General Discussion

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 Mahni

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. 

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.

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...  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.

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

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.)

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.  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.

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.  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.)

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

 

 

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...

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?

Originally posted by Forcan

Originally posted by Zorndorf

1. Wow has a real player economy - based on crafting and professions that changes the characters and so changes the game and its challenges. The auction house is the best implemtented of ALL MMORPG's btw.

Best Auction house? maybe, best economy? nope.  It's your opinion stating it to be the best, not the fact.  Where's the proof?

 

Have to add my two cents here.. There is, in my opinion no real player economy in WoW the prices are set again and again by the gold farmers.  As for auctions... ok there is one, however, this cannot be an arguement for a 'sandbox' game because the quality of the 'Purple-Ultra-Kill'em-All' Sword is the same from Joe Blow as it is from a  10 year veteran <<yes I'm exaggerating>>  Meaning, since the quality of all resources are the same, there is no difference in the product, thus it isnt really a player run economy.. More of a "Stampbox" rather than a "sandbox" .. everything is cookiecutter.   Price is mostly determined on who is the best mass producer or the best farmer of items, which is usually the Gold Farmers.

Again this is only my opinion, but I thought I'd share it since I dont post often.

Originally posted by zantax

I think everyone is getting bogged down in a definitive definition of the phrase, "Sandbox MMORPG".  While I agree a true Sandbox game would have no barriers, and no levels everyone would be able to do anything, hence the "game" Second Life.  The only TRUE to the meaning of "Sandbox MMORPG" is Second Life.  Eve isn't true to the meaning, but it is very close, the reason being is the progression of skills, that is the only thing holding back Eve from being a full meaning of "Sandbox MMORPG".

...

You and Mahni make very convincing constructive posts. Something I will have to dwell on. I never made the distinction between Second Life and EVE Online. Thanks I agree with you guys point of view