Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to take a moment to thank those who are arguing for more than just convenience and simplicity. It was my hope that PFO would offer something new, something that did not cater to the lowest common denominator like the multitudes of MMOs already on the market. For me, the acquisition of gear does not equal achievement and I find myself bored in any game I have ever played that has that as the primary goal.
For me, as someone whose first MMO was a sandbox (in the PC-driven content manner of sandbox, not this new absurd assertion that a sandbox is any game which allows open ranging...what does being able to roam have anything to do with sandboxes?), I always find myself quickly bored with themepark games. For me, accomplishment comes from building/designing something that is the exceptional (notice the creative build element? Like what one does in a sandbox?). Examples from my experience range from developing a great recipe (in a very complex crafting system with huge possible combinations of mats) to social engineering (building a great guild and/or community), and even developing player made structures (although I have always been disappointed by the lack of design features...unfortunately, this is usually reduced to collect x mats and boom, you get your pre-designed structure in its predesignated position).
Therefore, I find the requirement to be creative (and seeing other people's creative solutions) fun, more so than the acquisition of stuff. I find that difficulty and challenge are the catalysts of creative solutions...given that a system be designed with the freedom to allow these creative solutions. This, to me, is the most important design consideration.
So, I must thank those who also argue PFO should not be a copy of the multitudes of games currently available, and those who argue that the game actually be a sandbox.
I do want to add that I do not think my design priorities are fundamentally better than any other...only that this is what I hope for in some game that I can call home, for me. There is obviously a logic and audience for the type of games that currently exist. My inability to long enjoy them may be more a personal fault than one with the games themselves.
For those who hope to inflate their...whatever...by disagreeing with me, realize this is an opinion. You are free to disagree, but you can only ever offer an equal opposing opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to take a moment to thank those who are arguing for more than just convenience and simplicity. It was my hope that PFO would offer something new, something that did not cater to the lowest common denominator like the multitudes of MMOs already on the market. For me, the acquisition of gear does not equal achievement and I find myself bored in any game I have ever played that has that as the primary goal.
For me, as someone whose first MMO was a sandbox (in the PC-driven content manner of sandbox, not this new absurd assertion that a sandbox is any game which allows open ranging...what does being able to roam have anything to do with sandboxes?), I always find myself quickly bored with themepark games. For me, accomplishment comes from building/designing something that is the exceptional (notice the creative build element? Like what one does in a sandbox?). Examples from my experience range from developing a great recipe (in a very complex crafting system with huge possible combinations of mats) to social engineering (building a great guild and/or community), and even developing player made structures (although I have always been disappointed by the lack of design features...unfortunately, this is usually reduced to collect x mats and boom, you get your pre-designed structure in its predesignated position).
Therefore, I find the requirement to be creative (and seeing other people's creative solutions) fun, more so than the acquisition of stuff. I find that difficulty and challenge are the catalysts of creative solutions...given that a system be designed with the freedom to allow these creative solutions. This, to me, is the most important design consideration.
So, I must thank those who also argue PFO should not be a copy of the multitudes of games currently available, and those who argue that the game actually be a sandbox.
I do want to add that I do not think my design priorities are fundamentally better than any other...only that this is what I hope for in some...
KitNyx,
Thank you for posting this and I feel very similar to you. For me, my creative aspect comes out in role-playing...creating a character and their background, exploring thier personalty, thier quirks, thier attitude toward thier environment, developing thier relationships with others in the world....and seeing how they navigate through the events of the world and how they go about carving out thier own niche... that's what is most rewarding to me.
Possibly my roots as an old school PnP player/GM and as a MUD'er are an influence here.
Like you, I find it difficult to pursue my interests in most of todays MMO offerings. It may be my fault....but they just don't seem very condusive to createing an atmosphere that makes me want to or enjoy RPing in them. I feel like I have no creative part in shaping the "narrative" of the game world.
My design wishes in a game are my own and obviously they aren't better or more important then anyone else posting here....but I definately am hoping to find a place where they can at least be partialy realized.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree: "Open World" is not a synonym for "Sandbox". Virtually all (all?) sandboxes are Open Worlds. Not all Open Worlds are sandboxes. (Skyrim, for example, isn't a sandbox, but it's a heck of a cool open world).
The big differentiator between sandboxes and themeparks is persistence. Do the changes that you make to the world become permanent (or permanent until changed again by another player's action)? That's persistence. And that's sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree: "Open World" is not a synonym for "Sandbox". Virtually all (all?) sandboxes are Open Worlds. Not all Open Worlds are sandboxes. (Skyrim, for example, isn't a sandbox, but it's a heck of a cool open world).
The big differentiator between sandboxes and themeparks is persistence. Do the changes that you make to the world become permanent (or permanent until changed again by another player's action)? That's persistence. And that's sandbox.
Thanks for this post. I agree, although necessarily the freedom to make the changes which are then persistent are also part of what it means to be a sandbox. It may not directly follow, but it is easy to conclude then that assuming persistence, the amount of freedom to make changes in the virtual world determines how much of a sandbox a game truly is.
I did not create this thread to argue with anyone, quite the contrary, I just wanted to give my support to what can sometimes be a lonely and seemingly unpopular opinion. I just wanted those with similar priorities to understand they may not be alone in what we may be looking for.
I also do not assume any of us who are actually looking for a sandbox have any desired feature set in common, but there is an obvious design philosophy difference between we and many others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, as someone whose first MMO was a sandbox (in the PC-driven content manner of sandbox, not this new absurd assertion that a sandbox is any game which allows open ranging...what does being able to roam have anything to do with sandboxes?)
I really have to take exception to this.
What you are describing (PC-driven content) is not the traditional or accepted way of describing a sandbox-style game. For information on how the term "sandbox" has been used to describe video games made as far back as the 80s, please read this article and this article. I'm not going to try and define it here beyond that, because I'd much rather you be forced to read those articles in order to disagree with me than simply disagree with my summary.
If anything, the new kid on the block is this assertion of yours that in order to be a sandbox game it has to allow for player-driven content creation.
So, I must thank those who also argue PFO should not be a copy of the multitudes of games currently available, and those who argue that the game actually be a sandbox.
See, as much as you don't want me and the people who agree with me (and with whom I agree) to be part of the group you're thanking above, we are. You just don't like us, because we have found some of the ideas you've proposed lacking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree: "Open World" is not a synonym for "Sandbox". Virtually all (all?) sandboxes are Open Worlds. Not all Open Worlds are sandboxes. (Skyrim, for example, isn't a sandbox, but it's a heck of a cool open world).
The big differentiator between sandboxes and themeparks is persistence. Do the changes that you make to the world become permanent (or permanent until changed again by another player's action)? That's persistence. And that's sandbox.
I'm a little confused here - you state that Skyrim is an open world but not a sandbox, and then go on to state that what separates an open world from a sandbox is persistence. Skyrim is a persistent world. That's inarguable. If you kill a named NPC, that NPC is dead. The world does not reset when you leave. If you buy a house and decorate it, that house will stay yours and stay decorated. So if persistence is really your defining characteristic, I think you probably could have picked a better example of a not-sandbox than Skyrim.
That said, I don't think the definition that you're trying to use here is generally accepted. Either way, however, it's clear that your definition of sandbox is still very different from the definition that KitNyx and others are trying to apply (which they're not very good at defining, but I gather it to be something like "the more challenging and filled with versimilitude a game is, and the less it appeals to a casual gamer, the more sandbox-y it is."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also do not assume any of us who are actually looking for a sandbox have any desired feature set in common, but there is an obvious design philosophy difference between we and many others.
I think maybe it would do your position some good to figure out what that philosophy is, why it's a good thing, and what it ought to be called.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you posted here just to argue? Or did you have something constructive to offer. And just so you know, Wikipedia is very entertaining but not a real source. Find me better ones. Likewise, your links do not give evidence of how people thought or what they would have called a sandbox in the 80s, 90s, or even 2000s. Find me articles actually written in those decades and it will give you some support for your claim.
As I mentioned, what does a sandbox have to do with the ability to roam? Sandboxes have edges...that is counter to understanding the metaphor. What you can do in a sandbox is build things and be creative (by this I do not mean crafting, unless the crafting system can be developed in unique ways by the PC). I will also accept Ryan's claim for persistence. A game that allows these is a sandbox...no matter how far you can roam.
I will not even go into the fact that your links support me by explicitly stating open worlds and sandboxes are completely different things...that sometimes overlap (but, since I denied them as evidence for you, I will not use them either).
Until then, I stand by my statements. Feel free to come back when you have more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you posted here just to argue? Or did you have something constructive to offer.
Explaining why someone is incorrect about something is constructive.
Your beef isn't with the idea that I'm not being constructive. Your problem with me is that I keep calling you out on this stuff.
And just so you know, Wikipedia is very entertaining but not a real source. Find me better ones.
Holy lord. The "Wikipedia isn't a real source" defense. Because that's when you know you've got a solid argument.
Hey, here's the cool thing about Wikipedia: it cites its sources. In fact, if you read the article, it cites another source article inside its definition of "sandbox."
Likewise, your links do not give evidence of how people thought or what they would have called a sandbox in the 80s, 90s, or even 2000s. Find me articles actually written in those decades and it will give you some support for your claim.
I'm cool with you choosing not to believe me, despite everything I've bothered to hand you. I'm letting you know that you're sort of running wild and free with your terminology - perhaps in an effort to make it sound like your ideas have more people behind them than they actually do?
I will not even go into the fact that your links support me by explicitly stating open worlds and sandboxes are completely different things...
I never said that open worlds and sandboxes were identical. But that doesn't make you right. You're trying to ascribe all sorts of things to the term "sandbox" that have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of a sandbox.
To quote the article, "The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."
Nothing about this implies that a realistic day/night cycle makes a game more sandbox-y. Or that realistic darkness makes a game more sandbox-y. Or that realistic anything makes a game more sandbox-y. Or that making a game challenging for its own sake makes a game more sandbox-y. Or any of the other ideas you've pushed for. In fact, I don't think I've done a lot of arguing against anything that falls under the accepted definition of a sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who said day/night/darkness features equal sandbox? Had you read my original post past your first line objection you would have seen I was claiming adversity is the mother of invention...and invention is the heart of a sandbox.
You know, I really am not sure if you just don't get what I am trying to say...or if you are just trying to grief people. Considering you never contribute anything original, and you seem to stalk certain people you consistently disagree with...no matter where they go or what they say, I am really starting to think it is the latter.
And, yeah, you really bashed me saying wikipedia was not a reference...meaning you are suggesting it is. Shall we debate who has the stronger position on that one?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who said day/night/darkness features equal sandbox?
GrumpyMel. In this post. That you favorited.
Dear lord.
You know, I really am not sure if you just don't get what I am trying to say...or if you are just trying to grief people. Considering you never contribute anything original, and you seem to stalk certain people you consistently disagree with...no matter where they go or what they say, I am really starting to think it is the latter.
No matter where they go? You mean, like, in this sub-forum? I'm sure some of them have posted in other places. I don't go to those places. Perhaps it's more likely that I just read certain threads here, and I tend to respond more often to certain individuals' posts because the things that they say are not correct things?
You need to be careful, KitNyx. What you're saying here is coming very close to character assassination, and is already well beyond the point of personal attacks.
And, yeah, you really bashed me saying wikipedia was not a reference...meaning you are suggesting it is. Shall we debate who has the stronger position on that one?
I'm more than happy to let you tell me that every remotely credible source of information on the internet is wrong, and that you are right. That sounds fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little confused here - you state that Skyrim is an open world but not a sandbox, and then go on to state that what separates an open world from a sandbox is persistence. Skyrim is a persistent world.
Skyrim's persistance is an illusion.
I killed the Emperor. Did anything change? No. In fact, I killed a relative of the Emperor by murdering her on a parapet of the most populated city in Skyrim, during her own wedding, IN PUBLIC to "send a message" that the Dark Brotherhood was back. I never suffered any meaningful consequences, even though most of the people who saw me do this knew who I am (and where I lived, etc.)
I became the head of the Thieve's Guild. Could I change it? No. Could I relocate it to another city? No. Did my "leadership" have any meaningful effect? Not in any way.
I went into hundreds of holes in the ground, killed a thousands of opponents, opened locks, disarmed traps, and took everything valuable in sight. Did that have any effect on anything? No - because I never went back to any of those places and nothing I did in those places affected how any other part of the word reacted to me.
I stormed the castle of the rebel leader, and killed him. Did anything meaningfully change? No, I still got to see dialog trees from major NPCs discussing the civil war. A new NPC replaced the dead NPC but gave the same quests. Groups of rebels continued to ambush me when they had a chance. The death of Ulfric had no effect on the world.
I could not build a building. I could not induce any one to move from one town to another. I could not destroy a building. I could not harvest any crops, or decide what crops to plant. No part of the economic system of the world was influenced by me. I spent the equivalent of a hundred times the inventory of the shops and yet inflation never occurred.
I could not even choose where in my own house to place a table or a chair. I could not start or extinguish the fire.
Skyrim does a good job of creating an illusion of persistence but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In the end, it's basically a stateless environment with a small handful of places where there are extremely minor effects associated with completing a quest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skyrim's persistance is an illusion.
I don't think it is. I think you're just sort of drawing an arbitrary line at what persistence matters and what persistence doesn't matter.
Killing an NPC and having that NPC be no longer present is persistence. Just because a substantial-enough-for-your-tastes set of associated changes does not exist to propagate throughout the rest of the game world does not mean that the persistence is an illusion.
I killed the Emperor. Did anything change? No. In fact, I killed a relative of the Emperor by murdering her on a parapet of the most populated city in Skyrim, during her own wedding, IN PUBLIC to "send a message" that the Dark Brotherhood was back. I never suffered any meaningful consequences, even though most of the people who saw me do this knew who I am (and where I lived, etc.)
That's sort of an odd definition of persistence. I helped a guy woo his beau by sabotaging his rival's attempt, and his family sent a bunch of thugs after me. I made a decision, something happened in the game world, and then I experienced the consequences of that decision.
I became the head of the Thieve's Guild. Could I change it? No. Could I relocate it to another city? No. Did my "leadership" have any meaningful effect? Not in any way.
I agree that becoming the head of a guild doesn't really let you do much, but that doesn't mean that the world is not persistent, or that any persistence is an illusion.
I went into hundreds of holes in the ground, killed a thousands of opponents, opened locks, disarmed traps, and took everything valuable in sight. Did that have any effect on anything? No - because I never went back to any of those places and nothing I did in those places affected how any other part of the word reacted to me.
Well, now, that's not true, is it? There are a number of questlines that require you to go into a hole in the ground and do something, and then leave that hole in the ground and do something with what you found, probably in some other part of the world that will react to you differently because of what you did down there. But, again, what does this have to do with persistence?
I stormed the castle of the rebel leader, and killed him. Did anything meaningfully change? No, I still got to see dialog trees from major NPCs discussing the civil war. A new NPC replaced the dead NPC but gave the same quests. Groups of rebels continued to ambush me when they had a chance. The death of Ulfric had no effect on the world.
Ah, but groups of rebels did ambush you. Clearly, you made a decision that had a lingering effect on the game world and how you experienced it - you aligned yourself with the Imperials.
I could not build a building.
Sure, but you could buy a bunch. And furnish those buildings. And that building remained yours and those furnishings remained there. Heck, you could even marry, and choose to have your new spouse relocate (a word you complained of not getting any use out of with regards to the Thieves' Guild) to one of your homes - even have him or her start a shop!
I could not induce any one to move from one town to another.
Demonstrably false - when you marry someone you can choose to have them move in with you in a different city.
I could not destroy a building.
No, but you can certainly steal everything from inside it and kill everyone unlucky enough to get in your way. It doesn't feature destructible terrain, but I don't think that's a sandbox requirement.
I could not harvest any crops, or decide what crops to plant.
There are actually NPCs who will pay you to harvest crops. And no, you can't plant crops. I'm sure someone will mod it in, though.
No part of the economic system of the world was influenced by me.
By investing in the speechcraft tree you can actually invest money in shopkeepers, increasing the amount that they have to barter with. And if you kill an NPC, you will not be able to buy anything from them.
I spent the equivalent of a hundred times the inventory of the shops and yet inflation never occurred.
Is realistically-modeled inflation a requirement of a sandbox game? I daresay precious few games have bothered to work that in.
I could not even choose where in my own house to place a table or a chair. I could not start or extinguish the fire.
Right, but how are you choosing where to draw the line on this? You can choose to put things in your house. Heck, you can even choose which items to display on wall mounts or in bookshelves. I can't see any actual rubric that you're using to determine whether Skyrim qualifies as a sandbox or not. It seems like you're finding a bunch of features that Skyrim doesn't have (even though, in some cases, it does), and deciding that it's exactly those features that a game needs to be called a sandbox. Meanwhile there are a ton of other features that Skyrim does have that satisfy your stated requirement of persistence, but those seem to be glossed over in your eyes.
I guess it just seems to me that you're trying to redefine what it means to be a sandbox. And, I mean, that's fine, you're in sort of a unique position where you stand a chance of making headway in that regard. But you need to have a good idea of what that new definition will be, in a very concrete sense.
Is it a fallacy that we can't have the convenience/quality of life of other games, and the persistence of a sandbox, in the same game?
What things ought to change in a persistent world? If your PC dies, should he stay dead? If you kill the Emperor, should he stay dead? If not, what should the consequences be?
I think that sort of discussion--what should and shouldn't be persistent in a persistent world--is the key to a lot of strife in this forum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it a fallacy that we can't have the convenience/quality of life of other games, and the persistence of a sandbox, in the same game?
Yes, that's a fallacy. I think you can have a game that is accessible, widely-enjoyable, filled with content, and is also a persistent, open, "sandbox-y" world. I would argue that some games have already done it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I think you can have a game that is accessible, widely-enjoyable, filled with content, and is also a persistent, open, "sandbox-y" world. I would argue that some games have already done it.which games?
I would argue that Bethesda is currently the industry leader in this regard, and that they now have a string of games which satisfy those requirements. That's my opinion, of course, but I feel strongly that it's a supportable one.
My only nit-pick here is "Challenging" is being used by some people on these forums to mean "stuff I like" and disparage any ideas they don't like, which are challenging, as crap.
While I don't agree with Scott Betts on everything he says, he's one of the few around here who is level-headed and calls people out on their hyperbole and demonstrably bad ideas.
Please hang in there, Scott.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Skyrim's persistance is an illusion.I killed the Emperor. Did anything change? No. In fact, I killed a relative of the Emperor by murdering her on a parapet of the most populated city in Skyrim, during her own wedding, IN PUBLIC to "send a message" that the Dark Brotherhood was back. I never suffered any meaningful consequences, even though most of the people who saw me do this knew who I am (and where I lived, etc.)
I became the head of the Thieve's Guild. Could I change it? No. Could I relocate it to another city? No. Did my "leadership" have any meaningful effect? Not in any way.
I went into hundreds of holes in the ground, killed a thousands of opponents, opened locks, disarmed traps, and took everything valuable in sight. Did that have any effect on anything? No - because I never went back to any of those places and nothing I did in those places affected how any other part of the word reacted to me.
I stormed the castle of the rebel leader, and killed him. Did anything meaningfully change? No, I still got to see dialog trees from major NPCs discussing the civil war. A new NPC replaced the dead NPC but gave the same quests. Groups of rebels continued to ambush me when they had a chance. The death of Ulfric had no effect on the world.
I could not build a building. I could not induce any one to move from one town to another. I could not destroy a building. I could not harvest any crops, or decide what crops to plant. No part of the economic system of the world was influenced by me. I spent the equivalent of a hundred times the inventory of the shops and yet inflation never occurred.
I could not even choose where in my own house to place a table or a chair. I could not start or extinguish the fire.
This...hence:
Although necessarily the freedom to make the changes which are then persistent are also part of what it means to be a sandbox. It may not directly follow, but it is easy to conclude then that assuming persistence, the amount of freedom to make changes in the virtual world determines how much of a sandbox a game truly is.
Finally, I would suggest a sandbox demands not just persistence of being (or effects), but a persistent, "realistic" or a least understandable response from the environment to our actions. This is why sandboxes minimize NPCs, they both take opportunities and responsibility from PCs and they cannot be designed to respond "realistically" or "intelligently" to all events.
This, by the way, suggest almost every game should be considered a sandbox to some degree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only nit-pick here is "Challenging" is being used by some people on these forums to mean "stuff I like" and disparage any ideas they don't like, which are challenging, as crap.
While I don't agree with Scott Betts on everything he says, he's one of the few around here who is level-headed and calls people out on their hyperbole and demonstrably bad ideas.
Please hang in there, Scott.
Haha I don't really think there's anything that anyone could do here to chase me off. I'm here for Paizo because Paizo is rad and because I like talking about D&D-related stuff. The behavior of certain fans is not going to change that. No need to fret.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Finally, I would suggest a sandbox demands not just persistence of being (or effects), but a persistent, "realistic" or a least understandable response from the environment to our actions. This is why sandboxes minimize NPCs, they both take opportunities and responsibility from PCs and they cannot be designed to respond "realistically" or "intelligently" to all events.
I think the word you want is consistent, not realistic. It has to conform to the logic of the game, not model real life.
I think Ryan's point is that he's looking to build the sort of sandbox that allows you to build things. Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox in ways that Skyrim is not. It contains a lot of smaller building blocks that can be put together in ways that have interesting emergent behavior.
So in my mind, Open World + Legos = Sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Finally, I would suggest a sandbox demands not just persistence of being (or effects), but a persistent, "realistic" or a least understandable response from the environment to our actions. This is why sandboxes minimize NPCs, they both take opportunities and responsibility from PCs and they cannot be designed to respond "realistically" or "intelligently" to all events.
This, by the way, suggest almost every game should be considered a sandbox to some degree.
As we've discussed, how "sandbox-y" a game is rests on a spectrum. I think that, past a certain arbitrary point on that spectrum, you can actually start to call a game a "sandbox game."
But you actually hit on a very interesting point, here. The more actual content you add to your game, the more difficult it is to push your game further up the sandbox-o-meter. For instance, if you add more NPCs but don't bother to provide their responses to changes you impose on the world, the overall sandbox-y-ness of the game drops. If you add a new quest, but don't bother to propagate the results of that quest throughout the game world, the overall sandbox-y-ness of the game drops. If you add the potential for a random world event to occur (say, a dragon burning down a village) but don't bother to include the consequences of and reactions to that event, the overall sandbox-y-ness of the game drops.
Not by much, mind you, but by a little. And it's a lot of work to provide such responses and reactions for everything in the game. I mean a truly tremendous amount of work, and the amount of work per new item increases the more items you have (for instance, if you have 1 NPC and add another, you only have to provide interactions between the two; if you have 4 NPCs and add a 5th, you have to create new interactions between your new NPC and all 4 of the old ones).
There are a few ways to approach this problem:
First, make your sandbox game world shallow. This is the primary approach seen in EVE. Plenty of ways for players to interact with the game, but the game world's response to those actions is predictable and not that interesting. EVE makes up for this by pitting players against one another, relying on the players to provide the sorts of interactions that make the game interesting.
Second, you can tone down the sandbox nature of the game. Restricting player freedom even a little bit can save you a lot of work. Games accomplish this in a number of ways - portions of the game map inaccessible without certain abilities or equipment, or doors that can only be unlocked with quest item keys, for example.
Third, you can actually put in the work to create those interactions and responses. Obviously, you have to set a limit for yourself because any sufficiently large world is going to be too large to provide a truly realistic range of reactions and responses for. You're going to have to make tough decisions about what to leave in and what to shrug off.
Finally, you can do what most games do and take a little from each of the above options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would agree with you deinol, thank you for suggesting better verbiage. Although I think the Legos alone are what make a sandbox, it just happens to be the case that most designers who are going for Legos also believe in an open world. I hope PFO has both.
And 100% agree Scott. Good points about solution. I would say there are probably more solutions that are possible, but those are the 3 common ones.
For instance, making the NPC interactions based not on rote code but dynamic interaction, so they would respond to another NPC in the same manner as they would respond to a PC because each is their our independent snippet of code just responding to its environment...as PCs are. Then your effects would change the environment and the NPCs would change their behavior...because all they can do is respond to their environment (which is now different).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
once i played Ultima 8. game was full of bugs, and whatnot. but there was a mountain cliff. classic end of world. so i wondered if i could climb it. i could jump and objects would support me. so i gathered chunks of wood and build a stairway. it took hours. it would break, and i would rebuild it. i would climb it, and i fall off.
but eventually, i got on top of the cliff. of course, map got garbled. there really was nothing there.
but it felt so awesome to build that stairway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me,
A big part of the "sandbox" element of a game is that the things that happen in the game have CONSEQUENCES....both the things that I and others do and also the things that just happen in a game.
I don't want to rehash the day/night debate here....but that touch's on the reason WHY I felt it was a sandbox element. If night is functionaly no different then day save the screen has a slight tint to it...then there is really no CONSEQUENCE to the time of day or my decisions to venture out during the day/night. I have no meaningfull way to interact with that element of the game and no reason to care whether it's day or night. There is nothing to be creative with about that game element.
That's particulary frustrating if logicaly you SHOULD be able to interact with that element of the world. It would be one thing if PFO were set on a world that had no true sunset...thus day and night aren't supposed to be much different. That's not the case, I believe, for the setting chosen for PFO.
Almost by definition, some game element that the player cannot interact with in any meaningfull way cannot be a sandbox element. Now certainly, any one game element that the player is unable to interact with doesn't suddenly prevent a game from being a sandbox but the more and more of those elements that exist the less of a "sandbox" it becomes.
Until eventualy you get an environment that the player can barely interact with at all. Where things may seem to change a little but those changes have no meaningfull CONSEQUENCES. Where the player is little better then a spectator in the environment, unable to interact with the environment in any way that has consequence.
Anyone care to hazard what style of game that describes? I believe it begins with a "T".
|
I wonder how serious the persistance is going to be?
Are people taht join the game a year after launch going to miss out on dungeons or quests because they've already been cleared or a bandit leader has already been killed?
I believe that will be where new areas are opened up.
Also, keeping an area civilized and surviving incursions can and most likely wil take it's toll. In fact, some civilised areas may become ruins again if guilds collapse.
Cheers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything you have to earn is generally more valuable to you once you overcome/achieve.
This is true of PnP, RL, and MMOs. The challenge with theme parks are that once you taken the ride, eaten your cotten candy, and sipped the cool aid, there is naught to challenge you until the next expansion.
Environments more dynamic and persistent create greater challenges, unknowns, and consequences/rewards for actions. In that regard I look forward to the sandbox.
@night in PFO - If you can create the fear that running through Kithicor at night was in EQ - you got my vote!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want to rehash the day/night debate here....but that touch's on the reason WHY I felt it was a sandbox element. If night is functionaly no different then day save the screen has a slight tint to it...then there is really no CONSEQUENCE to the time of day or my decisions to venture out during the day/night. I have no meaningfull way to interact with that element of the game and no reason to care whether it's day or night. There is nothing to be creative with about that game element.
The argument against it is largely the same as the argument for it. If you tether the day/night cycle to a set of consequences, then certain people will be forced to deal with those consequences simply by virtue of when they get some free time to play.
There's no real decision involved. You log on, and if it's night time you go adventuring. If it's day time you go adventuring. Either way, you go adventuring. No meaningful decision at all. Just a different environment and a different set of "consequences" that are almost entirely out of the player's control.
The alternative, of course, is that you make adventuring at night so unattractive that people don't do it. Then you have a meaningful choice - adventure and face undue peril, or stay in civilization and be fine. But that's a sucktacular choice, because it provides no attractive option to a guy who really has his heart set on adventuring. He either has a less enjoyable adventuring experience, or he doesn't adventure.
So you either develop a day/night system with no meaningful choice, or you develop a day/night system with nothing but bad choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want to rehash the day/night debate here....but that touch's on the reason WHY I felt it was a sandbox element. If night is functionaly no different then day save the screen has a slight tint to it...then there is really no CONSEQUENCE to the time of day or my decisions to venture out during the day/night. I have no meaningfull way to interact with that element of the game and no reason to care whether it's day or night. There is nothing to be creative with about that game element.The argument against it is largely the same as the argument for it. If you tether the day/night cycle to a set of consequences, then certain people will be forced to deal with those consequences simply by virtue of when they get some free time to play.
...
in-game day could be 1 hour of real time.
in-game day could be 1 hour of real time.I don't want to rehash the day/night debate here....but that touch's on the reason WHY I felt it was a sandbox element. If night is functionaly no different then day save the screen has a slight tint to it...then there is really no CONSEQUENCE to the time of day or my decisions to venture out during the day/night. I have no meaningfull way to interact with that element of the game and no reason to care whether it's day or night. There is nothing to be creative with about that game element.The argument against it is largely the same as the argument for it. If you tether the day/night cycle to a set of consequences, then certain people will be forced to deal with those consequences simply by virtue of when they get some free time to play.
...
...and darkness doesn't have to be pitch black but it's more beneficial to Scott's argument if he uses extremes.
I think you've confused a puddle with an ocean.Skyrim's persistance is an illusion.I don't think it is. I think you're just sort of drawing an arbitrary line at what persistence matters and what persistence doesn't matter.
So scope determines what is a sandbox and what isn't?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you've confused a puddle with an ocean.Skyrim's persistance is an illusion.I don't think it is. I think you're just sort of drawing an arbitrary line at what persistence matters and what persistence doesn't matter.
If Skyrim is your idea of a puddle, your list of published, genuine sandbox games must be very, very short.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and darkness doesn't have to be pitch black but it's more beneficial to Scott's argument if he uses extremes.in-game day could be 1 hour of real time.I don't want to rehash the day/night debate here....but that touch's on the reason WHY I felt it was a sandbox element. If night is functionaly no different then day save the screen has a slight tint to it...then there is really no CONSEQUENCE to the time of day or my decisions to venture out during the day/night. I have no meaningfull way to interact with that element of the game and no reason to care whether it's day or night. There is nothing to be creative with about that game element.The argument against it is largely the same as the argument for it. If you tether the day/night cycle to a set of consequences, then certain people will be forced to deal with those consequences simply by virtue of when they get some free time to play.
...
Where did I say that darkness had to be pitch black? Or that a 1-hour-long nighttime was acceptable? Perhaps it's more beneficial to your argument if you paint me as using extremes when I don't?
Even if nighttime is only 1 hour long, if adventuring at night sucks then logging on at the beginning of that hour will suck for a lot of people. There is no good to be had here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, darkness or no, I think we can be certain nighttime play will not "suck". No one suggested nighttime play should be such. Even I, the one advocating for extreme darkness and day/night cycles normalized with the lore and the geographical scope (if the lore says it should take a day to get from point A to B, the time it takes to travel that far in game should be one cycle), suggested nighttime should have visual limitations...something that might not even concern most of the possible PC races which have comparatively enhanced vision. Likewise, I suggested NPC should have work/sleep cycles. If it would be profitable for them to have a 2nd and 3rd shift of NPC to keep the store open, I am all for that.
But, I do hope the NPCs behave rationally and seem as if they too have goals and objectives. Keeping a store open when it is unprofitable is irrational. There will always be PCs would can craft you stuff if needed (but what do you need a store for, convenience has already trumped the idea of consumables...no torches, no arrows...).
Many people here have advocated nighttime as a time that new nocturnal mobs come out, making game play...just different. In fact, others have suggested that some things (missions/hunts/harvesting) could only be done at night. Making it as important to the play of some as daytime would be to others.
Even if they made darkness real...and nighttime uber evil, this just gives reason for content lacking in past MMOs for which fantasy worlds are renown...hit up a tavern and socialize, make friends, find missions, make enemies, etc. I have never seen taverns as more than a mission hub...would be kinda cool to see them as actual social hubs...as they are suppose to be in this world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where did I say that darkness had to be pitch black? Or that a 1-hour-long nighttime was acceptable? Perhaps it's more beneficial to your argument if you paint me as using extremes when I don't?
Even if nighttime is only 1 hour long, if adventuring at night sucks then logging on at the beginning of that hour will suck for a lot of people. There is no good to be had here.
Why do you make the assumption that nightime will "suck" simply because it has a meaningful difference then day?
In a PnP game is adventuring in an outdoor setting different in a meaningfull way then adventuring in a dungeon setting? Does that automaticaly make it "suck"?
I don't believe anyone here is arguing for anything which we believe would not be fun for us, quite the reverse. Perhaps simply what we might find fun, "sucks" for you since you have vastly different tastes?
I am simply advocating for things that I believe will enrich the gameplay experience for me and those who have similar tastes to myself.
The logical extension of your arguement would seem to be that nothing in the game should carry with it any consequences as someone might find those consequences unpleasant.
I believe that would be the opposite of the design goal that the Developers have so far expressed that they are shooting for with this product...and the opposite of the preferences of the audience they seem to be targeting it toward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mel, would the screen have to be realistically black to clover your ideas of what constitutes a realistic night? If stealth based skills, for example, work better at night then that will influence your decision when to sneak into the guard post. Add in nocturnal mob sets, some cricket/tree frog noises, some different npc behavior in towns(near taverns or w/e) and you're starting to look pretty realistic... even if you can see down the street. I'm sure there are myriad other things you could add to differentiate day from night in meaningful ways.
That said I think that there has to be some sort of happy medium between the realistic inky blackness of night and the "slight tinge" to the screen that you're arguing against. I love the idea of the deep, shadowy forest and the gloomy, fetid swamp and I think there's a way to achieve that ambiance without making it so pronounced that it causes people to turn away from the game.
No, it wouldn't have to be realisticaly black...and given the difficulty of preventing exploits involved with that I'm pretty resigned to the fact it isn't going to happen.
I do however, believe they could still do some things mechanicaly to make night meaningfuly different from day...things like bonus to stealth, different mobs, routienes for NPC's...perhaps decreased render ranges or decreased attack ranges etc.
I'm interested to see what options the Dev's might consider.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you make the assumption that nightime will "suck" simply because it has a meaningful difference then day?
Because pretty much every idea that's been suggested for the effects nighttime would have on gameplay have been effects that would suck to experience involuntarily.
Vision-limiting darkness.
More dangerous encounters at night.
Closed vendors.
These are all things that make night worse than daytime. Not just different. Worse.
Different would be fine, but you have to avoid creating a situation where a person cannot do what he intended to do simply because he failed to log into the game at the right time.
I don't believe anyone here is arguing for anything which we believe would not be fun for us, quite the reverse. Perhaps simply what we might find fun, "sucks" for you since you have vastly different tastes?
That's entirely possible.
I think that not being able to see where I'm going sucks. I think that having a more difficult play experience just because I logged in at the wrong time sucks. And I think that the idea of designing nighttime in such a way as to provide incentive to staying inside city walls just to create a forced social atmosphere in taverns sucks.
That said, I think that the people who think their tastes run towards things like realism, or versimilitude, or challenge for its own sake don't actually have those tastes, much of the time.
The logical extension of your arguement would seem to be that nothing in the game should carry with it any consequences as someone might find those consequences unpleasant.
No. The furthest reach my argument has is to state that someone should be able to enjoy his play experience even if he only has one hour to play at a random time each day.
Challenge is good when it creates a compelling play experience. Difficulty for difficulty's sake is, frankly, not terribly compelling.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Challenge is good when it creates a compelling play experience. Difficulty for difficulty's sake is, frankly, not terribly compelling.Well, we all agree then...I have yet to see anyone argue for difficulty for difficulties sake. Thank you for finding us common ground SB.
But some of the things being asked for really boil down to that. After all, this thread is literally entitled "Challenge as a Priority".
Friendly fire? That's really just adding an extra layer of difficulty to the game for no purpose beyond requiring the players to "think more" (which is, itself, a little ridiculous as a reason), and to better emulate the tabletop game (which, as we know, isn't actually being emulated).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, but see...you have not seen the requests for something that requires us to think more? Obviously there are some who feel that is fun.
I also don't see how challenge as a design feature equals difficult for the sake for being difficult. It just means it should appeal to people who enjoy being challenged. I agree with you, difficulty should not trump convenience...just because.
You have said darkness will ruin your fun at night, for me it requires the players (myself included) to come up with solutions to the challenge. For me, coming up with the solution is almost more fun than implementing it. Likewise, friendly fire...well, for me that is a bit different. If you can convince me of a rationale or reason an arrow shot in a given direction should hit and damage character B, but not hit and damage character C...if they were both placed the path of the arrow...then I will join you in arguing that rationale against all the FF peoples.
But, I actually don't really care about FF. What I do care about is that everything in my character's environment acts with consistent rules. This is the only way we can justify act rationally...in any world. Were it possible, I would argue for NPCs that were intelligently indistinguishable from PCs, and avoid any distinction in game...making all characters "equal". I have no qualms with teaming with an AI if they can guard my back.
...and darkness doesn't have to be pitch black but it's more beneficial to Scott's argument if he uses extremes.Where did I say that darkness had to be pitch black? Or that a 1-hour-long nighttime was acceptable? Perhaps it's more beneficial to your argument if you paint me as using extremes when I don't?
I don't believe you used those words, but if you're going to pretend that you don't paint things in extremes you don't have to look farther than this post that I'm replying to see that you do.
Even if nighttime is only 1 hour long, if adventuring at night sucks then logging on at the beginning of that hour will suck for a lot of people. There is no good to be had here.
Or two of your posts above that one I'm quoting.
So you either develop a day/night system with no meaningful choice, or you develop a day/night system with nothing but bad choices.
Is there really only two ways to develop a day/night cycle, is there no middle ground?
In the "The Dark of Night" thread, I suggested that we move from the WoW version of night/darkness to a more EQ version. It took three pages of arguing with with you to concede that darkness in EQ wasn't that dark.
Unless you're remembering very different from what I remember, darkness wasn't very dark in Everquest. You could still see just fine.
Yet here we are a few weeks later and you're still trying to portray the idea of a darker than WoW day/night cycle as nothing but bad.
I've stated before that in EQ I played a human monk, the level darkness at night in EQ never stopped me from going anywhere I wanted go, it may have made me more cautious but never did it stop me. Is having to be a little more cautious so inconvenient of an idea to you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, but see...you have not seen the requests for something that requires us to think more? Obviously there are some who feel that is fun.
So you're telling me that you like challenge, because challenge is fun?
So challenge because you like challenge?
So challenge for the sake of challenge?
Do you see where this is going?
You can find it fun. That's great. It's still challenge for its own sake.
You need to balance your level of challenge, because past a certain point it's no longer fun. Where that point is varies from individual to individual. But I think that there are plenty of ways to inject challenge into the game that also make it enjoyable to a wide range of people, rather than making it frustrating to a wide range of people.
Likewise, friendly fire...well, for me that is a bit different. If you can convince me of a rationale or reason an arrow shot in a given direction should hit and damage character B, but not hit and damage character C...if they were both placed the path of the arrow...
Absolutely. Here is the rationale:
It's a game.
Ah, but see...you have not seen the requests for something that requires us to think more? Obviously there are some who feel that is fun.So you're telling me that you like challenge, because challenge is fun?
So challenge because you like challenge?
So challenge for the sake of challenge?
Do you see where this is going?
You can find it fun. That's great. It's still challenge for its own sake.
You need to balance your level of challenge, because past a certain point it's no longer fun. Where that point is varies from individual to individual. But I think that there are plenty of ways to inject challenge into the game that also make it enjoyable to a wide range of people, rather than making it frustrating to a wide range of people.
There you go painting things in extremes again, nobody said anything about not waiting their "challenge" balanced. No one is looking to have a game than is un-fun for the majority players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, you seem to be under the assumption that Goblinworks cannot look back upon how many years of MMOs out there and think "Game becomes too easy, people become bored, but if it becomes too hard, our casuals will quit, and eventually the hard-cores too."
Making PvE tougher than, say, WoW or Rifts isn't hard. WoW is stupidly easy to handle large mobs of creatures, Rifts makes it much harder, but still doable. WoW has mobs in set pathing patterns, Rifts mixes things up with hostile mobs occasionally attacking each other, and then throwing in Planar Invasions just because it enjoys the taste of your tears.
Playing Solo should be difficult, something that is quite draining on in-game resources but has the benefit of making you the sole owner of any swag you come across...and also opening you up to Player-Hunting Parties in open PvP Regions.
Playing in a group should make things easier, less draining on health, resources and magic, but you must/will hopefully share your swag with your party-mates. Grouping up also makes you harder for other Players to kill.
Something that drove a lot of people away from WoW (yes I know I keep coming back to that leprous behemoth, sorry!) was as each expansion came out, Blizzard kept dropping the bar on a lot of things, but a lack of difficulty was one of the main reasons people were giving as their reasons to quit, along with the whole 'storyline sucks', but that's a whole 'nother thread in and of itself.
As another example, while solo-play should allow you to adventure with some success, it should also be very difficult to do for lower-level Players. Not chewing through your own arteries difficulty, but difficult enough you sit there, fingers flying across the keyboard, heart racing as you fight that Minotaur to the death, or make you sit back and try to 'think chess' as you look over the plans for your new domicile and try to spot any obvious entry-points for Player-Thieves to abuse.
Nobody is asking for the Labours of Hercules here. We're asking for gameplay a notch or three above what current MMOs serve us. We're Gamers, we thrive on challenges.
And being an Online game, a day or two of players headbutting the AI could make Goblinworks start to slowly ramp down the difficulty from to a CR that the current skill-sets can handle, and then be able to adjust and reduce CR/Difficulties as they see fit to continue to keep the Game both Challenging and Fun.