Theme Park vs Sandbox, What Do The Players Think?

[Scar]

By sandbox many usually mean putting all subscribers into the same "realm", an actual universe. If any subscriber goes to Tattooine, he can meet everyone else playing TOR on this planet, which needs to be signifcantly bigger and offering more questing areas to spread the players out.

Right now planets are small because they only need to be presented to a small number of players at the same time.

 

That's not what it usually means, at all. You could have a single server MMOG and it be as Theme Park as can be.

 

As a matter of fact, almost every single Sandbox game out there outside of EVE is a multiple server type game (Including one of the most well known ones, UO).

 

To the person asking the question: ther is a long history of the terms used. It started with "Simulation" vs "Games". That argument lead into the Sanbox vs Theme Park argument where "Theme Park" was a term coined because of the staticness of these world resembled going to a Six Flags, or a Universal Park...theme parks. The Roller coaster was always the same ride.

 

Despite the history behind them, what it all boils down to is this:

 

Sandbox: Developers provide the tools given to the players where they create their own content (aka fun).

 

Theme Park: Developers provide the actual content to which the players use (to have fun).

Edited May 8, 2012 by Scar

[Goretzu]

meh, it barely edged out a game that was 6 years older than it, and never touched the one that was 4 years older than it.

 

No, both lineage and lineage 2 had more than 1 million before wow launched. You can qualify that with "western mmo" but that throwing qualifiers on it like that is bordering on doublespeak.

 

It was still just 2nd most subs.

 

And yes Lineage had more that's why I said Western, but then Lineage had a completely different method of payment so it's difficult to compare them even if you ignore the "Western" bit.

 

 

 

Yeah out of what? 3 mmos? eq, daoc and asherons call?

 

UO, AO, and a few more.

 

None of which had more than 650,000 which EQ1 only got later, just before WoW launched and with a fair bit of fudging from SoE (real number was probably closer to 450,000-500,000 subs).

 

But that's my point it was a different time, SWG having 1,000,000 subs then would be unheard of then. Even now in 2012 1,000,000 subs is the preserve of less than 5 Western MMORPGs.

[PendragonPrime]

Despite the history behind them, what it all boils down to is this:

 

Sandbox: Developers provide the tools given to the players where they create their own content (aka fun).

 

Theme Park: Developers provide the actual content to which the players use (to have fun).

 

Fair enough, thank you.

 

In which case my only experience with a "sandbox" MMORPG would have to be....SWG then. With a landscape littered with player housing seemingly meant to maximize ugliness, and player-run whorehouses...

 

Aaaaaaaall righty then, put me squarely in the themepark camp.

[Saltydogg]

is that why every sandbox MMO fails miserably?

 

This is the truth right here ^. This game can have a sandbox element to it. Look at the pvp area set aside on Tatooine. Its in the middle of no where, no one goes there and further more its just one place on the entire planet that is dedicated to the sandbox model. OVerall if this game doesnt have anymore stupid broken balance patches you can turn this game into both a theme park and a sandbox arena. I was pretty sure thats what they said they were working on in the first place. The pvp was supposed to be out of this world according to the dev hipe. They need to go back and fix that promise, I am pretty sure that will keep alot of subs and maybe bring people back.

[Goretzu]

This is the truth right here ^. This game can have a sandbox element to it. Look at the pvp area set aside on Tatooine. Its in the middle of no where, no one goes there and further more its just one place on the entire planet that is dedicated to the sandbox model. OVerall if this game doesnt have anymore stupid broken balance patches you can turn this game into both a theme park and a sandbox arena. I was pretty sure thats what they said they were working on in the first place. The pvp was supposed to be out of this world according to the dev hipe. They need to go back and fix that promise, I am pretty sure that will keep alot of subs and maybe bring people back.

 

Why would anyone go to the Tatooine Group v Group zone?

 

Randomly sticking a pair of ears on a car doesn't make it an elephant.

[ferroz]

It was still just 2nd most subs.

No, 2nd most was lineage2; 3rd most was EQ and then 4th most was SWG. You have to add qualifiers to make it actually be the 2nd most.

 

the reality is that SWG had a very short spike in subscriptions (2 years) and then crashed and burned when the norm for successful MMOs was holding steady for 6-8+ years .... and even at it's best it barely edged out a game that was released in the previous decade...

 

And yes Lineage had more that's why I said Western, but then Lineage had a completely different method of payment so it's difficult to compare them even if you ignore the "Western" bit.

There's no western bit to ignore in that claim; there was a "western" qualifier in the pervious one, but not the one that about "> 1 million subs pre wow"

.

Edited May 8, 2012 by ferroz

[Goretzu]

No, 2nd most was lineage2; 3rd most was EQ and then 4th most was SWG. You have to add qualifiers to make it actually be the 2nd most.

 

the reality is that SWG had a very short spike in subscriptions (2 years) and then crashed and burned when the norm for successful MMOs was holding steady for 6-8+ years .... and even at it's best it barely edged out a game that was released in the previous decade...

 

There's no western bit to ignore in that claim; there was a "western" qualifier in the pervious one, but not the one that about "> 1 million subs pre wow"

.

 

Lineage 2 was released after SWG so it couldn't have had more than SWG at that time, but again Lineage wasn't a western MMORPG, and the subscription model that gave it it's peaks (3m for Lineage and 2m for Lineage 2) isn't really comparable to the subscription model of SWG (or SWTOR).

 

 

In which claim? Go and read I said Western MMORPG, I'm well aware of Lineages "numbers" (although again like WoW's non-Western accounts - they can't really be compared to the subscription model numbers because they aren't comparable or like for like).

[ferroz]

Lineage 2 was released after SWG so it couldn't have had more than SWG at that time,

Ah, so they had the 3rd most subs for about 3 months, and then dropped to 4th. Nice catch.

 

but again Lineage wasn't a western MMORPG, and the subscription model that gave it it's peaks (3m for Lineage and 2m for Lineage 2) isn't really comparable to the subscription model of SWG (or SWTOR).

you did not qualify the statement in that paragraph with the word "western"

 

The number of MMORPGs that reached 1,000,000 subs is small. The number that did it before WoW launched is ZERO.

No mention of western in that paragraph. In order for that to be a true claim you'd need that "western" qualifier again.

 

 

The point remains: the reality is that you're adding qualifiers to make it look like SWG was actually successful; compared to the games that before it, SWG had virtually no staying power and compared to games after it, SWG had a very small player base.

 

In which claim?

The one where you didn't say western.

[Goretzu]

Ah, so they had the 3rd most subs for about 3 months, and then dropped to 4th. Nice catch.

Indeed it was.

you did not qualify the statement in that paragraph with the word "western"

Yes I did.

No mention of western in that paragraph. In order for that to be a true claim you'd need that "western" qualifier again.

Yes there was.

It was the 2nd most successful (Western) MMORPG of all time at that time.

 

The number of MMORPGs that reached 1,000,000 subs is small. The number that did it before WoW launched is ZERO.

 

The point remains:

No it doesn't.

the reality is that you're adding qualifiers to make it look like SWG was actually successful; compared to the games that before it, SWG had virtually no staying power and compared to games after it, SWG had a very small player base.

Compared to Western MMORPGs of the time it was successful in sales and intial subs and sustained subs for a year or two. That's not an abject failure as stated.

The one where you didn't say western.

The claim that never existed?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Goretzu

[Tiaa]

Anyone that designs a game to be either is being daft IMO.

 

And decent game should be both.

 

Agreed. A little bit of both. Archeage is a good example of this.

[mattgyver]

The sandbox naysayers are not being naysayers for the sake of naysaying. They are using the track record of sandbox MMOs.

 

How many subscriptions does Eve Online have? Does it even have half a million? People are already screaming the end of the world for the Tortanic with 1.3 million subs, I really don't think 0.5 million will be enough. Also consider that Eve Online is space based, so it should do better for being space and not medieval themed.

 

If sandbox really worked, there should be this one big mega sandbox game that is doing very well for developers to go "Hey you know what, sandbox works, lets make one". But up till now, there is none. The best MMOs right now are themepark MMOs, Everquest, SW:TOR, World of Warcraft.

 

Sandbox MMOs only cater to a niche market.

^^Rhetoric.

 

This argument is broken because it assumes too many things. There are too many different definitions of both design paradigms, so the comparisons themselves are troublesome. You can say that WoW was the most successful game but assertions of why are all across the board, to include right place right time.

There is also a false dichotomy at work here as well, describing one paradigm as auto fail and the other design as auto win.

[Goretzu]

^^Rhetoric.

 

This argument is broken because it assumes too many things. There are too many different definitions of both design paradigms, so the comparisons themselves are troublesome. You can say that WoW was the most successful game but assertions of why are all across the board, to include right place right time.

There is also a false dichotomy at work here as well, describing one paradigm as auto fail and the other design as auto win.

 

Aye, WoW succeeded in the manner it did because it was the right thing in the right place at the right time.

 

The same thing a few years earlier or a few years later likely would never have done as well.

[DirtyDiggler]

OP you do realize that WOW invented the themepark, and most of the games you mentioned are themeparks not sandboxes with the exception of eve.

[ConradLionhart]

^^Rhetoric.

 

This argument is broken because it assumes too many things. There are too many different definitions of both design paradigms, so the comparisons themselves are troublesome. You can say that WoW was the most successful game but assertions of why are all across the board, to include right place right time.

There is also a false dichotomy at work here as well, describing one paradigm as auto fail and the other design as auto win.

 

Let's pretend you are right. How does that make sandbox auto-win?

[ConradLionhart]

Aye, WoW succeeded in the manner it did because it was the right thing in the right place at the right time.

 

The same thing a few years earlier or a few years later likely would never have done as well.

 

Equally as rhetorical. You are now relying on maybes. There's no proof that WoW succeeded only because it was at the right place at the right time. The only thing that matters is that it succeeded. It has 10m subs now. And it happens to be themepark.

 

Where is this mythical sandbox MMO that is at the right place at the right time? How come one still doesn't exist after decades of MMOs?

 

Why didn't the WoW developers create a sandbox WoW? Why didn't they take a risk and go with sandbox to match Star Wars Galaxies?

 

Let's deal with concrete facts.

Fact: The biggest pay-to-play MMO is a themepark MMO.

Fact: Sandbox MMOs like Eve Online can only muster 0.4 million after 9 years. SWG till it was closed last year, did it reach 1 million?

 

Evidence is right there, no matter how much rhetoric you try to spin into it. Themepark has a winning formula. Sandbox doesn't, even with the Star Wars IP.

Edited May 9, 2012 by ConradLionhart

[Goretzu]

Equally as rhetorical. You are now relying on maybes. There's no proof that WoW succeeded only because it was at the right place at the right time. The only thing that matters is that it succeeded. It has 10m subs now. And it happens to be themepark.

 

Where is this mythical sandbox MMO that is at the right place at the right time? How come one still doesn't exist after decades of MMOs?

 

Why didn't the WoW developers create a sandbox WoW? Why didn't they take a risk and go with sandbox to match Star Wars Galaxies?

 

Let's deal with concrete facts.

Fact: The biggest pay-to-play MMO is a themepark MMO.

Fact: Sandbox MMOs like Eve Online can only muster 0.4 million after 9 years. SWG till it was closed last year, did it reach 1 million?

 

Evidence is right there, no matter how much rhetoric you try to spin into it. Themepark has a winning formula. Sandbox doesn't, even with the Star Wars IP.

 

 

 

The facts are many, many more supposed "Themepark" MMORPGs have "failed" than supposed "Sandbox" ones.

 

As I said going by the logic of not being as successful as WoW, developers should be running screaming from the "Themepark" model (it basically worked once, with WoW, and that is it).

 

We'll have to see where SWTOR ends up, but looking at this SWTOR is currently plummeting.

 

 

 

As for WoW, Blizzard themselves recognise the difficulty of equalling WoW's success, which is why they are doing everything in their power to maintain WoW, rather than trying to develop a WoW 2.

 

The next huge MMORPG will be a hybrid. However there may never be a Western MMORPG that equals WoW (unless it's a F2P social media model one).

Edited May 9, 2012 by Goretzu

[Lord_Ravenhurst]

Oh my, there is a much longer list of failed WoW styled themepark rip-offs than failed sandbox games.

 

Put that aside, some just don´t get the fact that development- and advertising budgets decide over success, not if it´s sandbox or themepark or hybrid. Creating a sandbox game is also far more complex and thus probably twice the cost of the hundredth incarnation of a WoWified rollercoaster ride on tracks (Yawn).

 

I get tired of this discussion, if someone doesn´t see the benefits of sandbox hybrids, stay away from this thread with your lacking sense for innovation. Get a job at BW or Blizzard. Beat the dead horse of how great the WoW concept is for all eternity.

 

Oh by the way, sandbox critics, check the current poll results below for reference, and welcome to the "vocal minority group".

Edited May 9, 2012 by Lord_Ravenhurst

[MaverikB]

count my vote for more sand box style content!

[BJWyler]

But that's the problem SWTOR faces, isn't it?

 

I'm repeatedly fed this story about "locusts devouring content too fast" by posters on this forum, but at the end of the day, if the game doesn't gate its content in some way (time, credits, etc.), then players will burn through it--which isn't good for the game in the mid to long term. Yet games like SWTOR, which lack of any real risks or time-consuming sandbox content, encourage players to burn through content.

 

You see, though, those players who would rather burn through content are going to ignore the sandbox features anyway, as (generally speaking), they aren't players interested in sandbox mode. I have found that most sandbox gamers are already "paced" players because sandbox, by it's nature, encourages a player to investigate all the content of the game.

 

Forcing players into a sandbox will just cause more problems (i.e. QQing whiners) than it eventually solves, since the QQers will leave the game eventually anyway. Gating can be a more viable option, but then you lock the free roamer (pun not entirely unintented). In GW1:Propecies, we could literally explore the entire content except for two zones without ever having to do a quest or mission - and generally that's how I like to play. I am an explorer and will usually clear zones to see what's out there before getting back to the quests/missions. Faction gated you and forced you into the storyline in order to explore the world, which made that campaign much more linear. Nightfall did the same thing, though to a lesser extent, but still didn't remove that linear forced feel.

 

The SWTOR storyline is linear, but at least you still have that free-roaming capacity, which opens even more once you get your ship. Gating may prevent people from rushing through content, somewhat, but it will still happen regardless. This happens in any and every game - MMO or SP, but that is an abnormal type of gameplay, so you have to make the decision not to factor it into the game design, because most players do not play like that and have a more normal pace. I simply want to be able to choose the pace I want to play at the times that it suits me.

 

The problem we have in SWTOR is that many players did not do their research into the game. For me, just following the media about the game (minus the obvious hype of "WoW-killer") it was clear that a big emphasis was going to be placed on the PvE leveling process, and be more geared to alto-holics than most MMOs. Therefore, logic (and only slightly more research) would dictate that the end game would not be anything more than is already typical in other MMOs and PvP would not be a major part of the game outside of Ilum. Therefore, the main draw would be the paced release of content that furthers the story unfolding during the leveling process and not playing an "end game".

 

BJ

Edited May 9, 2012 by BJWyler

[Gargion]

I will contribute my two cents to this thread by saying this:

 

The Reasons I Am Playing SWTOR:

 

#1 I was a huge KOTOR Fan, and I havn't finished all the stories yet.

#2 I like being able to customize my look (although it Kinda sucks that I have to compromise this until I can get my hands on some Black Hole Gear ((Due to the unremovable set bonuses on Tionese -> Rakatta)))

#3 I am still having fun because I haven't finished all of the content yet. Granted, I have limited play time. This summer (which is very soon. I will be burning through content pretty fast.)

#4 Bioware has said that Mini-games are on the list, and hinted at some sandbox features. I am waiting on these. However, if I have to buy an expansion for sandbox features. I'm quitting.

#5 I'm a ******.

[Silvaeris]

Vote for more sandbox features - like additions to crafting, housing, world open pvp, spacefaring and whatnot.

[Lord_Ravenhurst]

Oh great, now even Elder Scrolls Online will be another WoW ripoff, instead of keeping it's roots.

http://sandboxer.org/?p=912

Sandbox is officially dead before it ever was done on a commercially big scale.

And the small indie studios which try something different, die during development.

The game industry sucks.

[Vlaxitov]

The game industry sucks.

 

Just as bad as the music industry does atm.

 

Dumbed down music and dumbed down video games for a dumbed down generation.

[Lord_Ravenhurst]

 

Dumbed down music and dumbed down video games for a dumbed down generation.

 

ha, you really hit the nail with that! May I use this as my new signature?

Edited May 9, 2012 by Lord_Ravenhurst

[mattgyver]

Let's pretend you are right. How does that make sandbox auto-win?

 

I'm not saying it's auto-win. I'm saying that is the false premise: that either of those paradigms are auto-fail or auto-win. It's a simplification designed to put you in one of two camps.