Theme Park vs Sandbox, What Do The Players Think?

[Kooto]

Theme park lvl1 - max lvl. Sandbox max lvl end game.

[ImperialSun]

A MMORPG along the lines of SWG is the perfect blend imo.

 

SWG was based in a sandbox game world which had player created content, towns with player driven economies, mayoral elections housing etc etc.

 

Maybe 40% of the game however was based on the themepark formula. An extensive series of themepark legacy quests took a character up to about level 20 and there were various themepark zones on different planets such as Jabbas palace, Emporers Retreat and Rebel Base which all offered extensive themepark content in addition to the sandbox content, dungeons, raids etc.

 

The structure and routine of a themepark progression model, wrapped up in a sandbox world which offers you freedom, content and proper exploration etc for when you feel like something more free form is definitely the way to go imo.

 

Driz

[Tal-N]

I think both can co-exist. All sandbox games are is bunch of worlds with random quests to do and enough points of interest scattered about to make it with wandering around aimlessly.

 

You can easily create that alongside a linear storyline.

[jarjarloves]

And how could you do that in SWG? (and equally how could you do that in UO? And EvE?)

 

Could you dig a tunnel? Could you make a lake? Could you reshape a mountain (or climb every mountain?) Build a castle to you own specific design? Could you plant a forest? Could you control a servers economy?

 

 

 

There's no game that has the freedom to do whatever you want.

 

Even up coming games like Archeage don't have that complete freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But to go back to the orginal point a game with more freedom and less restrictions is more sand boxy, hence EQ1 (original) was more sand boxy then SWTOR is now.

 

 

 

you can't do it UO in SWG aside from player made cities and building fortress and bases in the real world that you could attack and defend you also had the wide range of professions and crafting. I have never seen another MMO that had crafting quite like SWG.

YOu could very much build houses and castles in SWG to your own design as well as put them almost anywhere. Many player made cities rivield the actual cities in game.

 

 

EQ1 didn't HAVE more freedom just less content. You where still restricted on where you could go due to your level.

 

 

 

As for EVE pretty much this can sum it up

 

http://kotaku.com/5137602/eve-online-banker-robs-from-the-rich-gives-to-himself

 

http://kotaku.com/5637300/you-shouldnt-trust-eve-online-players

 

http://kotaku.com/5662732/the-15000-space-battle

 

http://kotaku.com/5163287/eve-online-scandals-are-good-for-business

 

http://kotaku.com/204528/massive-intergalactic-conflict-starts-in-eve-online

 

http://kotaku.com/5830482/oh-look-another-multizillion+spacedollar-scam-hit-eve-online

 

if you don't get it now I fear you never will.

[ImperialSun]

I think both can co-exist. All sandbox games are is bunch of worlds with random quests to do and enough points of interest scattered about to make it with wandering around aimlessly.

 

You can easily create that alongside a linear storyline.

 

I see a lot of this critiscism about sandbox games. My experience of SWG was yes you could just grind mobs in the wilderness and rely on random, dynamic spawn quests.

 

However if you wanted to you could level up almost exclusively on the themepark style questing and story arcs.

 

Sandbox does not necessarily mean empty game world with no story and random unlinked quests...

 

Driz

[Goretzu]

you can't do it UO in SWG aside from player made cities and building fortress and bases in the real world that you could attack and defend you also had the wide range of professions and crafting. I have never seen another MMO that had crafting quite like SWG.

YOu could very much build houses and castles in SWG to your own design as well as put them almost anywhere. Many player made cities rivield the actual cities in game.

 

Again I ask you what in UO could you not do of this that made it a non-"sand box" game in your view?

 

 

And why if you couldn't dig a tunnel or build a lake or build something to your own exact design (not an identikit made of up pre-made objects) how could it truly be a "sand box"?

 

More sand boxy? Yes. But a true Sand Box? No, not even close.

 

EQ1 didn't HAVE more freedom just less content. You where still restricted on where you could go due to your level.

 

But none level bases restriction doesn't equal a sand box, it just equals none level based restriction.

 

You've got a set of weird arguments where X = must be sand box and Y = cannot be..... yet they don't make sense across games you claim to be either/or.

 

 

 

As for EVE pretty much this can sum it up

 

if you don't get it now I fear you never will.

 

Being able to trick people out stuff in game still doesn't make it a "sand box" game, as I said people were doing this back in EQ1 with player casinos.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Goretzu

[jarjarloves]

Again I ask you what in UO could you not do of this that made in non-sand box?

 

 

 

 

But none level bases restriction doesn't equal a sand box, it just equals none level based restriction.

 

You've got a set of weird arguments where X = must be sand box and Y = cannot be..... yet they don't make sense across game you claim to be either.

 

 

 

 

 

Being able to trick people out stuff in game still doesn't make it a "sand box" game, as I said people were doing this back in EQ1 with player casinos.

 

maybe you haven't played UO but all the Player housing in UO is sharded. It was for a very brief time allowed to build player houses in the actual world but that lasted less then 1 year before they added shards.

 

 

I see you didn't read the articles. Such as the one where the two largest corporations declared war and sent over 10,000 players into massive battles that spanned almost an entire year? Destroying entire guilds by having spies on the inside that are able to DESTROY everything that guild owns.

[Goretzu]

maybe you haven't played UO but all the Player housing in UO is sharded. It was for a very brief time allowed to build player houses in the actual world but that lasted less then 1 year before they added shards.

 

So your definition of "sand box" is being able to build a house where you like? And if so, then UO still was a "sand box" game.

 

SWG doesn't exist anymore, does that mean it was never a "sand box" game?

 

 

I see you didn't read the articles. Such as the one where the two largest corporations declared war and sent over 10,000 players into massive battles that spanned almost an entire year? Destroying entire guilds by having spies on the inside that are able to DESTROY everything that guild owns.

 

RvR doesn't make a "sand box" game either, although I completely agree it can be part of it.

 

But this is my point a game is full of many sand boxy bits, but no game has them all (or allows you to do absolutely anything).

 

 

 

 

Which still goes back to what I said and what I stick by: Orginal EQ1 was much more sand boxy than SWTOR currently is!

[notebene]

I have a place for both in my life.

 

It's like making a post called "Water vs Breathable Air: What Do Humans Think?"

[Quip]

Sandboxes and Themeparks in their respective pure forms both kind of suck. Though my favourite MMO is Rift which is a pure themepark, but it only stays as my favourite because of how amazingly fast Trion churns out quality content. They could relax a little if they would build up their play world with some sand. Of course they have already said they plan to do just that.

 

So yeah, I don't care for either one when they don't include the other.

[jarjarloves]

So your definition of "sand box" is being able to build a house where you like? And if so, then UO still was a "sand box" game.

 

SWG doesn't exist anymore, does that mean it was never a "sand box" game?

 

 

 

 

RvR doesn't make a "sand box" game either, although I completely agree it can be part of it.

 

But this is my point a game is full of many sand boxy bits, but no game has them all (or allows you to do absolutely anything).

 

 

 

 

Which still goes back to what I said and what I stick by: Orginal EQ1 was much more sand boxy than SWTOR currently is!

 

no thats what you are refering to it as. I was pointing out that your so called sand box element ie building houses in the world is not even in game.

 

I am saying being able to affect the actual world is a HUGE part of sandbox games. UO doesn't have such features. In fact I woudl say it's the MOST important part of a sandbox MMO.

 

Umm SWG DOES still exist and it is in it's PRE CU version so your nice little troll comment there is wrong.

 

I can think of a MMO that is 100% sandbox. can you?

Edited February 17, 2012 by jarjarloves

[Goretzu]

Sandboxes and Themeparks in their respective pure forms both kind of suck. Though my favourite MMO is Rift which is a pure themepark, but it only stays as my favourite because of how amazingly fast Trion churns out quality content. They could relax a little if they would build up their play world with some sand. Of course they have already said they plan to do just that.

 

So yeah, I don't care for either one when they don't include the other.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think that's why a blend (the "right" blend) will eventually be what works best.

 

Trion have put out an amazing amount of content, but its something Bioware could never match (with the best will in the world) because of voice acting.

 

SWTOR could really use some "sandy breathing space" for this very reason.

[Goretzu]

no thats what you are refering to it as. I was pointing out that your so called sand box element ie building houses in the world is not even in game.

 

It was. As I said because it changed doesn't mean it was never in, it was. It just isn't now. EQ1 has changed an awful lot too, that doesn't mean it wasn't what it was. It just means it has changed over the years.

 

 

I am saying being able to affect the actual world is a HUGE part of sandbox games. UO doesn't have such features. In fact I would say it's the MOST important part of a sandbox MMO.

 

It is, and it DID. So it was. Did it become less sand boxy? Yes. But that's a completely different thing.

 

 

Umm SWG DOES still exist and it is in it's PRE CU version so your nice little troll comment there is wrong.

 

And if UO survives on a private server in its original form is it a "sand box" game or not?

 

 

I can think of a MMO that is 100% sandbox. can you?

 

No, but then that is my point. There is no magic definition of what is or what isn't just a collection of features (or restrictions) that make a game more or less so.

 

What is an MMO that is 100% sand box and allows you to do absolutely anything you want?

Edited February 17, 2012 by Goretzu

[jarjarloves]

It was. As I said because it changed doesn't mean it was never in, it was. It just isn't now. EQ1 has changed an awful lot too, that doesn't mean it wasn't what it was. It just means it has changed over the years.

 

 

 

 

It is, and it DID. So it was. Did it become less sand boxy? Yes. But that's a completely different thing.

 

 

 

 

And if UO survives on a private server in its original form is it a "sand box" game or not?

 

 

 

 

No, but then that is my point. There is no magic definition of what is or what isn't just a collection of features (or restrictions) that make a game more or less so.

 

 

 

we are talking about the games in their current state. Otherwise you would have to include all versions of all the games at all time. It's like saying Slavery is still legal in the US.

 

pssst the game is called Second Life.

 

 

now if you would excuse me I need to teach a class.

Edited February 17, 2012 by jarjarloves

[Goretzu]

we are talking about the games in their current state. Otherwise you would have to include all versions of all the games at all time. It's like saying Slavery is still legal in the US.

 

No, it would be like saying slavery was never legal there.

 

Personally I'd say UO is still sand boxy, but by your definition of "sand box" it clearly was a "sand box" game when it arrived.

 

To claim that UO was never a "sand box" game is daft, especially the original, that it has evolved like SWG did doesn't mean it wasn't any more than SWGs final version does.

 

 

 

pssst the game is called Second Life.

 

Even Second Life has some restrictions, I'm afraid. Even RL does.

[Huaracocha]

Yes I remember the mass credit dupe banning - just one of SOE's many golden decisions in SWG. As I recall there were no confirmed numbers, rumour abounded but I think all we know for sure was that it was in the thousands.

 

I also seem to recall - as is discussed in the thread you linked Jarjar - that they weren't necessarily perma-bans and SOE in fact went back on it and unbanned most of those accounts.

 

I wouldn't personally call a post on a forum from someone saying "44,000 accounts banned, is this accurate?" as hard evidence of numbers bleed or lack of subs in the pre-CU era

 

***

 

On a more general note, it's pointless trying to categorise any MMO as sandbox vs theme park since most (all?) have at least some elements of both. It would be far more useful I think to consider them as 'sandier' or 'less sandy'.

 

EVE is extremely sandy, so was SWG. WoW much less, SWTOR - imo at least - even less so still.

 

There are in fact genuine MMO games (i.e. not Second Life or Minecraft) which meet the sandiest of sandy criteria such as those mentioned above of modifying terrain, custom building designs placed in the game world etc. They're just too 'small' to be on most people's radar!

[gurugeorge]

In older (MMO)RPG's, you could talk to most NPC's you met. Often they'd only offer a few lines of dialogue for flavor. But some would send you on a quest. Some of these quests could be singular events that would net you a little money. Others could be a longer storyline with possibly more interesting rewards. The intent of this design was to create a world that is inhabited, where stuff happens. It would stimulate you to talk to NPC's and explore the world.

 

Interesting you should say this. Recently I observed a discussion on another forum about this same topic, and someone brought up the thing about having to grind in EQ because there were no quests. Then someone else said that of course there were quests in EQ, there were tons of quests, that's why it was called "Everquest". It's just that you had to actually explore and talk to NPCs to get them, and many people, not understanding this, or not being bothered to explore, just grinded instead.

 

It's sort of a sad story you tell, and I reckon it's about right. Blizzard were of course extremely clever to do what they did with WoW, make the DIKU MUD experience of EQ more streamlined and easier to get into. Quest markers undoubtedly started the whole rot

 

But there's the thing - undoubtedly the streamlining is part of what made WoW popular.

 

It comes down to this: the percentage of population interesting in the possibility of gaming in a virtual world together who are Explorers is far smaller than the percentage of people who are Achievers, Socializer and Player Killers. It used to be different back when computer games were new, then the whole idea of an artificial virtual world was captivating, and exploring that artificial environment was fun in itself. Nowadays people are more familiar with the concept, more jaded, and Environment (as in PvE) is just less intrinsically interesting than getting into a trance state on a hamster wheel, socializing online while doing some easy gameplay, or ganking other players.

 

I don't think Explorers will come back into their own until there's some sort of quantum leap in AI, whereby the virtual world starts to respond more intelligently to players (more like a GM-led PW in NWN, say).

[Dezzi]

Interesting you should say this. Recently I observed a discussion on another forum about this same topic, and someone brought up the thing about having to grind in EQ because there were no quests. Then someone else said that of course there were quests in EQ, there were tons of quests, that's why it was called "Everquest". It's just that you had to actually explore and talk to NPCs to get them, and many people, not understanding this, or not being bothered to explore, just grinded instead.

 

It's sort of a sad story you tell, and I reckon it's about right. Blizzard were of course extremely clever to do what they did with WoW, make the DIKU MUD experience of EQ more streamlined and easier to get into. Quest markers undoubtedly started the whole rot

 

But there's the thing - undoubtedly the streamlining is part of what made WoW popular.

 

It comes down to this: the percentage of population interesting in the possibility of gaming in a virtual world together who are Explorers is far smaller than the percentage of people who are Achievers, Socializer and Player Killers. It used to be different back when computer games were new, then the whole idea of an artificial virtual world was captivating, and exploring that artificial environment was fun in itself. Nowadays people are more familiar with the concept, more jaded, and Environment (as in PvE) is just less intrinsically interesting than getting into a trance state on a hamster wheel, socializing online while doing some easy gameplay, or ganking other players.

 

I don't think Explorers will come back into their own until there's some sort of quantum leap in AI, whereby the virtual world starts to respond more intelligently to players (more like a GM-led PW in NWN, say).

 

Extremely thoughtful insights and I agree wholeheartedly.

[HBninjaX]

sandbox MMOs tend to favor the hardcore, themepark the casual

 

hardcore players are a smaller playerbase

 

WoW is not sandbox it's themepark: battlegrounds, arena, etc. it's disney status

 

sandbox is something like Darkfall online. ever hear of the game? /thread

Edited February 17, 2012 by HBninjaX

[Calimwulf]

EVE is extremely sandy, so was SWG. WoW much less, SWTOR - imo at least - even less so still.

I disagree about WoW and TOR. TOR is 'more sandy' than WoW. I explore every nook and cranny of the planets, or as much as possible. The different areas, the way the mobs are laid out, the champion and elite mobs. There are many reasons to explore and spend time in/on the different TOR planets/environments. I never got that with WoW.

 

The fact that there are also different leveling paths in TOR means that it is 'more sandy' than at least vanilla WoW was.

[Andryah]

The nice thing about the design of this game is that they can add additional planets through expansions, and therefore could take segways off of the theme park approach in current release at any time in the future.

 

Planets make for very convenient transitions to different play features. For example, they could launch a planet in an expansion (or major patch) that introduces a sandbox environment within that planet. They could also launch a planet specificially for "bounty play" where the main theme of the planet is 1v1 bounty hunting. I can think of dozens of new and innovative things they could do over time in this game and the planet mechanics make a great platform for doing so.

 

They could also code in different rule sets for different planets if they wanted to and had a reason to.

 

My point being there is huge potential for different feature sets for different segments of the population as the life cycle of the game progresses. Those that are just too impatient to wait for it can unsubscribe and then rescubsribe when the new "candy" gets released.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Andryah

[Andryah]

I disagree about WoW and TOR. TOR is 'more sandy' than WoW. I explore every nook and cranny of the planets, or as much as possible. The different areas, the way the mobs are laid out, the champion and elite mobs. There are many reasons to explore and spend time in/on the different TOR planets/environments. I never got that with WoW.

 

The fact that there are also different leveling paths in TOR means that it is 'more sandy' than at least vanilla WoW was.

 

/agree.

[Rahl_Windsong]

I would much rather a sandbox type of game where instead of levels you have skills you can learn and that way there are no classes just collections of different skill sets.

 

The Secret World, being developed by Funcom looks to be the next game I am excited about...

 

The Secret World

[Andryah]

I would much rather a sandbox type of game where instead of levels you have skills you can learn and that way there are no classes just collections of different skill sets.

 

The Secret World, being developed by Funcom looks to be the next game I am excited about...

 

The Secret World

 

While I agree that The Secret World moves in a different direction, I am skeptical that todays MMO population will thoughfully apply it in the manner in which it is designed.

 

Todays MMO population has a large segment in it that treats every MMO like it's the newest FPS shooter, to be consumed and "beaten/won", racing to devour it, cap content, and then complain while pointing out the next MMO they can't wait to launch because it is "new and innovative" (at least in the marketing info they have at hand).

 

This is much more a problem with the player base then any limitations in the decisions on the part of game producers these days.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Andryah

[Rahl_Windsong]

While I agree that The Secret World moves in a different direction, I am skeptical that todays MMO population will thoughfully apply it in the manner in which it is designed.

 

Todays MMO population has a large segment in it that treats every MMO like it's the newest FPS shooter, to be consumed and "beaten/won", racing to devour it, cap content, and then complain while pointing out the next MMO they can't wait to launch because it is "new and innovative" (at least in the marketing info they have at hand).

 

This is much more a problem with the player base then any limitations in the decisions on the part of game producers these days.

 

Well the thing is the very first MMO I ever played, Ultima Online, was/is skill based and because of that you never had to reroll all you had to do was set skills to go down and new ones to go up and you could completely change your skills making you a new character type to play.

 

So you gain max skill and suddenly something in the game be it some dynamic event or what ever, but the skills you currently have will not be good to oppose this new threat. In any other game you would then need to reroll to a new class that is more suited to this new threat. In a skill based game all you do is start to change your skill set.

 

This very thing happened to me in UO. One day this strange man showed up at my guilds village and he threatened us saying that he was coming and if we were with him we would survive his "coming" however if we were against him we would surely all perish. Then for several weeks after that he unleashed hordes of undead upon our village and many others in the game world.

 

At the time I was skilled to chop wood and craft bows, which could earn you a very decent living in the game. I changed my skill set completely to become more of a warrior and in a month or so I was taking part in the war against this new stranger...

 

It turned out that this stranger was actually a Seer in the game and his story, which started in my guild's village, took the server population over a year of real time to complete and kill the man and his followers...

 

Seer's in UO were regular players that had volunteered to the developer to develop dynamic fiction, which when approved would then be implemented on their server.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Rahl_Windsong