Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by 5thofFikus

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

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

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

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

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

One way is discovered over time by the community, the other, developers reward themepark gameplay more heavily than sandbox. Is that true?

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by 5thofFikus

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

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

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

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

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

There is a right way to play Skyrim

There is a right way to play EVE

What you described was not the "right" way, only the most efficient way to reach a particular goal. The reasons why and how people play games can be vastly different.

For instance, I've logged over 600 hours in Skyrim, and I've STILL not seen all the content ! That's just because of the way I play, not because there's an epic amount of content...

Originally posted by Quirhid

Admit it. You are to rest of the MMORPG players what LARPers are to P&P role players. "Regular people" snicker at people who play D&D but everyone laughs at LARPers (no offense meant - but they do).

 

Wrong. Only true MMO nerds, that would be us, even know the meaning of 'themepark' and 'sandbox', the rest (90%) just follow trends, marketing and whatever Blizzard happens to release. FFA PvP is the only real thing that alienates most themepark tards from sandboxes.

Sandbox games just are harder to make, it really is that simple.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

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

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

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

It would be like if I said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except for the fact that sandbox was used in reference to games before themepark was, so the term is not defined by comparison with themepark.

If you are suggesting that the "SPRPG" concept of sandbox is completely different than the "MMORPG" concept of sandbox, then that's ummm...stupid and confusing.  They are both games, and honestly, they both have a lot in common.  Trying to give the SAME jargon adjective two different meanings in two slightly different contexts in just a recipe for confusion.  Especially since some SPRPGs come out with an MMORPG based on the IP.  Would Skyrim lose its sandbox card if they were to make an actual MMORPG version of it?

In addition, even if we do accept your "player made content" definition of sandbox, it still doesn't really accurately describe even MMORPG games that we know to be sandboxes.  For instance, in UO, you could build houses and place vendors.  Other players could then go to your house and buy crap on hang out.

But to be honest, you really didn't spend most of your time in UO building houses or hanging out in other players' houses.  You may have had meetings there or whatever, but for the VAST MAJORITY of my time in UO I was doing things like exploring dungeons, farming monsters, PvP, etc.  And all of this was DEVELOPER CREATED content.  UO has a housing system, but I hardly think that it defines the game.

Also, how the heck do you define "player created content?"  Because really, all that stuff you use for a house was made by the developer.  You're just putting it somewhere...you didn't actually make anything.

And on the other side of the coin, you could really consider anything that the players do which was not explicitily designed by the developers to be player made content.  LIke if the developers put a chessboard in the game that has no actual rules, but where you can move around the pieces.  If two players use this board to play an actual game of chess...is this player created content?  The devs didn't explicitly code the rules into the game, so the players are basically "creating" a game within the game.

And then what about games with persistent keep possession and sieges like DAoC or WAR.  When players take a keep from other players, they possess it until it is taken back.  Thus they have permenantly affected the world.  Wouldn't this be player created content?  And yet DAoC and WAR are definitely themeparks.

Finally what about crafting in WoW, and the auction house?  That could be considered player made content...

No...player made content is not what defines a sandbox game.  This should be fairly easy to see because if you removed player housing from UO...it would have still been UO, and still been a sandbox.  Player housing was NOT what defined that game.  If anything, the open world and the sheer amount of freedom it gave you was what defined that games, and that's what made it a sandbox.

Originally posted by busdriver

Sandbox games just are harder to make, it really is that simple.

"Themeparks tards", eh? Well, do you have any explanation to support your argument there?

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

Originally posted by Axehilt
 

There is a right way to play Skyrim

There is a right way to play EVE

 

What you described was not the "right" way, only the most efficient way to reach a particular goal. The reasons why and how people play games can be vastly different.

For instance, I've logged over 600 hours in Skyrim, and I've STILL not seen all the content ! That's just because of the way I play, not because there's an epic amount of content...

 

You can play any game like that by standing around picking your nose, catching butterflies and smelling the all the flowers.

In every single game out there you can do that. Nothing stops you.

Originally posted by Creslin321

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

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

I suggest you go and post that on rpgcodex :-)

I find it amusing that people are so derailed on the definition of 'sandbox'.

The original poster's statement was confirmed from a market point of view.

It isn't that hard really. If a company is going to invest time/$$$ into an MMO, they'd like to see some evidence that there is a 'large' (1M+) market for it.

When the largest is EVE with 400-500k subs, it is perfectly normal for companies to conclude 'there is not massive sandbox mmo crowd'.

Originally posted by jpnz

I find it amusing that people are so derailed on the definition of 'sandbox'.

The original poster's statement was confirmed from a market point of view.

It isn't that hard really. If a company is going to invest time/$$$ into an MMO, they'd like to see some evidence that there is a 'large' (1M+) market for it.

When the largest is EVE with 400-500k subs, it is perfectly normal for companies to conclude 'there is not massive sandbox mmo crowd'.

I havent seen anything to indicate EVE has broken the 400k barrier. It still lags behind EQ at its height, and that was 8 yrs ago. Without selling Plex to get in on the gold seller market, I doubt EVE would sport more than 250k.

All that bullshit aside, I am surprised PVE/Owen sandboxers dont rail about getting rid of FFA PVP as an accepted norm in sandboxes.

When you give folks the ability to grief others into quitting, you are fighting a losing cause. UO figured this out over a decade ago.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Suraknar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

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

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

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

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

Did you fail to read my post?

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, a voice of reason from the other side.

But let me kick your can a little bit.

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

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

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

 

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

You are right, adding Housing to WoW will not make it a Sandbox game even if adding the Housing will add the Quality/feature of player created Content.

This is why, Player Created Content is not a defining Factor of a Sandbox MMO.

The basis of a Sandbox game is non-directed experience, or Freedom or non linear gameplay, all the terms are interchangeable.

The the rest of the features which as player we have come to expect from Sandbox MMO's are sinply following Logically as one is garnishing the Design with more variety and things to do for the players, since they have that freedom.

The same process applies to Themeparks, it is a Directed Experience, or no Freedom, or Linear Gameplay. The rest of the features that we have come to expect from such a design are following logically as the game is being garnished.

if you want to direct the player down a certain path of progression from point A to Point D, then you will create an Area for progressing from Point A to be and another for progressing from B to C and then from C to D, you can add some crafting for Variety, an Auction House so that players interact duringthis progresion, you can add a couple of instances in key points such as for the transition from B to C and another for C to D. At D you may further the experience by adding a Raid and in anticipation of E.

How does Housing fit in all that? Well, it is low priority it would distract the player from the Directed path, while nothing prevents one from adding it as a feature, it is not required by the design. Furthermore, your time and effort as a designer and develloper would be spent better in making the priority elements more enjoyable, adding instance raids and quests rather than develloping a housing system that is rather disconnected and on the side of the direction you want players to gfollow in your game.

Converselly, if you follow the same Design process now for a Sandbox game, Housing becomes a priority as a feature, while not necesarilly required it is better to have it than not having it since you let the player Free and to set their own goals in the world and not directing them. So a given day the player may just decide to gather berries to make some colors in order to use as Dye for the new Furniture they built a couple of days ago and further decorate their house. While the next day this player may simply decide to spend the Game session adventuring with friends in a Dungeon. Player has the freedom to decide. Housing is a Good feature to have in a Sandbox game.

But it is not necessary in order to make that game a Sandbox per se. It doe snot define your game, what defines it is whether you want to direct players or whether you want to let them undirected.

Lastly prioritizing may not seem as important to the players but in devellopment where you have to meet milestones and have a budget to manage time spent on the right places can make or break your project.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 

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

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

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

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

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

It's all in how a game plays.

 I don't understand internet people.  Because they can type something it must be true.

EVE fucntions in exactly the way that you state would turn Skyrim into a themepark.  Zones that have mobs of set "levels".  EVE is a sandbox.  CCP, the deveopers, guys who are responcible for actually making a game, promote it as a sandbox and are dedicated to sandbox gameplay. 

One of the reason World of Darkness is taking so long, aside from not being a very large development team, is that they're literally converting the EVE system over to a vampire game.  They're dedicated to creating another sandbox, to the point that it's the primary design goal for the game.  It's even going to be a single shard game.

"How a game playes" is 100% a reflection of what kind of game it is.  If it's a simulation you would expect it to play like a simulation.  Gran Tourismo isn't billed as a racing simulatro, but plays like an arcade racer is it?  A themepark isn't going to play like a sandbox MMO because it's not.  Just because you have choice in WoW doesn't change what the game is.  Sure, I don't have to do quests I could just grind mobs, and poeple do do that.  I don't have to leave a zone I can just stay in one place, I can turn off XP, but none of that matters.  The game is designed around linear progression and revolving content.  You level from 1 to the cap, you move from zone to zone, you do one dungeon to get gear that allows you to do the next dungeon.  Whether or not you have to adhear to these things isn't really relevant because ignoring them inevitably means you're not playing the game.

Sim city isn't a sandbox, not even the sims is a sandbox.  You can effectively "do whatever you want" in both of those games, but the one thing you can't do that prevents them from being a sandbox is ignore the objectives. 

Gary mod is a sandbox, because it has no objective, not because you can build stuff.  Minecraft is considered a sandbox, not that I entirely agree with that, because like garys mod it has no objective in creative mode, not because you build stuff.

UO is a sandbox becuase there is no objective.  The developers didn't say, "make a character, level it, then run dungeons."  They gave players a world and said go play in it.

EVE, there is no objective in EVE, just a bunch of stuff you can choose to do. 

The ONLY player created content that a sandbox needs to be a sandbox is the ability for players to create their own objectives.  The moment a developer puts in objectives that the player has to achieve to progress the game, it stops being a sandbox.  You don't even have to train skills in EVE if you don't want to.

Building, world interaction, player created content, those are all just divergent gameplay.  Divergent gameplay is kind of the backbone of a GOOD sandbox. 

Sandbox comes from way back in the day, before even daggerfall, when single player RPG's would come with a gameplay mode called sandbox, or poeple would mod it into the game.  Sandbox mode turned off all the objectives in the game, and usually allowed you to use any item without restriction. 

It's the internet age that's destroyed the word.  You guys are trying to turn it into something it never meant.  Sandbox games existed long before any game ever allowed you to build anything, or change anything in the game world.  Now we have a generation of gamers who've never actually played an RPG that had a game mode called sandbox, and instead they're introduced through games like minecraft. 

Like someone else said.  It's all about the ease of development.  It's a development nightmare to create a game that puts thousands of people into the same virtual space without structure.  A themepark is a lot easier to make and balance; everything is structured by the developers and gives them more controll over the content.

And like I said in my earlier posts.  Everything you find in a themepark game you should find in a GOOD sandbox game.  The playerbase is as large as you're willing to make it based on the quality and setting of the game.  As long as it provides the freedom to do what I want, when I want, with no develper defined objectives, it's a sandbox. 

A good sandbox MMO has the potential to be as succesfull as any themepark mmo.  Afterall, it should be providing you the exact same content, and then some.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Quirhid

Indeed! I'm calling BS on the notion that there is this mythical mass of players that want a sandbox virtual world MMO. If there was one, I would hear about it, devs would see it, and there would be games for that crowd. As it stands, there's hardly one, and it has been like that for so long that merely saying there hasn't been the right one yet is not going to cut it. Many have tried, many have failed and even if these games were any good they would've showed much more interest from the public, don't you think?

How can you have a "massive" virtual world when you only have a handful of players to fill it. And how can you get funding to something that has such a small audience. You are doomed to wander from indie game to indie game...

Admit it. You are to rest of the MMORPG players what LARPers are to P&P role players. "Regular people" snicker at people who play D&D but everyone laughs at LARPers (no offense meant - but they do).

Ben "Yahtzee" Crosshaw hit the nail in the head: -"Eve players are to nerds what nerds are to normal people."

Even if some recent themeparks have failed or will fail in your eyes, I'm quite confident in saying that there will be no major shift towards sandboxes of any sort. People still love themeparks - they just don't like shitty games, thats all.

NOBODY here ever claimed there is a massive crowd for a PURE Sandbox! Nobody. I don't know whom you are talking to here.

 

What people rightfully DID claim however is, that many would enjoy sandbox ELEMENTS to enrich otherwise sterile and limited pure themeparks. And I think there would be many, who would enjoy such elements. Why people always must try to negate an argument by taking it to an extreme nobody really said is beyond me.

Wooo there pal,,,, MANY people on this forum said just that. Especially when Skyrim came out on 11/11/11. This forum was flooded with Sandbox talk in regards to the Skyrim Sells.

But most people on this forum fail to realize is that Skyrim/Oblivion are Open World Themepark RPG. Nothing Sandbox about them. They are themepark like Themepark MMORPG.

They just happen to be Open World RPGs unlike other console RPGs. this is something most people seem to confuse the terms. Open World != Sandbox.

WoW as a Open World, GW2 has a Open World, Rift has a Open World. Doesnt mean its a Sandbox....

GTA and TES been known to be called Sandboxes due to them being Open World. But they arent.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

NOBODY here ever claimed there is a massive crowd for a PURE Sandbox! Nobody. I don't know whom you are talking to here.

 

What people rightfully DID claim however is, that many would enjoy sandbox ELEMENTS to enrich otherwise sterile and limited pure themeparks. And I think there would be many, who would enjoy such elements. Why people always must try to negate an argument by taking it to an extreme nobody really said is beyond me.

Wooo there pal,,,, MANY people on this forum said just that. Especially when Skyrim came out on 11/11/11. This forum was flooded with Sandbox talk in regards to the Skyrim Sells.

 

But most people on this forum fail to realize is that Skyrim/Oblivion are Open World Themepark RPG. Nothing Sandbox about them. They are themepark like Themepark MMORPG.

They just happen to be Open World RPGs unlike other console RPGs. this is something most people seem to confuse the terms. Open World != Sandbox.

 

WoW as a Open World, GW2 has a Open World, Rift has a Open World. Doesnt mean its a Sandbox....

 

GTA and TES been known to be called Sandboxes due to them being Open World. But they arent.

 Wooo there pall,,,, YOU'RE as wrong as the guy you quoted.

You like a lot of other people around here have taken to confusing a feature that is found in both sandbox and nonsandbox games as being anything other then a FEATURE= open world.

Kind of like housing= sandbox and it has nothing to do with sandbox, it's just a FEATURE that people have come to expect in a sandbox, but one that can be found in a nonsandbox game. 

I suppose next you'll say that UO isn't a sandbox, even though it fudimentally functions the same as any TES game.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Quirhid

Indeed! I'm calling BS on the notion that there is this mythical mass of players that want a sandbox virtual world MMO. If there was one, I would hear about it, devs would see it, and there would be games for that crowd. As it stands, there's hardly one, and it has been like that for so long that merely saying there hasn't been the right one yet is not going to cut it. Many have tried, many have failed and even if these games were any good they would've showed much more interest from the public, don't you think?

How can you have a "massive" virtual world when you only have a handful of players to fill it. And how can you get funding to something that has such a small audience. You are doomed to wander from indie game to indie game...

Admit it. You are to rest of the MMORPG players what LARPers are to P&P role players. "Regular people" snicker at people who play D&D but everyone laughs at LARPers (no offense meant - but they do).

Ben "Yahtzee" Crosshaw hit the nail in the head: -"Eve players are to nerds what nerds are to normal people."

Even if some recent themeparks have failed or will fail in your eyes, I'm quite confident in saying that there will be no major shift towards sandboxes of any sort. People still love themeparks - they just don't like shitty games, thats all.

NOBODY here ever claimed there is a massive crowd for a PURE Sandbox! Nobody. I don't know whom you are talking to here.

 

What people rightfully DID claim however is, that many would enjoy sandbox ELEMENTS to enrich otherwise sterile and limited pure themeparks. And I think there would be many, who would enjoy such elements. Why people always must try to negate an argument by taking it to an extreme nobody really said is beyond me.

Wooo there pal,,,, MANY people on this forum said just that. Especially when Skyrim came out on 11/11/11. This forum was flooded with Sandbox talk in regards to the Skyrim Sells.

 

But most people on this forum fail to realize is that Skyrim/Oblivion are Open World Themepark RPG. Nothing Sandbox about them. They are themepark like Themepark MMORPG.

They just happen to be Open World RPGs unlike other console RPGs. this is something most people seem to confuse the terms. Open World != Sandbox.

 

WoW as a Open World, GW2 has a Open World, Rift has a Open World. Doesnt mean its a Sandbox....

 

GTA and TES been known to be called Sandboxes due to them being Open World. But they arent.

Everyone else would beg to differ...

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(series)

The Grand Theft Auto series belongs to a genre of free-roaming video games called sandbox games

Source:  http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/

A sandbox style game is any game were you can choose to not further the main storyline at will. Most popular of this topic would be the Grand Theft Auto series, but games such as SaGa, Legend of Mana, Shenmue, Monster Hunter, Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls,Assassin's Creed, Xenoblade, Dark Souls, and even technically Burnout Paradise, are examples of this concept as well.

Source:  http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/games/

Several sandbox games listed...if you want to get an idea of what sandbox actually means, check this out.

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

NOBODY here ever claimed there is a massive crowd for a PURE Sandbox! Nobody. I don't know whom you are talking to here.

 

What people rightfully DID claim however is, that many would enjoy sandbox ELEMENTS to enrich otherwise sterile and limited pure themeparks. And I think there would be many, who would enjoy such elements. Why people always must try to negate an argument by taking it to an extreme nobody really said is beyond me.

Wooo there pal,,,, MANY people on this forum said just that. Especially when Skyrim came out on 11/11/11. This forum was flooded with Sandbox talk in regards to the Skyrim Sells.

 

But most people on this forum fail to realize is that Skyrim/Oblivion are Open World Themepark RPG. Nothing Sandbox about them. They are themepark like Themepark MMORPG.

They just happen to be Open World RPGs unlike other console RPGs. this is something most people seem to confuse the terms. Open World != Sandbox.

 

WoW as a Open World, GW2 has a Open World, Rift has a Open World. Doesnt mean its a Sandbox....

 

GTA and TES been known to be called Sandboxes due to them being Open World. But they arent.

 Wooo there pall,,,, YOU'RE as wrong as the guy you quoted.

You like a lot of other people around here have taken to confusing a feature that is found in both sandbox and nonsandbox games as being anything other then a FEATURE= open world.

Kind of like housing= sandbox and it has nothing to do with sandbox, it's just a FEATURE that people have come to expect in a sandbox, but one that can be found in a nonsandbox game. 

I suppose next you'll say that UO isn't a sandbox, even though it fudimentally functions the same as any TES game.

no offense taken, but please show me where I was wrong.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

 Wooo there pall,,,, YOU'RE as wrong as the guy you quoted.

You like a lot of other people around here have taken to confusing a feature that is found in both sandbox and nonsandbox games as being anything other then a FEATURE= open world.

Kind of like housing= sandbox and it has nothing to do with sandbox, it's just a FEATURE that people have come to expect in a sandbox, but one that can be found in a nonsandbox game. 

I suppose next you'll say that UO isn't a sandbox, even though it fudimentally functions the same as any TES game.

no offense taken, but please show me where I was wrong.

 My responce was pretty clear why.  Or you could read a few posts up to the other one I wrote explaining that sandbox gameplay means no objetives, and only means no objectives.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

No objectives. 

It's what it meant 20 years ago before there was ever an MMO, before garys mod, before minecraft.  It's exactly what it meant when developers included a game mode called sandbox in singleplayer RPG's that simply allowed you to play the game without any objectives. 

It is what it mean, and always has meant.  Just because some of you guys decide to spout on about how it has to have this or has to have this doesn't change what has always mean, it only means your all wrong.

PS: That's why the TES games are sandbox.  You can IGNORE THE OBJECTIVES.  It's was the design principles that Chris Weaver set out to achieve when he created Arena.  An RPG that allowed people to simply play without adhearing to the objectives available in the game. 

(corection, arena, not daggerfall.)

 

Source:  http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/A sandbox style game is any game were you can choose to not further the main storyline at will.

 

So in Rift, since its Themepark MMO after all, I cant play the game without following main storyline?

yeah ok.....

(sarcasm)

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

 

Source:  http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/A sandbox style game is any game were you can choose to not further the main storyline at will.

 

So in Rift, since its Themepark MMO after all, I cant play the game without following main storyline?

 

yeah ok.....

(sarcasm)

 No, because you further it by the shear fact of playing.  YOUR CHARACTER is tied to the storyline, you can't get around it. 

The storyline is an objective.  By playig you are taking part in the storylie and therefore taking part in the objective.  You can't get around the structure gameplay of Rift.

Just like your sarcasm clearly shows, you know that.

If you played Skyrim, or any other TES game, you know that you are not bound to any storyline outside of "you were a prisoner, now your free, do what you want".  You should know, if you played any TES game, that you never have to adhere to any objective in the game.  You're not required, or forced to do anything.

PS: You may not enjoy a game that doesn't put goals in front of you, but that doesn't change the facts. 

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

 

Source:  http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/A sandbox style game is any game were you can choose to not further the main storyline at will.

 

So in Rift, since its Themepark MMO after all, I cant play the game without following main storyline?

 

yeah ok.....

(sarcasm)

The minute you create a character and start doing quests in the tutorial the only way to get past it is following the linear story.

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

 

Source:  http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/A sandbox style game is any game were you can choose to not further the main storyline at will.

 

So in Rift, since its Themepark MMO after all, I cant play the game without following main storyline?

 

yeah ok.....

(sarcasm)

 No, because you further it by the shear fact of playing.  YOUR CHARACTER is tied to the storyline, you can't get around it. 

The storyline is an objective.  By playig you are taking part in the storylie and therefore taking part in the objective.  You can't get around the structure gameplay of Rift.

Just like your sarcasm clearly shows, you know that.

If you played Skyrim, or any other TES game, you know that you are not bound to any storyline outside of "you were a prisoner, now your free, do what you want".  You should know, if you played any TES game, that you never have to adhere to any objective in the game.  You're not required, or forced to do anything.

 

PS: You may not enjoy a game that doesn't put goals in front of you, but that doesn't change the facts. 

using your logic, how is it that you can PLAY SKYRIM and not get involved in the story?

come on, I am waiting for a answer pal.