Goblin Squad Member
|
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."
In a sandbox game the player creates the story. In a multiplayer game players modify one another's stories as well as create their own. This is radically different from a 'themepark' game where the game designer tells the game's story for every player.
In order for a sandbox environment to work well there must be things to furnish your story with and things to do to facilitate making your own story. There should also be few mechanical limitations on the possibilities of your creation, yet there must be limitations on how badly your creation can be affected by other players.
Have I adequately described what a sandbox game is? Do you have anything you would add? What have I glossed over? What did I understate?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am supposin' the sandbox game is a set of tools provided by the game developer within certain parameters.
In this case the tools will be the settlement system, the escalation system, the alignment system, the economic system, the monster creation system, the geographic setting, the combat system, the item creation and naming system (including the keyword system, which is part of both the combat system and item creation system). I am sure there several I have missed, and many more to be added at a later date.
So the parameters would be the world (Golarion) and more finite (the River Kingdoms), all played within a general theme of the Pathfinder gaming system.
A sandbox game is a game where the players are in control of the sequence of events and can go where and when they like, as opposed to a more tightly controlled narrative where there's a specific set of events that they encounter in a specific order.
A (stereo)typical dungeon crawl is not a sandbox; you enter in room 1 and move through rooms 2, 3,... in sequence until you hit the boss monster at the end. By contrast, a (stereo)typical city adventure and many MMORPGs worlds are sandboxes in that you can wander more or less anywhere and encounter anything. (I think I was playing RIfts when I first took a wrong turn, crossed the wrong river, and promptly died because I was in a level 40+ area at level 6. Sucks to be me.)
The alignment system and whatnot have little to do with being a sandbox or not, except in as far as they enable (or disable) player control of the overall game experience. Basically, if you get to decide what you do next and where you go to do it, you're in at least a partial sandbox. If you're in one of those games-on-rails where you really only have a single option at each point and the challenge is to figure out how to solve the current puzzle, it's not a sandbox.
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.
Nope. Lots of sandbox games are single-player. Grand Theft Auto, for example, and its many sequels and clones. Similarly, SimCity and the original Sims were single player, IIRC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Nope. Lots of sandbox games are single-player. Grand Theft Auto, for example, and its many sequels and clones. Similarly, SimCity and the original Sims were single player, IIRC.
Somehow I think Ryan could be right on this one, since he's been workin' in this particular area for a while. Don't know anything about GTA really, but I can assure you it is not a sandbox. (Yes, I am trying to be diplomatic here...)
The alignment system and whatnot have little to do with being a sandbox or not, except in as far as they enable (or disable) player control of the overall game experience. Basically, if you get to decide what you do next and where you go to do it, you're in at least a partial sandbox. If you're in one of those games-on-rails where you really only have a single option at each point and the challenge is to figure out how to solve the current puzzle, it's not a sandbox.
By your definition WoW is a sandbox since I can choose to go where in the game world I want and do whatever I want. But I get stuck when I want to do something that has not been dictated by the game designer. Where are the tools to build a fortress in the middle of Un'goro Valley and fight dinosaurs, or attack Orgrimmar with siege engines? They aren't there because Blizzard doesn't want me to do that to their world. There is more freedom to do things in a sandbox....I do still have to use the tools I am given, but I can to what I like without being on rails. Having the other players in the game is cricital, as a single player sandbox would be a lonely place to conquer indeed.
Somehow I think Ryan could be right on this one, since he's been workin' in this particular area for a while. Don't know anything about GTA really, but I can assure you it is not a sandbox. (Yes, I am trying to be diplomatic here...)
Well, given that the term "sandbox game" originated because the industry needed a term for "GTA III clone" that didn't have the pejorative implications of "clone," I can assure you that Ryan and you are indulging in revisionist history.
"Launched in 1997 in a whirlwind of Max Clifford-generated controversy, the original developers DMA Design (who became Rockstar North) defined the free-roaming violent and vehicular action template with GTA. ... In 2001, Grand Theft Auto III moved the series into 3D, becoming a true worldwide phenomenon in the process and spawning an entire genre of imitators from Just Cause to Saint's Row."
ETA more examples:
Sierra unveils Prototype, not the first sandbox adventure
Over at Henry Jenkins’ blog, there’s a discussion of sandbox games that uses as a launching pad my "brutal" review of Assassin’s Creed:Fair enough: Yes, I was using "sandbox" and "open-world" interchangeably. My use of the term was more to emphasize that the level design is a vast open area with unlimited ways to get from point A to point B, as opposed to a game like Prince of Persia where there is only one.
Although Kohler never defines exactly what he means by sandbox it feels like he’s using the popular definition, citing the incompatibility of stealth with a GTA-style massive world. "How do you make an open-world Metal Gear Solid? Apparently you don’t," he concludes. Ironically, I’ve long considered Metal Gear Solid — and many stealth games in general — sandbox games. I’ve used the term sandbox to refer to any game world — regardless of size and scope — that offers free-roaming, open-ended gameplay. For example, I’ve always felt Mario 64 is the greatest sandbox game ever made because of its ingenious non-linear level design.
What It Does Right: The three cities and vast hub world of Assassin’s Creed is quite frankly one of the most impressive open worlds that has ever been created for a videogame. Drawing off of the sandbox cities of Grand Theft Auto, the Holy Land is not only impressively rendered, with amazing draw distance (you can scale a high rooftop and see every little thing below), it is artistically very pretty to look at. And it’s filled with thousands of people that give it an organic feel.
By your definition WoW is a sandbox since I can choose to go where in the game world I want and do whatever I want.
That is correct. There's a reason for that. It's because WoW is, in fact, a sandbox game. (More accurately it has large amounts of sandbox elements; the instance dungeons are not typically sandboxes, nor are the tutorial levels, IIRC.)
But I get stuck when I want to do something that has not been dictated by the game designer.
That's because that's not an element of what a sandbox game is.
The OP asked what a "sandbox game" was; I gave the definition of the term as used by the industry. Neither multiplayer nor persistence are typical features of prototype sandbox games like GTA; the defiendum is the open world aspects of the narrative.
Sandbox game: The freedom to go anywhere and do fun stuff.
All GM ran campaigns are open world, most are not sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A sandbox game features a high degree of persistency due to player agency
I think this is necessary. To this I would add a player-based tool set for interacting with and changing the game environment. These two together are necessary and sufficient to qualify a game as a sandbox (more of the above makes it more of a sandbox).
and derives most of its play mechanic from the emergent behavior that arises when humans meaningfully interact with one another.
I don't think this last is necessary or sufficient, but it definitely a positive feature of PfO.
I also agree with another poster that multiplayer is not necessary, but I cannot agree WoW in a sandbox, primarily because there is not persistence or ways to shape the environment.
EDIT: and open world != sandbox
I also agree with another poster that multiplayer is not necessary, but I cannot agree WoW in a sandbox, primarily because there is not persistence or ways to shape the environment.
EDIT: and open world != sandbox
Shrug. The professional game reviewers at Wired disagree with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
and derives most of its play mechanic from the emergent behavior that arises when humans meaningfully interact with one another.I don't think this last is necessary or sufficient, but it definitely a positive feature of PfO.
It might be a necessary part of sandbox MMOs. It wouldn't apply in non-MMO sandboxes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reading that, KitNyx, I did like Ryan's takedown of all of the non-persistant, non-sandboxy things about Skyrim. Like not being able to convince anyone to move between cities. "Not true! Demonstratively false!" someone cries. "You can move your spouse!" ...ok, you can move one person in the entire game - clearly a sandbox.
I enjoyed Skyrim - put in 100s of hours, but I really would like the ability to take over places I've cleared and make them my own camp...
|
Are we talking Sandbox like, free-run, with lots of stories, quests and NPC goodness , or are we talking Sandbox like, players are expected to roleplay and do everything themselves?
Not to risk getting flamed, but I really hope it is not the second option. Why? Firstly, because most players will not do this. Some will (RP is good, yes.), but most won't. Also, to me it is kind of a cop-out if a game gets too heavily player based. Some people like an interactive story presented - I'd daresay that is why most people -play- tabletop (as opposed to GM), and many people may not have to time to invest the required hours to chore through all of the aspects of a real world when they really just want to get to some good meaty storyline, combat and advancement.
I hope players who actually like a -bit- of linear gaming, questing and story chains will have something as well. I really can't see investing my free time into chopping wood and building walls as a major chunk of my game experience. I want to meet the characters of Golarion, uncover lore, artifacts and ancient Thassilonian crypts, and experience combat with the vast array of strange creatures and NPCs the line has offered for tabletop.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There are two things in a sandbox.
You have the sand, and you have the box. Everyone in the sandbox has the same box, but different sand. You can pile your sand into heaps, you can build it into castles, you can do anything that you can do with 'your' sand- and so can everyone else.
The box is the same for every player, but the sand is different for every player. If the box dominates the experience, the result is a theme park: While there might be sand in the theme park, the primary attractions are the same for everyone.
Likewise, there might be toys in the sandbox that everyone can take turns with; the toys are the same for everyone, but the sand is constantly changing.
Skyrim is an open world theme park, while The Sims is instanced sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd say as a whole GTA and Skyrim and WoW, are examples of what originally constituted a sandbox, but the initial definitions need to be updated. IMO persistence should be a factor. GTA and skyrim both have very limited persistence. WoW has virtually 0 persistence. I cannot think of a single action in WoW that can leave even a shred of evidence as to your existance.
IE yes when you finish X questline X gangs shoot you on sight from then on, but most aspects don't change. Kill 900 people, destroy enough police cars etc to the point they send in the national guard after you... they blow you up, you walk out of the hospital, and the police will happily ignore you until you start again.
The key point to sandbox, is the amount of changes to the world do stick. The term did come into existance at a time where memory and save space was a premium. IE in the time of GTA, the technology did not exist to feasably save much other than minor changes to your character, what quests have been completed and basic stats.
Skyrim is much freer, much more longterm for your acts in each city. But it does cause large amounts of disbelief in the grounds that what you do to city X, has 0% chance of reaching city Y etc... Even under the presumption you left no survivors, you'd surely expect a neighboring city to have some kind of note of a city that was massacred.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we talking Sandbox like, free-run, with lots of stories, quests and NPC goodness , or are we talking Sandbox like, players are expected to roleplay and do everything themselves?
Not to risk getting flamed, but I really hope it is not the second option. Why? Firstly, because most players will not do this. Some will (RP is good, yes.), but most won't. Also, to me it is kind of a cop-out if a game gets too heavily player based. Some people like an interactive story presented - I'd daresay that is why most people -play- tabletop (as opposed to GM), and many people may not have to time to invest the required hours to chore through all of the aspects of a real world when they really just want to get to some good meaty storyline, combat and advancement.
I hope players who actually like a -bit- of linear gaming, questing and story chains will have something as well. I really can't see investing my free time into chopping wood and building walls as a major chunk of my game experience. I want to meet the characters of Golarion, uncover lore, artifacts and ancient Thassilonian crypts, and experience combat with the vast array of strange creatures and NPCs the line has offered for tabletop.
PfO will indeed be mostly players will do everything forthemselves. There will be PVE and while there may be a couple of long storyline chains of quests I would not expect there from what they have said to be a lot of these and most PvE will be dealing with escalations. The same will be true of dungeons with most randomly generated. The exception instance wise being of course the pretty massive dungeon known as the Emerald Spire.
HOWEVER before you despair know that I am an avid RP'er as well and if I can take the liberty of reposting something I wrote elsewhere on the board for you to consider
@Algrimbeldabar and others that have not played sandbox games
This is the sort of thing you can look forward to if PfO gives the players the ability to impact on the world as Eve
This eve alliance was one of the rp alliances and this reads like quite a lot of rp guilds back story timelines.
The difference is these battles occured! Winners and losers weren't prescripted but decided by actual in game actions. Stations were destroyed. Territories won and lost. The sweet elation of victory and bitter taste of defeat was real....not something you read about in the developers lore then shrug as you kill Illidan for the 19th time
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A kid can play in his sandbox in his own backyard with no fear of some bully kicking over his sandcastle. If that same kid goes to the beach to build his sandcastle, his sandcastle will eventually get kicked over 100% of the time, unless he (or his dad) guards it. Later after it is abandoned, it will be claimed by the tide, and the beach is pristine once again.
Different sandboxes, but one has meaningful interaction, one does not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are two things in a sandbox.
You have the sand, and you have the box. Everyone in the sandbox has the same box, but different sand (...)
A themepark can have many rides that you can take (or skip) in any order you like (except sometimes you have to be "this tall" to ride).Walking between different rides may well be an open world, but every ride is a (often railroaded and repeatable) designed experience.
The purpose of the themepark is to experience the different designed rides. The purpose of the sandbox is to make something yourself. The second purpose of the sandbox is emergence, which is seen whenever two play together in the same sandbox: the fairy castle gets connected to the highway system and the kids start telling stories about the people in the cars, or the tunneling project undermines the skyscraper ending in fighting where everything is stomped on.
Ryan wants emergence, which he wants to achieve by taking a minimum viable product and just adding players.
(MVP = pile of sand and shovel, though buckets may be in before OE)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A kid can play in his sandbox in his own backyard with no fear of some bully kicking over his sandcastle. If that same kid goes to the beach to build his sandcastle, his sandcastle will eventually get kicked over 100% of the time, unless he (or his dad) guards it. Later after it is abandoned, it will be claimed by the tide, and the beach is pristine once again.
Different sandboxes, but one has meaningful interaction, one does not.
That kid should hide a concrete block underneath the sandcastle's exterior... waiting for that foot to connect... x-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay: for me 'sandbox' means the ability to do/build/destroy whatever I want, especially as those things apply to my 'story', and have the effects/consequences of those things last awhile.
'Open world' means few or no significant borders beyond unclimbable cliffs and the like, and possibly unswimmable bodies of water.
'Open world PvP', then, means multiplayer interaction/competition whether economic or combative can take place anywhere.
These are different things, it seems to me, though they are surely intermingled.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am supposin' the sandbox game is a set of tools provided by the game developer within certain parameters...
That's what I think. Basically GW is to build the world, furnish it with objects and how things work to include such things as reputation and NPC guardsmen whose AI will respond to reputation and other factors. It is to be 'open world' as far as they are able to meaningfully build, and open world PvP will be the normal situation whether in NPC-controlled/defended towns or player-controlled settlements though there may be consequences for trying to go some places or do some things depending on your alignment./reputation.
What a player does in the proposed Golarion and how they do it will be the expression of their story, and what the players do and how they interrelate will forge Golarion's history.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we did not have PvP or the potential to engage in PvP, if the game were only PvE, then it could not permit sandboxing because we could not attack/defend against other players who may be intent on disrupting our play.
But in consequence to this liberty, common player fears about possible (probable) consequences of this potential, elaborate structures of regulation are receiving great focus in developer communiques. As a result potential players of the game see disproportionate emphasis on PvP in our conversations which magnify their fears.
There is too little information provided that talks about the WHY PvP is so dominant among our concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we talking Sandbox like, free-run, with lots of stories, quests and NPC goodness , or are we talking Sandbox like, players are expected to roleplay and do everything themselves?
...
I hope players who actually like a -bit- of linear gaming, questing and story chains will have something as well.
From the GW Blog, June 19, Rich Baker said:
"Pathfinder Online will have a modest amount of "theme park" style content, or content designed to engage your character with a specific narrative and deliver a specific experience. For example, new players in starting areas can expect to be given specific quests to perform and will make the acquaintance of a number of NPCs. Dynamic story elements such as goblin raids, marauding ogres, and Hellknight encampments also generate narratives for your character to engage with and resolve. But it's largely up to you whether you look for game storylines to follow or build your own story by finding something fun to do, and doing it."
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Nope. Lots of sandbox games are single-player. Grand Theft Auto, for example, and its many sequels and clones. Similarly, SimCity and the original Sims were single player, IIRC.
The Rockstars games are Open World. That's not a synonym for Sandbox.
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A kid can play in his sandbox in his own backyard with no fear of some bully kicking over his sandcastle. If that same kid goes to the beach to build his sandcastle, his sandcastle will eventually get kicked over 100% of the time, unless he (or his dad) guards it. Later after it is abandoned, it will be claimed by the tide, and the beach is pristine once again.
Different sandboxes, but one has meaningful interaction, one does not.
Which example is the meaningful one?
That is the big debate between PvE minded players and PvP minded players.
There will be those that say, the game with no risk is meaningful because they want no worries and only achievement when they play.
Others will say, there is no real achievement if there is no risk involved in attaining that achievement.
I'm not suggesting there is a "right" answer, because what is "meaningful" is in the mind of the person. No one else can know the motivation of another, and they should not presume to know it.
I used an example in another post to question someone else's perception of "meaningful".
I am a bandit, but I always kill my victims. It does not matter to me, how rich or poor they are. I always use the game rules (flag Outlaw), but I always kill them. When I loot their body(ies), I only take 1 copper piece from them. I leave everything else behind, to be destroyed.
Some would argue, "That is meaningless, because you only took so little, and you did not have to kill to get that little."
What they don't know is is that my character's story is that he was beaten everyday as a child, by other youths, and had his 1 copper piece (lunch money) stolen. When he complained, he was told "It's only a copper piece, get over it".
So now in his adulthood he kills and takes just one copper piece. The people then say, "They were killed for just one copper piece?"
Now perhaps I'm just being too much of a role player, or perhaps I'm just making excuses to justify "meaningless" slaughter, but you really don't know for sure, do you?
A sandbox allows for more of this kind of flexibility to take place. An Open World sandbox means that you can do it in more places, than in a close world sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nope. Lots of sandbox games are single-player. Grand Theft Auto, for example, and its many sequels and clones. Similarly, SimCity and the original Sims were single player, IIRC.The Rockstars games are Open World. That's not a synonym for Sandbox.
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.
I would be curious about the difference between Software Game and Software Toy?
SimCity through SimCity 4 I would definitely classify as games. The Win condition is set by the player (a sandbox element). The Loss condition is driving your city bankrupt (toys don't usually have loss conditions). SimCity 5 I would also classify as a game.
Now those weird little things in the middle I would not classify as games, like SimCity Societies (oh god, that was terrible!) or SimCity Social. I concur that those are more like toys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Papaver, Will Wright was reputed to have called SimCity a toy, but I'm not able to find an actual quote.
Lifedragn brings up an interesting point about the loss condition. One of my favorite games is a tile-based survival game, UnReal World. You basically try to survive in Iron Age Finland, but the character will probably die. I think it's a game, even if it is open ended and doesn't really count points, etc. So I'm not sure of the line between toy and game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some would argue, "That is meaningless, because you only took so little, and you did not have to kill to get that little."What they don't know is is that my character's story is that he was beaten everyday as a child, by other youths, and had his 1 copper piece (lunch money) stolen. When he complained, he was told "It's only a copper piece, get over it".
So now in his adulthood he kills and takes just one copper piece. The people then say, "They were killed for just one copper piece?"
Now perhaps I'm just being too much of a role player, or perhaps I'm just making excuses to justify "meaningless" slaughter...
Reading this without really knowing who you are personally, I would believe that you are crafting a backstory to justify nasty behavior, and not crafting behavior to form a story. It reeks of exploiting roleplay the same way one might exploit game mechanics to find advantageous loopholes in the rules. GMing tabletop games with a couple munchkins, I am more than familiar with players who attempt these very abuses to justify all manner of behavior / unusual character concepts.
But as I said, I do not really know who you are personally. I could be completely wrong. But my intuition really believes this to be hiding behind roleplay to justify behavior purposefully undertaken to aggravate others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Papaver, Will Wright was reputed to have called SimCity a toy, but I'm not able to find an actual quote.
Lifedragn brings up an interesting point about the loss condition. One of my favorite games is a tile-based survival game, UnReal World. You basically try to survive in Iron Age Finland, but the character will probably die. I think it's a game, even if it is open ended and doesn't really count points, etc. So I'm not sure of the line between toy and game.
I found a Wikipedia article that backs up your Will Wright quote. The premise is that SimCity is a toy, not a game, due to lack of a win condition. My considering it a game was due to existence of a loss condition.
No MMO I have played has ever had a win condition though. So if we go by that rule, then PFO would also be a software toy, correct? We don't win PFO. We set our own victory conditions and strive towards them. If we meet them, we create new ones. Much as in SimCity.
|
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".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some would argue, "That is meaningless, because you only took so little, and you did not have to kill to get that little."What they don't know is is that my character's story is that he was beaten everyday as a child, by other youths, and had his 1 copper piece (lunch money) stolen. When he complained, he was told "It's only a copper piece, get over it".
So now in his adulthood he kills and takes just one copper piece. The people then say, "They were killed for just one copper piece?"
Now perhaps I'm just being too much of a role player, or perhaps I'm just making excuses to justify "meaningless" slaughter...
Reading this without really knowing who you are personally, I would believe that you are crafting a backstory to justify nasty behavior, and not crafting behavior to form a story. It reeks of exploiting roleplay the same way one might exploit game mechanics to find advantageous loopholes in the rules. GMing tabletop games with a couple munchkins, I am more than familiar with players who attempt these very abuses to justify all manner of behavior / unusual character concepts.
But as I said, I do not really know who you are personally. I could be completely wrong. But my intuition really believes this to be hiding behind roleplay to justify behavior purposefully undertaken to aggravate others.
You snipped the most important part of my quote. The fact that it was only a few more words, makes me wonder about your intent....
Now perhaps I'm just being too much of a role player, or perhaps I'm just making excuses to justify "meaningless" slaughter, but you really don't know for sure, do you?
There is no "loophole" present in my narrative. It is my choice to loot from the corpse as much or as little as allowable by the mechanics. The victim is dead either way, and the potential consequences have already been dealt out or with (depends on perspective).
A sandbox means to me, that you can do what you want with the sand in the box. The owner of the box, will decide, how much sand you get and sometimes, what you can and can not do with that sand. If you break the OWNER'S rules, the owner can punish you in a variety of ways.
If you broke a rule and the owner did not see it. You can report it, and the owner can look at the video tape, and see if you broke the rule. If you broke the rule, the owner will punish you. If you didn't break the rule, the owner should punish the accuser for the false complaint.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
A box of Legos is a toy. It's still a toy even if it is a "kit". The harder the kit, the more like a puzzle those Legos become. It is a sandbox but it is not a sandbox game. Sim City is a toy even though you can choose to self-define objectives. Hiking to the top of a mountain (or not succeeding) is not a game even though it is "Open World" and you have self-defined an objective.
"Sandbox game" is a term that has evolved. It was coined to describe non-linear RPGs like Might & Magic and Daggerfall, but people realized that the term was not precisely capturing what those games are. But the term itself implied a kind of game that seemed intrinsically interesting, so people tried to build them, and ended up with Ultima Online. Now we have a reference definition for what a "sandbox game" is that is a much better fit than the games that term was originally applied to. Those games are "open world", and usually "open world themeparks". But some people, of a certain age, who may not have come along for the ride as the field has evolved, still tag em with older, less precise definitions like "sandbox". They are just wrong, because the goalposts have been moved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You snipped the most important part of my quote. The fact that it was only a few more words, makes me wonder about your intent....
Now perhaps I'm just being too much of a role player, or perhaps I'm just making excuses to justify "meaningless" slaughter, but you really don't know for sure, do you?There is no "loophole" present in my narrative. It is my choice to loot from the corpse as much or as little as allowable by the mechanics. The victim is dead either way, and the potential consequences have already been dealt out or with (depends on perspective).
A sandbox means to me, that you can...
I snipped the part that was important to the discussion. We can talk all day about how we do not know the intent. The important part is how the intent is perceived.
Heck, I even added in...
But as I said, I do not really know who you are personally. I could be completely wrong.
So even though I did not include it in the quote, as I was intending to address my perception of the story and not the whether I know or not portion, I did admit that my perception is based on my belief from previous experience and not in knowing for sure what your intent is, which respects the portion of the quote left out. I do not understand how leaving that portion of your quote out impacts my message. But if you feel it does, then I apologize. Unfortunately it was too late edit.
I would appreciate if you tried to understand the entirety of the message instead of assuming that I am trying to misquote you based on where I end the quote. I know misquoting is a nasty business that happens often, but I fail to see how it impacts the context I was using it in this specific incident.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A box of Legos is a toy. It's still a toy even if it is a "kit". The harder the kit, the more like a puzzle those Legos become. It is a sandbox but it is not a sandbox game. Sim City is a toy even though you can choose to self-define objectives. Hiking to the top of a mountain (or not succeeding) is not a game even though it is "Open World" and you have self-defined an objective.
"Sandbox game" is a term that has evolved. It was coined to describe non-linear RPGs like Might & Magic and Daggerfall, but people realized that the term was not precisely capturing what those games are. But the term itself implied a kind of game that seemed intrinsically interesting, so people tried to build them, and ended up with Ultima Online. Now we have a reference definition for what a "sandbox game" is that is a much better fit than the games that term was originally applied to. Those games are "open world", and usually "open world themeparks". But some people, of a certain age, who may not have come along for the ride as the field has evolved, still tag em with older, less precise definitions like "sandbox". They are just wrong, because the goalposts have been moved.
I can understand that PFO's usage of Game as opposed to Toy is based on what similar historical products have been called. But I do not know that the definitions are very clear. It seems like the terms are decided by people marketing a product, which does not always produce clear definitions. Especially when combining existing words that already have definitions. How would you define them without an existing game to reference?
It feels like SimCity adds a Game System (resource management) and makes a toy more game-like and it is called a Sandbox Toy. Ultima Online removes a Game System (win condition) and makes a game more like a toy and it is called a Sandbox Game.
I suppose it is a pretty meaningless argument either way. The important bit is that PFO will (hopefully) be fun and awesome regardless of what we call it!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A game is more than the sum of its physical parts, a toy is just the sum of its physical parts.
At some point the two will merge but I am not sure quite where that is.
My significant take-away so far is that GW's vision for PFO is that it will not be merely a furnished arena (which would be a toy), but something more. Something that gives it the 'Game' to its description.
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?
|
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.
That makes a good distinction and I feel closer to clarity but not quite there. Would that not make every single player only video game simply a toy? Or is the simulation of opponents to meaningfully interact with via AI enough to qualify as a game?
Under this distinction, the newly released SimCity would become a game, through the addition of a meaningful multi-player element (granted it was broken for a while) but the older versions would certainly be toys.