Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So solitaire isn't a game?
Orfamay Quest, it appears Ryan's simply trying to teach us the language he's using, so we can engage in meaningful dialogue on the subject without mis-understanding. I don't feel as if we're on a quest for eternal truth here, only for a framework to talk about PFO with one of its principals where we've reduced the possibilities of mistake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would that not make every single player only video game simply a toy?
Perhaps, in Ryan's terminology, single-player games are more "activity", and less "game". In a certain way, though, and it's more noticeable in some games than in others, the player's interacting with the developers of the game, or the writers, whom one hopes are human.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would that not make every single player only video game simply a toy?Perhaps, in Ryan's terminology, single-player games are more "activity", and less "game". In a certain way, though, and it's more noticeable in some games than in others, the player's interacting with the developers of the game, or the writers, whom one hopes are human.
It sounds to me like "single player games" are simply "toys".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A game requires meaningful human interaction. An actual box of sand is a toy when one person uses it, but could become a game if two people meaningfully interacted with the sand as a medium. SimCity is a toy because there's no meaningful human interaction.So solitaire isn't a game? Chess is only a game if you're playing against a human, not against a computer? Knights of the Old Republic isn't a game, because it's single player? Pinball is not a game if you're playing alone, but is a game if you take the left-hand flippers and I take the right-hand ones?
Right: those are processes. Just ask Big Blue. Simple yes/no question, right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds to me like "single player games" are simply "toys".Would that not make every single player only video game simply a toy?Perhaps, in Ryan's terminology, single-player games are more "activity", and less "game". In a certain way, though, and it's more noticeable in some games than in others, the player's interacting with the developers of the game, or the writers, whom one hopes are human.
To call them simply toys would be to insult toys, which I do not believe is fair. The idea here is not to fight about terminology, or the appropriateness of a word, but to come to a common understanding of what a word means when it is being used. And I really doubt that the intent from anyone is to demean single player games.
Words are about communication. So long as the communication is successfully understood as it was meant to be conveyed, then the words have served their purpose regardless of which ones we use.
I admit I may be prodding a bit too much to get a clear understanding of how the terms are being used. But part of that is so that I can phrase the message in multiple ways in order to be sure I have the most possible tools to communicate clearly.
So let's keep the discussion constructive and avoid dismissing or attacking someone's point of view. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always considered the measurement of a sandbox in two different lights:
is this a single player campaign?
If yes then it at least in the past been held to a different set of definitions. I believe the Dues Ex 2 game was billed as a sandbox to me, because it had multiple faction quests that determined your main quest outcome. At one time a single player campaign was considered a sandbox if it held multiple avenues to reach an end, instead of a purely linear storyline.
Is this an MMO?
Then the way it has been defined by players or developers is by a different set of standards. Strong crafting based economies, the ability to build and maintain holdings, and a non linear progression are often weighed.
I tend to think of a game as a hybrid (Sandpark / Themebox) if it has a toggle pvp feature and a main storyline that carries you to "max level", or even if in some cases if it has strict classes or levels at all.
Not everyone agrees to that definition, so I tend to think the terms are still pretty subjective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding single player games as toys: When I look at Steam's count of the hours I've played a single player game, sometimes I have a passing recognition that those hours were spent on a pastime. I could have been playing solitaire with cards or playing a chess simulator or watching television; it's mostly just spent time. But it amused me or caused other emotions - it wasn't wasted time.
In even a simple multiplayer 'game' like a MUD we interact with people - and I think that such activities are often on a higher level than interacting with an AI or a set of rules for a solitaire game.
Well, I think we need to get back to the OP here.
There are some phrases everyone uses but few apparently really understand. I'll give it a try and run what I think a 'sandbox' is up the flagpole and then stand back to see whether anyone salutes.
So very much of the material in the blogs talks about 'sandbox game'. It is contrasted with 'themepark game' but nowhere is there a good explanation about what we mean by that phrase.
As a point of reference Neil Sorens said:
"We know that every time someone plays a sandbox game, that person creates an original story. When a player creates a family in The Sims, the resulting game -- based on input from the player -- tells the life stories of the members of that family."
Unpacking this, it's very clear that what Sorens means by "sandbox" (and by extension, theme park) does not involve multiple players (The Sims was a single player game) or necessarily persistence (although like any game that is expected to take longer that about three minutes, it did come with a save-game feature). Sorens is using the word sandbox in the traditional sense of an open-ended game, and specifically not in Ryan's sense.
So that answers the OP's question. To what end, I'm not sure. Labelling PFO doesn't actually do much for it; if the experience would be improved by adding (or removing) content persistence, then it doesn't matter whether one calls it a "toy," a "game," or a "conflugle."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pathfinder Online has a win condition: Establish a successful Settlement, which after Early Enrollment implies a loss condition as well.
I was under the Impression that a win or loss condition entails that it ends the game. And I can't imagine that Pathfinder online ends after the first settlement can de described as successful. It seems your definition of win condition is a bit on the floppy side.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that answers the OP's question. To what end, I'm not sure. Labelling PFO doesn't actually do much for it; if the experience would be improved by adding (or removing) content persistence, then it doesn't matter whether one calls it a "toy," a "game," or a "conflugle."
The hoped for end when I was framing the question was to move toward a clear presentation for new prospective players so they might have a clear and distinct grasp of everything 'open world sandbox multiplayer RPG' means... and my objective with that was to get closer to providing understanding why PvP was a necessary condition.
So in a way it was a bit of a dishonest question, since I actually felt I had a pretty good grasp of what it means, and also had an objective I was trying to lead the community toward.
In order to spin a good story you need conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pathfinder Online has a win condition: Establish a successful Settlement, which after Early Enrollment implies a loss condition as well.I was under the Impression that a win or loss condition entails that it ends the game. And I can't imagine that Pathfinder online ends after the first settlement can de described as successful. It seems your definition of win condition is a bit on the floppy side.
Probably not: Ryan was pointing the conversation toward game theory. For something to be a game it has to have a win condition and consequently a lose condition. The biggest difference I see between the win condition in PFO and high score after four quarters in football is that once there is a successful settlement we don't reset everything to zero: we continue the game and the tides of war will shift and flow, ebbing and waxing constantly with relation to one another.
This is rather how game theory finds domain in real life, in business. It is an ongoing evolution, not an ending.
I was under the Impression that a win or loss condition entails that it ends the game. And I can't imagine that Pathfinder online ends after the first settlement can de described as successful. It seems your definition of win condition is a bit on the floppy side.Probably not: Ryan was pointing the conversation toward game theory. For something to be a game it has to have a win condition and consequently a lose condition. The biggest difference I see between the win condition in PFO and high score after four quarters in football is that once there is a successful settlement we don't reset everything to zero: we continue the game and the tides of war will shift and flow, ebbing and waxing constantly with relation to one another.
The problem with that framing -- if you're using game theory properly, that is -- is that to continue playing the game after you have "won" is a bad strategy. At best, to make a move once you've "won" will allow you to still have "won," and at worst it will shift your situation to "lost." Which means that a rational player has no incentive to continue playing after he won, and substantial incentive to quit while he's ahead.
Since that's obviously not the case for PFO -- at least, I hope that's not the case that the designers are working towards -- either PFO has no win condition, or this thread has not successfully labelled it.
James Carse tried to develop a theory of games that distinguished between "finite games," which have a win condition, and "infinite games," which do not, but for which the incentive and purpose is merely to continue playing. His theory was not entirely successful from a formal perspective. But I think that's a better framework if you want to look at PFO and similar continuous games.
Having said that,.... to what end? Again, this seems to be a label without much practical value.
Eve Online has something close to a win condition, mainly economic domination by massed force that acheives a monopoly condition. However such victories are occasionally undone by insider treachery.Since that's obviously not the case for PFO -- at least, I hope that's not the case that the designers are working towards -- either PFO has no win condition, or this thread has not successfully labelled it.
Which in turn suggests that the players who have achieved a monopoly are not rational, as they continue to play after having won.
I suggest that (as per above), you've mislabeled the "won" condition. Someone has not "won" Eve Online if they're part of a coalition that has achieved a monopoly. Julius has not won if he shares power with Pompey and Crassus. Alternatively, the players' goal is not the end state, but the process,... and again we're back into an infinite game in the Carsean sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...to continue playing the game after you have "won" is a bad strategy. At best, to make a move once you've "won" will allow you to still have "won," and at worst it will shift your situation to "lost." Which means that a rational player has no incentive to continue playing after he won, and substantial incentive to quit while he's ahead.
Since that's obviously not the case for PFO -- at least, I hope that's not the case that the designers are working towards -- either PFO has no win condition, or this thread has not successfully labelled it.
James Carse tried to develop a theory of games that distinguished between "finite games," which have a win condition, and "infinite games," which do not, but for which the incentive and purpose is merely to continue playing. His theory was not entirely successful from a formal perspective. But I think that's a better framework if you want to look at PFO and similar continuous games.
Having said that,.... to what end? Again, this seems to be a label without much practical value.
Consider winning as synthesis in dialectic conversation. To win you achieve synthesis with your settlement and survive. You are then confronted with the fact that your winning synthesis has evolved into the new hypothesis... and your opponent(s) are proposing their new antithesis. By wrestling your hypothesis successfully you may win through to an even greater synthesis or fall by the wayside, defeated, your hypothesis tattered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider winning as synthesis in dialectic conversation. To win you achieve synthesis with your settlement and survive. You are then confronted with the fact that your winning synthesis has evolved into the new hypothesis... and your opponent(s) are proposing their new antithesis. By wrestling your hypothesis successfully you may win through to an even greater synthesis or fall by the wayside, defeated, your hypothesis tattered.
Oh lord, flashbacks to Interpersonal Communication, Philosophy, and Logic classes in college.
Consider winning as synthesis in dialectic conversation. To win you achieve synthesis with your settlement and survive.
But in that case, you've not won (in the game-theoretic sense), because the game continues. Furthermore, depending upon what synthesis you have achieved, you may be in a better or worse position with respect to the new antithesis proposed. So all you've really done by "winning" is made a good move in an ongoing game.
To use chess as a metaphor, there are a number of tactical battles that you can "win" or "lose"; you can successfully control the center (or not), you can gain in development (or not), you can obtain material advantage (or not), and so forth. But none of these are "winning" in a game-theoretic sense precisely because they're not game-ending; being up by two pawns will not win you the game if you're checkmated. (And a good chess player knows this, which is how they win for real by offering sacrifices.)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A game requires meaningful human interaction. An actual box of sand is a toy when one person uses it, but could become a game if two people meaningfully interacted with the sand as a medium. SimCity is a toy because there's no meaningful human interaction.So solitaire isn't a game? Chess is only a game if you're playing against a human, not against a computer? Knights of the Old Republic isn't a game, because it's single player? Pinball is not a game if you're playing alone, but is a game if you take the left-hand flippers and I take the right-hand ones?
A deck of cards is not a game, nor a chess set, nor a pinball machine, nor is a Pathfinder rule book.
Solitaire, in this schema, is a puzzle.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In the game-theoretic sense, the game doesn't require an end state, nor an explicit win state. It is sufficient for the game to have a score or a system isomorphic to score (which need not be symmetrical for all players, nor tracked by the software).
"Games" in decision theory are a much broader category than "games" in this context; but all single-player 'games' reduce to the decision-theory 'puzzle' or 'calculation', unless the AI is an agent (currently agent theorists have yet to see a computer that is an agent in general, but for some purposes they might be indistinguishable)
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
So solitaire isn't a game?
No. Solitare is a puzzle.
Chess is only a game if you're playing against a human, not against a computer
The AI in chess is a suitable substitute for a human, except when it is really just a puzzle.
Knights of the Old Republic isn't a game, because it's single player?
The AI in single-player games is a suitable substitute for a human, except when the game becomes more like a puzzle.
In both of those examples, a human could replace the AI and the experience would not be fundamentally different. The AI is a human simulator. Humans, if they were in the loop, would not be AI simulators, except when those games become puzzles (when the logic challenge outweighs the interactive challenge).
Pinball is not a game if you're playing alone, but is a game if you take the left-hand flippers and I take the right-hand ones?
Pinball is a game if I care about your score (or you care about my score) - the score is meaningful interaction. A game can be played for practice, but the activity is really "practice" not "playing". Someone who plays pinball just for fun is treating pinball as a toy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the Impression that a win or loss condition entails that it ends the game.There is no win/loss condition that ends the game of "poker" except death.
Now, I know your not talking about Strip Poker. That has a meaningful human interaction with a happy ending.
Heh
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Depends on the game and the setting. You might be in Hell condemned to eternal strip poker with Dick Cheney. And he always loses.I was under the Impression that a win or loss condition entails that it ends the game.There is no win/loss condition that ends the game of "poker" except death.Now, I know your not talking about Strip Poker. That has a meaningful human interaction with a happy ending.
Heh
Now thats funny
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CCP defined for EVE Online 3 things:
1. Social
2. Goals
3. Emergence
I know Ryan has produced some interesting definitions so it's useful to learn from what the pros in the business think for MMORPG > Sandbox > Fantasy > Pathfinder etc. eg
A sandbox game features a high degree of persistency due to player agency, and derives most of its play mechanic from the emergent behavior that arises when humans meaningfully interact with one another.
For me I'd try to summarize as either players interacting using a rule system that perhaps allows new rules to be made (eg Calvin Ball) or players interact by creating/combining new objects to interact with... or both.
In terms of mmorpgs, I really like these venn diagrams that a user over at mmorpg.com made: MMORPG games in Venn diagrams so a complex system that interacts and players interact with ie a virtual world and other players. So the degree of integration of systems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many aspects of a sandbox being listed, but all of those aspects have to stem from a fundamental definition.
A sandbox game is one where the majority of content is created by the players using the systems put in place by the developers.
(content created by the players as in, the experiences you get from the game are generated by your own actions, or in the case of a multiplayer game, player interactions)
Every sandbox follows that definition, and a real sandbox follows the same principles. If you can think of a sandbox that doesn't, I'll have to rethink this.
An open world game =/= sandbox. An open world game can be a themepark or a sandbox. TES Skyrim is a themepark to its core, but also has an open world. Minecraft is a sandbox to its core, but also has an open world. However, when you play minecraft you make your own fun; when you play Skyrim you experience the content the developers intended for you to see.
Think about what a real sandbox is. You're sitting there surrounded by sand and you have a couple of tools (bucket/shovel/etc.) to make stuff with. The ways to enjoy the sandbox are there, but you yourself have to create that "content".
Compare that to what a real themepark is. Once you step foot in the park, almost every piece of "content" you experience was specifically designed by someone else. Every ride was meant to be enjoyed the way you experienced it. The layout of the park was specifically designed by someone else to be experienced in a way that you did.
In one go you could visit every part of that themepark. The only potential variations would be the order in which you experience the attractions. I think this is the point where a themepark game with an open world is confused with a sandbox game. Being able to experience content in any order is not a sandbox, it's still a themepark. A superior themepark for sure, but the experiences are still predetermined when you being playing.
A sandbox on the other hand: no matter how many times you play in a sandbox, you'll always have something new to do if you choose to do it, with infinite variations based on what you decide to do.
------------
Also: PvP by it's very nature is a sandbox activity since the content is derived from player interaction. A developer can limit that aspect substantially though. Compare Call of Duty to Planetside 2 for example. Or compare World of Warcraft to Dark Age of Camelot. The difference is in how limited the players' tools for interacting are.
------------
Regarding themeparks with options. They give the sandbox feel, but they're not sandboxes. There may be 4 paths to choose from, but if you play the game 4 times you will experience all of them. The 5th time it will feel just as much of a themepark as any other themepark. Molding a story to your choices is great, but it's fundamentally different than creating a genuine story unique from what the developers intended by design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Alarox: If we're defining what "Sandbox" in vacuo ultimately means : Providing the player with the means to create their own games (where game is any kind of interaction of play), be it any form within the limitations of the means provided.
What I think Ryan has said, is that when you take that principle into a sub-genre of games eg MMORPG, then the meaning changing to those limitations of that genre. What EQ:N appears to be doing is keeping some of the MMORPG atst as putting a sandbox around that eg Landmark, areas players can build stuff or import from landmark. And no doubt create some AI storybrick content. Inbetween there's PvP systems and it will likely be a variety of types I guess.
But by having porous borders they seem to be aiming to keep players generating content ie sandbox -> object interaction that simulates a mmorpg. I think what a mmorpg ultimately needs to do is not simulate rpg but create a virtual world where the rpg occurs on a massive scale. It almost sounds like I'm swapping words saying it like that, but the more complex the virtual world the more potential emergence from those systems is possible which itself is another form of creativity. We'll have to learn a lot more about what EQ:N promises but it seems that way atm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being - after a certain point of development, existence will indicate success.
Friends-it is as I long suspected. The player organizations imported from other games will have metagame communication, compartmentalization, hierarchy and goal-setting in place at OE; indeed, they have it now. It matters not overmuch what the exact mechanics of our little sandbox are. The barbarian invaders-Bluddwolf's wolves-are Mr. Dancey's old friends from
EVE. It makes sense; once the game has a shot at longevity it needs subscribers after all. Most bozos play or try multiple games.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To elaborate perhaps on the meaning of sandbox as applied to mmorpgs. A somewhat rambling point of view:
If we take the useful eg of EQ:N, then what it seems sony is doing is taking the section of the market that came in looking for persistence and for a world with other players AND for fun gameplay such as terraforming as per minecraft - as well as - combat rpg stuff. I think therefore it is an easy guess to suggest sony are due to have a high player base for EQ:N that supplies that sort of demand given their investment in strong tech for those goals.
But noting what Ryan has been saying recently about virtual worlds, the players of such games, there's more dedication around those games, a different type of gamer who is very committed. So it might be a consideration to extend the definiton of a sandbox mmorpg, what is imo infinitely better called a "virtual world" to include the sort of player that this appeals to as part of the definition. If: you have a complex highly persistent, highly consequential world you need it to be populated by players to run it as such on a high frequency responsive basis, via the means provided by the devs.
This thought just occurred to me, given the somewhat challenging recent quotes from Ryan, that the definition may have to account for the players themselves - like any game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It has been observed that a game has win/loss conditions. There was further a question where the win/loss conditions would be in PFO. I think it is fair to wonder similarly where the 'game' is in EQ:Next as well.
Or is the win/lose condition somewhere in the cloud of player enjoyment/dedication?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah it seems to me there must be a lot of interpretations in that, Being, all more or less applicable atst as Settlement's being the de facto """"win"""" condition: If your group can carve out an identity and survive, then you've succeeded, otherwise you are a part of someone else's group or dead meat!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SimCity is not a game, its a software toy. It's a sandbox like an actual box of sand, which is also not a game.
Interestingly, SimCity started off as a tool used in advanced Urban Planning and Master of Public Administration degrees at a specific school (should look it up, but not that motivated atm). It was seen as a planning tool, but the users started performing feats of daring do with urban planning and the school and developers realized they might have gold! The early version back in 87* or so was very limited, but evolved into the graphic beauty it is today (albeit not quite the game/toy they planned before release).
(*In the old Commodore 64 era, with a 1541 5 1/4" floppy drive! Yeah, they really made those!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This guy has a neat scheme that is useful to use to see different types of "game":
Game Systems as Engines In particular the diagram of "engines: Toy, Puzzle, Contest, Game".
Thanks, a most useful way of defining terms. In this terminology, Sims and SimCity are definitely 'Toys' (the objective is to see what you can do), but single-player games can be all types.
Also: Life is a Game and the world is a Toy! But grind-heavy MMOs seem to be neither of the four...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or is the win /lose condition somewhere in the cloud of player enjoyment/dedication?
The objective of the meta-game is always enjoyment (except for a few over-educational games). No GM or game night host should ever forget it, nor will GW.
Enjoyment can come from discovery, achievement, victory, aestetic pleasure or meaningfulness (including social sense of belonging, helping others etc). Different types of games (toy/puzzle/contest etc) focus on different aspects. PFO is laser targeting 'meaningful interaction' because they believe 'meaningfulness' is the most powerful thing you can experience in a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are many aspects of a sandbox being listed, but all of those aspects have to stem from a fundamental definition.
A sandbox game is one where the majority of content is created by the players using the systems put in place by the developers.
(content created by the players as in, the experiences you get from the game are generated by your own actions, or in the case of a multiplayer game, player interactions)
Every sandbox follows that definition, and a real sandbox follows the same principles. If you can think of a sandbox that doesn't, I'll have to rethink this.
An open world game =/= sandbox. An open world game can be a themepark or a sandbox. TES Skyrim is a themepark to its core, but also has an open world. Minecraft is a sandbox to its core, but also has an open world. However, when you play minecraft you make your own fun; when you play Skyrim you experience the content the developers intended for you to see.
Think about what a real sandbox is. You're sitting there surrounded by sand and you have a couple of tools (bucket/shovel/etc.) to make stuff with. The ways to enjoy the sandbox are there, but you yourself have to create that "content".
Compare that to what a real themepark is. Once you step foot in the park, almost every piece of "content" you experience was specifically designed by someone else. Every ride was meant to be enjoyed the way you experienced it. The layout of the park was specifically designed by someone else to be experienced in a way that you did.
In one go you could visit every part of that themepark. The only potential variations would be the order in which you experience the attractions. I think this is the point where a themepark game with an open world is confused with a sandbox game. Being able to experience content in any order is not a sandbox, it's still a themepark. A superior themepark for sure, but the experiences are still predetermined when you being playing.
A sandbox on the other hand: no matter how many times you play...
This is spot on!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll grant that many of the Sim series were software toys. If you just started Sim Ant and walked away, you would win more than half the time. Sim Earth, though, was exactly what it said on the tin, a planet simulation. In my Air Quality course in college, terraforming Mars with that program was a serious assignment. It was fun having people try to kick me off a school computer for playing a video game, then proving that it was homework.