) my poor head to explode because you are saying your perspective makes it not subjective.

Let's take a "what does objectivity mean" break brought to us from the English language perspective.  Quoting wikipedia.

Objectivity ... "a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity".

Let's flip it around and look at subjectivity.  Quoting wikipedia...

Subjectivity ... "refers to a subject's perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief."

Subjective means when the rules change based on perspective.  If you are going to list a set of rules ANYONE should be able to apply them if they are objective.  Even a hockey player!

But in a design perspective, there must always be some space for creativities in the design.  If you are talking about WoW...  In the game design pespective (developer), the CORE game design are not changed.  But the on game play perspective, due to the new functions added on top of the core design, some might get the illusion of "sandbox", but in essence, that is based on the perception of the players, not developers.  The wiggle room isn't for players to define, but for developers to have the space for their own creativities to re-invent the implementation of the core systems.

If you are saying a game is sandbox if the words "dynamic world", "freedom in character design", and "community-based gameplay" are in bold an italics in a game design document, then I can see how you are saying it is clearly defined. 

If you are saying you have to perform the kind of mind reading that only developers can do to know whether certain gameplay principles were at the core of the game design and if the developers stayed "true to the core", then I'm impressed by the mind reading stuff, that's cool and it makes me want to be a game developer.

This has to be clearly stated, and I was in a hurry so I left out this... (have a final in AI class today...)

Let's discuss Hopfield nets.  I studied old school AI while I was in grad school.  That was a long time ago, so I may be rusty.

If you want we can start another thread elsewhere to get into the deeper game design of WoW, but this thread isn't the place to do so (since in the core design WoW has nothing to do with sandbox.)

Let's not.  Let's stay here and continue our discussion about categorization (since I'm suggesting that a game developer perspective has nothing to do applying a set of rules that you've suggest make "sandbox" clearly defined).

If the qualifiers make the categorization subjective, isn't is difficult to claim that the definition is concrete? 

If you are viewing it from the game play perspective, then probably you would think it is subjective. 

If you knew what subjective means, then probably you would think it is subjective, too.  And you might appreciate just how funny your statement is with "perspective" and "subjective" in the same sentence.

But if you have the time to study different MMO design, then you can see that from the developer's perspective, sandbox definition are concrete with the above mentioned core element.

I'm too old and grumpy to take the time to learn another profession.  If you have the time to study categorization / classification, then you could see... well I'm no fortune teller, who knows what would happen.

Moreover, don't the qualifiers demonstrate a continuum - a world can have more or less restrictions placed on it (from limited to unlimited), more or less freedom in character design (how much), and more or less community-based gameplay (since there are a lot of different ways to implement it)?  And if the "rest" of sandbox related features derive from these three core features, couldn't a game have more or less of these derived features (even if they are neither necessary or sufficient)?  Wouldn't that affect *how* sandboxy a game is - meaning a matter of degree and not one of type or kind?

You have to look at the bigger picture in order to see if the design is sandbox or not. 

Does that mean I'm not looking at it with the right perspective again.  First I have to look at it with a game developer's perspective, now I back way the hell up so I can see the big picture.  Do you also need special glasses to tell a sandbox mmorpg apart using your clearly defined definition, devoid of subjectivity?

A simple way to judge it is this: does the systems offer players the ability to CHANGE the game world, not "their world", but the game world.  And on the design level, are these changes scripted (that means it WILL happen, regardless of anything.  The only thing is WHEN it will happen.) or non-scripted (this is the IF something will happen.  That means, the changes can be un-change by player effort.)

I like simple. 

This doesn't make it simple though, it throws out two features I thought you had proposed as "necessary" features for categorization and only leaves something related to "dynamic world".

Plus, there are some loose definitions here (though that may be due to my perspective).  What is "their world" - you mean, the player's world?  You mean the real world?  You must mean their own personal world - their inner world of the mind?  Or do you mean "their world" inside the game world?  Are you talking about sci-fi mmorpgs, where "their world" means a planet they have stuck their flag in?  This developer talk is way confusing here.

A simple way of looking at this using WoW... Can players seal the Dark Portal up, thus stop the Burning Legion?

Are you really making the argument in the sentence above that because you can find a scripted event (that changes the game world) in game X, that means it is not a sandbox?  We've got a logic problem now.  I think you meant to say that you need to find a non-scripted event in game Y to mean it is a sandbox.  Then my question is how many licks does it take to get to the center how many non-scripted events do you need for a sandbox?

Although I would love to talk about the following, but I have no personal experience with EVE, nor do I have sufficient knowledge of it to discuss in detail with you, thus I will bow out of the following and let others to take care of it...

That doesn't sound fun to talk with someone without personal experience and sufficient knowledge... wait a second, didn't you already claim EVE was a sandbox without that experience and knowledge???  Ah, maybe it was a hypothetical developer judgment you were making about EVE if certain objective conditions existed.  I'll bow out of the secret developer talks.

- snip -

 

Originally posted by vajuras

-snip

1. Freedom in character design - Character advancement - in my opinion, a "true" sandbox game would not have classes, levels, skills or skill points, character statistics, crafting proficiency or the like.  Everyone could do anything - and a "newbie" could do the same things as a "veteran", dependent on player (not character) skill

Interesting that sounds like a fun game. Starport was this game seriously. However, they would reset the server (the hardcore server) which would keep it based on player skill

 

1. Dynamic world - Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are more areas in which to explore, but the security ratings of areas are a type of linearity just as much as difficulty of zones in other mmorpgs

I think in EVE Online a newbie can travel anywhere. In my first few weeks I joined a player corp and went to 0.0. You can go anywhere. I suppose there are of course players that will stop you. you might have a hard time exploring the belts if there is a tough NPC pirate there. You can still go there like I did and test their strength (like I did when I was a newbie you have time to escape if it too much)

1. Dynamic world - Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are different agents in the game (quest givers with a different abstract form of ? over their heads), but your "faction" with their corporation impose a type of linearity just as much as different level quest givers in other mmorpgs (you cannot go to *any* quest giver and ask what's up - you must work through prerequisites to be able to interact with them)

Interesting you did do your homework. I think we agreed that this content can be skipped (since the game has time based XP and you can acquire money any other way). Depends on how you look at it. A newbie can probe out a Level 4 mission and jump in there. He can also assist a player to go there.

1. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design - race is a factor that cannot be overcome

Interesting. I would argue with enough time you can overcome that restriction. Hm, I am starting to get you- you appear to argue for "pure" sandbox gameplay. I get you.

1. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - there are (arbitrary) prerequisites for skills

Yes there are skill trees. That is indeed gated.

1. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character advancement - there a time-based restriction on skills (which in my opinion is a different type of linear character advancement)

Timed Based advancement is a can of worms yeah it does inhibit access to certain equipment, etc

1. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces character level with a group of skill levels
2. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces "classes" with an associated set of skills needed to adequately perform a role in group play
3. Non-core - Restrictions on what different players are able to do based on loot
4. Dynamic world - Restrictions on available character actions - every action that is possible to do given the setting / genre / environment is not allowed - you cannot walk in a starbase, you cannot land on a planet, you cannot start a colony, etc.

Well its not like they prevent you from landing on a planet they just dont exist.

1. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - if you kill an NPC, it will respawn some time later.  You cannot wipe out all pirates from the game forever, they are infinately spawning and any change that you make regarding NPCs will become undone over time if no further action is taken
2. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - what are the ways in which you can truly "affect" the world (besides building an outpost - what is the "affect" of that)?  Can you take over a starbase?  Can you create a new portal between zones?  Can you create a new asteroid field?  Can you create a new blueprint?

Some of those is acutally possible. you can takeover starbases out in 0.0. 0.0 is the player run area as you know I suppose. Yeah, Empire itself is fairly static in many ways. you can build starbridges and give them passwords. You can build or own anything the NPCs have that I know of

Creating a new blueprint - ah like second Life? Now we cant mod the server :(

1. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - there is no in-game system to engage in politics and "change" the rules - can citizens get together in-game and lobby for changes in the security rating of a zone or how security forces operate?

0.0 is intended to be the player run area. You do change the security to make it much safer for all by locking down the 'jumpgates'. you can't hire NPCs or establish your own 'Concord' though. It's totally player run.

1. Community-based gameplay - The economy is not completely character driven - NPCs offer manufactured goods and harvestable materials at prices which compete with player character created or harvested goods and materials

They removed the things like Shuttles. They use that sparingly to control the Economy and to keep the ceilings reasonable (my guess by reading their dev blogs).

1. Community-based gameplay - The economy is not completely character driven - prices for goods get "reset" as there are arbitrary market controls

Not sure what you mean but I'm not really into economy to that level

1. Dynamic world - The pvp is not truly "open" - there are systems (security rating / security forces) that attempt to regulate aggressive actions against new players who may choose to use them (stay in high security space) to avoid player aggression

Its not a hard restriction though. You can attack anyone anytime. You will just suffer consequence which makes it even more sandbox for many / some

1. Freedom in character design - You cannot be a "pure" crafter without *leveling up* (where level up = time instead of some other level)

You can. I was making goods without any skills to help it. Nothing stops you from making Tech I goods. Now to go Tech II there is time involved. However, Tech I items are very marketable. thats what I mainly produce and I've been playing a long time

1. Dynamic world - There not a "large" selection of things to do - this is solely an opinion, but the rather cookie cutter options of quest (ratting) / pvp / resource gathering / crafting / fed-exing goods from point a to point b does not seem quantitatively or qualitatively different from other "linear" mmorpgs

Depends. We earn time based XP. You can float in space and just be Social. You can do the politics. You can salvage, study markets and make a website and ask for ISK. You can run a bank (yes there atre player run banks). You can buy shares in corps. You can simply provide Intel in a Recon. you can explore (exploration profession). You can lockdown gates with bubbles. You can specialize in crafting specific goods. You can simply be a Corp manager and get ISK from the taxes then take that capital and invest. you can be a pirate. you can be a cloaked salvager. you can be a vulture (show up at conclusion of battles to salvage the wrecks). The possibilities are huge for self directred players

1. Dynamic world - There a "large" selection of player-generated goals that are possible - there are other goals than those listed in the actions above (such as those involving corporations), but these do not seem qualitatively different from guilds in other "linear" mmorpgs

I disagree. There are Mercenary corps that do nothing but infiltrate enemy corps and steal billions in assets. there are merc corps that are hired by others merely to wardec their enemies and drive them out of an area. There are corps that apply wide range tactics to invade enemy space by locking down their gates preventing traffic (import/export) for that corp. There is so much other games do not have at all.

Do these violate your core features of a "sandbox" mmorpg?  Are you making a completely objective decision?  "Sandbox" categorization is really a yes / no decision, and not a matter of degree?

 

Forgive me I wanted to really examine the points individually this was interesting post.

No apologies necessary - I appreciate you took the time to read and respond!

You got the point of my post - trying to discuss "pure" sandbox gameplay and whether there is any game that would meet a set of rules for a "sandbox" mmorpg. 

As I've stated before, I think it's a sandbox continuum not a set of conditions that a game has met.  And I do think EVE does a great job of incorporating a LOT of sandbox elements that are appropriate for a mmorpg.  It's not a "sandboxy" as Second Life - but Second Life isn't a mmorpg, either.  So it feels to me that there has to be some give and take on 1) the definition and 2) what features of "sandboxes" and RPGs can be merged (particularly related to character advancement).

You raised good points against my extreme argument, and I enjoyed reading your post.

Originally posted by vajuras

-snip-

Yes the progression through the Agent missions is heavily gated: Levels 1 to 4. However, the game does not force you to engage in the PVE content

The Time Based XP system allows players to roleplay as they please, anyway they please. We are not forced into PVE to advance our avatar.

I hear you re: PVE content being optional - my argument is mostly a semantic one about what the definition of "sandbox" means in mmorpgs and whether its concrete, universally accepted, whether it is a rule based categorization or whether "sandboxihood" is a continuum, etc.

I agree that EVE has a lot of sandbox features in it.

Originally posted by vajuras

-snip-

Interesting, you assert that "RPG" gets in the way of a sandbox. I haven't reached that same conclusion quite yet but maybe one day I will. RPG does inherently rely on "gates".

It's just a theory, more of a thought experiment.  I personally like my games as sandboxy as I can get them.  And even though I'm suggesting the definition of "sandbox" is not concrete, not universally accepted when it comes to mmorpgs, etc., I also think that EVE has more sandbox features than any most other mmorpg I can think of (Ryzom also is way up there - and I thought what they did with the Ring of Ryzom player-created content was a novel and brilliant idea).

Originally posted by vajuras

Originally posted by wjrasmussen

Originally posted by vajuras

Interesting, people cannot even decide what the definition of a sandbox "is" around here it's no small wonder we keep getting EQ clones left & right

 

I've personally always liked wikipedia definition. It's straight forward and simple. Obviously, World of Warcraft does not meet this criteria. The presence of "Traditional Levels" simply disqualify it.

It all boils down to the linear progression. Just becase you can get powerleveled, buy a character at ebay, or what have you doesn't change this fact.

Each to his own though. I merely discuss the widely accepted definition of Sandbox

 

 

I don't see what you are claiming in there.  You do seem to make that claim about levels disqualifying what a sandbox is in many other threads about it.  So was that a slip on your part?  Anyhow, it's mearly a wiki and we know how bad those are.

IMO, if you can't get beyond the limited belief that a level game could be sandbox, then perhaps you don't have a sandbox mind?...lol.

 

Traditional Level based games are too linear. Levels presents extremely gated content making games progress like a Linear Level based game whereas gamer goes from Level 1 to the End.

Take WoW. Character development is a huge part of that game. Players are firmly directed from area to area. If a vet tries to stay in say- the newbie area he will get no XP. He is virtually pushed out

Open ended games allow you yto choose any area you enjoy and stay there

Nothing prevents a vet in EVE from doing a Level 1 mission. I do it all the time with friends and I can dynamicall adjust my power scale to make myself completely even with my newbie pals. That way we all enjoy the challenge.

 

Does anything prevent a noob in EVE from talking to the highest level agents / contacts? 

Originally posted by vajuras

Interesting, people cannot even decide what the definition of a sandbox "is" around here it's no small wonder we keep getting EQ clones left & right

 

I've personally always liked wikipedia definition. It's straight forward and simple. Obviously, World of Warcraft does not meet this criteria. The presence of "Traditional Levels" simply disqualify it.

It all boils down to the linear progression. Just becase you can get powerleveled, buy a character at ebay, or what have you doesn't change this fact.

Each to his own though. I merely discuss the widely accepted definition of Sandbox

 

Also, you may want to re-read the wikipedia article you quoted.  It's about level design (where levels = traditional game levels like World 1 in Mario) not character levels.  It's about linear progression through game levels (areas), not at all about powerleveling to reach a higher character level.

Originally posted by Flyte27

Freedom in character design - Character advancement - in my opinion, a "true" sandbox game would not have classes, levels, skills or skill points, character statistics, crafting proficiency or the like.  Everyone could do anything - and a "newbie" could do the same things as a "veteran", dependent on player (not character) skill

I don't agree with this assesment at all.  Without any form of character progression the game would just be an FPS or something of that ilk.  RPGs have always been about developing your character over time and having them become stronger as you learn new things.

I agree, which is why I feel like there is some tension between a prototypical "sandbox" game (non-linear level design) and the "rpg" in mmorpgs.  I agree that RPGs have always had some form of character advancement (either with classes/levels or other schemes in games such as GURPS or the like).  Which is why I feel like "sandboxiness" is a continuum with its most extreme point not obtainable in a mmorpg without bending or breaking a core aspect of RPGs (character advancement / progression).

Originally posted by vajuras

Interesting, people cannot even decide what the definition of a sandbox "is" around here it's no small wonder we keep getting EQ clones left & right

 

I've personally always liked wikipedia definition. It's straight forward and simple. Obviously, World of Warcraft does not meet this criteria. The presence of "Traditional Levels" simply disqualify it.

It all boils down to the linear progression. Just becase you can get powerleveled, buy a character at ebay, or what have you doesn't change this fact.

Each to his own though. I merely discuss the widely accepted definition of Sandbox

 

The wikipedia definition is solely about non-linear level design in video, but you assert that you are discussing the widely accepted definition of what a sandbox mmorpg is?

If some people aren't even willing to enter in to an in-depth discussion of what a sandbox "is" around here, do they deserve to get anything but EQ clones left and right?

Can we really not have a civil discussion about what "sandbox" means in relation to mmorpgs?

One of the things I'm interested in is if there is a tension between "sandbox" (open-ended, freedom) and the RPG part of mmorpg (traditional rpgs with classes, levels)?  Is there an inherent tension between sandbox freedom and RPG character progression?

Originally posted by Forcan

Originally posted by Mahni

Questions:

1. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg clearly defined in your opinion?
2. Do "sandbox" mmorpgs have a list of necessary and / or sufficient features?
3. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a concrete concept or an aspirational concept?
4. Is a "sandbox" mmorpg a matter of type/kind or a matter of degree?
5. Is EVE a true "sandbox" mmorpg?

I ask because some people in the thread treat these matters as if they are black and white, where I think of them as open for a worthwhile debate between gamers who may or may not like sandbox mmorpgs

 

 

1.) Yes, the "sandbox" design is clearly defined (although implemented differently) in different genre of video game.

2.) As I've stated before, there are core elements of sandbox design, and elements associated and/or derived from these core elements.  The core are as follow:

• I.) Dynamic World (this is the "open-ended" definition given to sandbox world - a dynamic world where there is limited or almost no restriction to interact and/or affect the game world from a physical or the abstract [such as economy]...)
• II.) Freedom in Character Design (this is one of the major elements which many used to judge if a game is "sandbox" or not - how much freedom is given in Character Design (not just at one stage of the game, but at all stage...), and how much choice are given in Character Progression System.)
• III.) Community-based Gameplay [MMORPG only] (this is the part where can have a lot of ways to implement into the game, and it can all be debated in detail if needed.  The biggest reason for this is because of the inter-dependency in the Character Design.)

And the rest are derived from and/or associate to one or more core elements.

3.) Yes, it is a concrete concept with many examples existing already.  When you compare games to see if they are sandbox or not, you do not just look at what the system offers, but rather if the system stays true to the core elements of sandbox.  Some may want to re-invent the whole idea of sandbox, or different ways of implementation, but most would keep the core elements as the basis of their sandbox design.

4.) Yes, you could say it is a type of MMORPG, just like you can say there are linear MMORPG.  And based on the how the core systems are designed, you can clearly categorize if a game is sandbox or not.

 

5.) EVE is a sandbox, if using the core elements listed as above:

 

• I.) Dynamic World : I shouldn't have to explain this for EVE, but yes, the game world in EVE is dynamic in the sense that players are taking control of the game world, not developers' pre-scripted system.
• II.) Freedom in Character Design : This can be argued, but the present system give the players the freedom to change their avatar in the form of the ships.  The ships can be modified with different parts to fit the play-style of the players.
• III.) Community-based Gameplay [MMORPG only] : This is seen in how guilds and craft are designed in the game, and these focus on the inter-dependency of the systems (how the combat characters and crafter affect the outcome of the dynamic world.

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that the following are jointly sufficient and necessary to classify something as a sandbox (mmorpg):

1. Dynamic world
2. Freedom in character design
3. Community-based gameplay (guilds, crafting)

Saying that the "rest" are derived from and / or associate with these "core" elements just keeps the feature list abstract enough that additional necessary and / or sufficient features can be added.

You are making the strong claim that sandboxes are clearly defined, but your feature set uses words like "limited" restriction on how dynamic the world is, "how much" freedom there is in character design, and a "lot of [different] ways to implement" community-based gameplay. 

These qualifiers make the classification subjective, not objective at all.  I could see where someone might think that a game like WoW features a dynamic world (with limited restrictions), freedom in character design through choice of classes, tradeskills, and talents, and has implemented community-based gameplay through guilds and an economic system.  Probably a bit too much wiggle room in those definitions.

If the qualifiers make the categorization subjective, isn't is difficult to claim that the definition is concrete? 

Moreover, don't the qualifiers demonstrate a continuum - a world can have more or less restrictions placed on it (from limited to unlimited), more or less freedom in character design (how much), and more or less community-based gameplay (since there are a lot of different ways to implement it)?  And if the "rest" of sandbox related features derive from these three core features, couldn't a game have more or less of these derived features (even if they are neither necessary or sufficient)?  Wouldn't that affect *how* sandboxy a game is - meaning a matter of degree and not one of type or kind?

Lastly, you've pointed out in other posts that others aren't being objective enough, but you present subjective definitions.  You've pointed out that in WoW you "cannot wipe anything out without it being reset" - isn't that ALSO true for NPCs in EVE, which you claim is a sandbox mmorpg?  You've scolded others for not answering your questions, but you've ignored my reasons why I believe that EVE violates the same core features that you've listed.  I'll repeat them below, classifed by your core features:

1. Freedom in character design - Character advancement - in my opinion, a "true" sandbox game would not have classes, levels, skills or skill points, character statistics, crafting proficiency or the like.  Everyone could do anything - and a "newbie" could do the same things as a "veteran", dependent on player (not character) skill
2. Dynamic world - Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are more areas in which to explore, but the security ratings of areas are a type of linearity just as much as difficulty of zones in other mmorpgs
3. Dynamic world - Restrictions on open-world exploration - there are different agents in the game (quest givers with a different abstract form of ? over their heads), but your "faction" with their corporation impose a type of linearity just as much as different level quest givers in other mmorpgs (you cannot go to *any* quest giver and ask what's up - you must work through prerequisites to be able to interact with them)
4. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design - race is a factor that cannot be overcome
5. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - there are (arbitrary) prerequisites for skills
6. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character advancement - there a time-based restriction on skills (which in my opinion is a different type of linear character advancement)
7. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces character level with a group of skill levels
8. Freedom in character design - Restrictions on character design / advancement - it replaces "classes" with an associated set of skills needed to adequately perform a role in group play
9. Non-core - Restrictions on what different players are able to do based on loot
10. Dynamic world - Restrictions on available character actions - every action that is possible to do given the setting / genre / environment is not allowed - you cannot walk in a starbase, you cannot land on a planet, you cannot start a colony, etc.
11. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - if you kill an NPC, it will respawn some time later.  You cannot wipe out all pirates from the game forever, they are infinately spawning and any change that you make regarding NPCs will become undone over time if no further action is taken
12. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - what are the ways in which you can truly "affect" the world (besides building an outpost - what is the "affect" of that)?  Can you take over a starbase?  Can you create a new portal between zones?  Can you create a new asteroid field?  Can you create a new blueprint?
13. Dynamic world - The world is not truly dynamic - there is no in-game system to engage in politics and "change" the rules - can citizens get together in-game and lobby for changes in the security rating of a zone or how security forces operate?
14. Community-based gameplay - The economy is not completely character driven - NPCs offer manufactured goods and harvestable materials at prices which compete with player character created or harvested goods and materials
15. Community-based gameplay - The economy is not completely character driven - prices for goods get "reset" as there are arbitrary market controls
16. Dynamic world - The pvp is not truly "open" - there are systems (security rating / security forces) that attempt to regulate aggressive actions against new players who may choose to use them (stay in high security space) to avoid player aggression
17. Freedom in character design - You cannot be a "pure" crafter without *leveling up* (where level up = time instead of some other level)
18. Dynamic world - There not a "large" selection of things to do - this is solely an opinion, but the rather cookie cutter options of quest (ratting) / pvp / resource gathering / crafting / fed-exing goods from point a to point b does not seem quantitatively or qualitatively different from other "linear" mmorpgs
19. Dynamic world - There a "large" selection of player-generated goals that are possible - there are other goals than those listed in the actions above (such as those involving corporations), but these do not seem qualitatively different from guilds in other "linear" mmorpgs

Do these violate your core features of a "sandbox" mmorpg?  Are you making a completely objective decision?  "Sandbox" categorization is really a yes / no decision, and not a matter of degree?