Slashdot Mirror
MMOGs and Sandbox-Style Play
An anonymous reader writes "Why do so few games truly embrace the sandbox metaphor? The folks at GamersWithJobs have their own opinions, and think that MMOGs may be replacing The Sims as the center of the 'emergent gameplay' movement. From the article: 'I don't know if it's a function of age, or experience or perhaps just changing tastes, but my favorite games are increasingly the ones where I can find my own methods of play. I loved that Dead Rising simply gave me a maul, a chainsaw and an army of zombies. Perhaps my love of MMOs is as much related to the opportunity to explore and adventure on my own as any actual construction of gameplay.'"
I haven't played in a sand box since I was kid. Why would I play in one today over the internet?
I can't decide if this is a typo or not. I know it takes place in a MALL, as in a shopping center, but I haven't played the game, so I'm a little short on details. I know it's known for giving you a wide variety of weapons, but is a MAUL, as in a large two-handed warhammer, one of them? Or does any large impromptu bludgeoning device count? Is this a typo, a clever play on words, or an unintended pun?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
When Star Wars: Galaxies first came out it was more of a sandbox game and I absolutely loved it. I would love to see another game try it because I think SOE handled the whole game badly and I'd like to see that type of game done really well.
Thats why most games don't embrace it- because most gamers (not all, but most) don't want it. When faced with a sandbox game, I pick it up, go to play it, and then go "Now what?" There's no storyline to follow, no objective to complete. No way to progress in the game. Its fun for maybe 15 minutes, then its boring as hell. Its a niche market, there's room for a few games like that, but most games will avoid that style of gameplay.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The author only mentions MMOs in the last paragraph. He doesn't even list what MMOs he likes, let alone the qualities of a successful sandbox MMO. In fact the article is best summed up as "Why I think The Sims is better than Grand Theft Auto."
It's interesting that he should mention The Sims, MMOs, and sandbox gameplay in the same article. The Sims Online - a game EA has practically shoved under the rug - was a miserable failure, despite a preexisting Sims fanbase and mainstream coverage from the likes of TIME. Don't get me wrong: I like sandbox games as much as the author. But The Sims Online was an uninspired grindfest that required you to perform insultingly repetitive tasks to "level up" your Sim. EA might've finally changed this since I quit, though I doubt it.
I find the popular MMOs (WoW, Guild Wars) to be incredibly restrictive and linear. Ya, I can wonder around a gameworld, but I can barely impact how it functions or really do what I want.
From what I heard (I don't own any MS consoles), Dead Rising also gave you a pretty strict time limit if you wanted to, you know, actually complete the objectives of the game, too.
It seems to me that a good Sandbox type of game--let's take Morrowind or GTA for popular examples--would give you more or less as much time as you like to complete the "story" or "objective" missions, and then have a whole bunch of stuff to just play around with/in. Even if it makes perfect, logical sense to have a strict time limit, that doesn't necessarily mean that it must be done. In fact, I'd think that works strongly against the Sandbox motif--if I want to just dick around in the game for a while--go gain a couple levels or snoop around for useful loot--I shouldn't have to sacrifice the rest of my current play-through.
I've played A Tale in the Desert and its a decent game. No combat, and arguably a bit of a sandbox-style game. You can basically do whatever you want within the limits of the game, but there are objectives and goals as well. The most rewarding aspect is working with fellow players in a guild to advance in the game. In the end, though, I don't feel the game offers anything beyond a little enjoyment. It isn't engaging enough for me to justify paying the subscription price.
I've also played quite a bit of EVE Online. Now there's a bit of a storyline to EVE, but the general goal of playing as far as I can tell is either to get really rich, really powerful, or both. As you progress in skills and equipment there can be some great fun fighting battles with your teammates to protect territory you have claimed as your own. But in the end for me it suffers the same fate as ATITD, it doesn't offer anything beyond a little enjoyment. It isn't engaging enough for me to justify paying the subscription price.
What I'd like to see rather than "sandbox" style games where you can be anything you want to be are games where what players do have a direct impact on the game world. Picture, if you will, a game that actually evolves beyond adding features. I'm not much of a visionary, but I'll try to put this forward to illustrate what I'm trying to explain: Now that's a game I would play, something where what I and what others around me do actually affect the game world in a significant way. Imagine a WWII style game where if your armies run around gold-mining instead of fighting towards a common goal the Third Reich actually does take over Europe and now you're behind the eight ball. Imagine in that game a real chain of command based on a democratic system where those at the top actually lay out strategies and plans for invasion, defense, disruption of enemy supply lines, etc. Imagine your enemy suddenly doesn't get that shipment of ammunition before you stage an offensive. Imagine being that enemy and suddenly being up shit creek and trying to scramble reinforcements. Imagine decision makers having to decide which engagement is more valuable and which victory can be sacrificed.
I may have to share this planet with animals, but I'm doing my damn best to eat every last one of them.
I don't know if it's a function of age, or experience or perhaps just changing tastes, but my favorite games are increasingly the ones where I can find my own methods of play.
It could be a function of age... as you get older, you realize that life itself is a kind of 'sandbox game' where you make your own path, and set your own goals within a larger pre-existing system. So having a game where you can approach it with your same day-to-day mindset, but also run down zombies with a jeep, makes sense in its appeal.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
> my favorite games are increasingly the ones where I can find my own methods of play
A system will continue to run when the rules are broken. A game ends when the rules are broken. Many games don't end suddenly when the rules are no longer followed but, rather, they begin to repeat themselves and become quite predictable and, thus, boring.
Good games are few and far between: one of the reasons why chess is timeless. It has rules, they cannot be broken, yet people still play it.
Football, basketball, volleyball, soccer, etc. are arguably not games as the rules have been slowly evolving. They are systems. Systems tend to persist longer than games.
The conceptual difference between the two is very important. Society is a system, constantly evolving, and it is both conscious and subconscious, both behavioral and psychological, both learned and inherited.
On rare occasion one will find a "game" which can be turned into a system. My favorite was "Pirates!" on my Amiga 500. I played it through once or twice by the script and then continued to play it for months with the only goal in mind to maintain a "notorious" reputation with all four nations while still sailing, docking, trading, and plundering wherever I pleased.
Exodus: Ultima III was another good system (excellent music on the C=64, as well). Most f4ntasy adventure games could be made into systems.
Expansion packs are very important parts of games because they allow the original game engine to be expanded, making it closer to a system. I've found that games which have confined maps tend to wear out more quickly--another reason for expansion packs.
Some guys play with their nuts. Other guys play with their car alarms.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
I would love to see an MMO with elements of Civilization, Sim City, The Sims, and RPGs. It would use a first person interface, have plenty of Sim like NPCs to interact with, and if you achieved positions of power and influence, you could influence city and nation building.
They have that. It's called real life.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The basic problem with MMORPGs games is that so few of them contain any real action or physics component. In something like WoW, you can run around in real time, but your interaction with the world is basically limited to whatever commands (attack, spells, etc) the developers program in. In something like GTA you get so-called "emergent gameplay" simply because you have some terrain and a physics engine, and it's a lot of fun just to race around trying to abuse it. Pedestrians, other vehicles, police, etc add an extra dimension of entertainment, but a mostly decorative one - fundamentally, GTA is fun because driving around insanely is fun, and everything else is just there to stimulate your imagination and placate that part of your mind that expects some context it can relate to. In most MMO games, the basic mechanics of the world don't enable much more than walking around and admiring the scenery. Gameplay in these environments is more contrived in the sense that it requires a greater mental investment in roleplaying and fabricating some motivating work-reward structure (which might be OCD trying to max your character out, social activity within a guild, or whatever).
Given an MMO with greater interactivity than the typical "run, click, watch animation" style, there are a lot of fun things you could do. A fine example of emergent gameplay within a very simple system, from my childhood playing the NES, was the game River City Ransom, which had just enough physics that two players could invent mini sports to play using the objects lying around, like baseball using a pipe and a rock, or a crude form of soccer by kicking a trash can around the map. There's an elemental simplicity to this that transcends the games of stat manipulation (decorated with pretty scenery and storylines) that RPGs typically offer.
If it sounds like I'm ragging on WoW, it's only because I'd rather be playing an MMO version of a game like Zelda.
When it comes to MMOG's most peope say they want freedom to do what they want and be what they want but ofcourse that also means that that other guy can do what he wants too which in most cases is kill you, take your stuff and kill your horse. And then the only thing you can do is go on the forums and whine to restrict that guys freedom which in turn restricts your freedom and then you end up with the another everquest clone.
"Game design is about giving the player _interesting_ choices."
If the player is bored, or is there is dead time (I'm looking at you WoW Designers and your stupid flight path times), your game play is BROKEN. People are not playing games to be bored -- they are playing to be entertained. All good games take fact of the "natural game play" cycle. In Halo it was shoot, rest, shoot rest. MMO's same pattern: Attack, Camp, Attack, Camp. Even turn-based games, computer or board games (Chess, MtG), have this cycle, of where you "interact with the world", and then you wait to see the outcome.
This is what makes DnD so great -- no dead time. The DM controls the pacing. (It stinks in other areas, but it got this fundamental, down pat.)
--
Games complaining about how a game is unrealistic is missing the point -- it's about whether the game is
a) believable, b) consistent, and c) logical
-- jchenx
I bought this with Counter-strike source, for a few more dollars. Heck, the GBP to USD rate is great right now so I thought why not. It's half life with the ability to spawn whatever you want.
There are some fantastic levels out there, some interesting puzzles can be created for others to enjoy. It's fun.
One reason why GTA is so popular as a sandbox game is because you DO have a storyline to go through. You can choose to finish the next objective/mission
-- jchenx
Or so it seems to me. There are very few sandbox style games out there these days in MMORPG land. I think this stems from most players lacking the imagination to take on an open world and find their own entertainment, probably because their prefered gameplay styles have evolved on other games and that shapes their preferences - although generalizations of that sort are naturally quite dangerous and notoriously unreliable. I am sure most people dislike sandbox games to whatever degree for a variety of reasons. I see less in the way of open ended game designs these days though, and most seem to feature some pretty heavy handed guidance for players to ensure they travel down the right (limited number of ) rails on their pass through the game.
Of course, the population of gamers who prefer to really Roleplay in game seems to also be dwindling. This may be a factor in the decline of the Sandbox game as well. Its only natural for those who prefer to engage in roleplaying to want to pop into a Sandbox environment, rub their hands together and say "Ok, now what shall we do first?". More traditional gamers who don't associate as directly with their characters are much more likely to approach the game from a Gamer perspective, and thus view it as a series of obstacles to be overcome, or perhaps a series of goals to be achieved, and set about resolving those as efficiently as possible. This probably ties into Bartle's MUD personality survey, which suggests there are 4 types of MUD gameplayers: Explorers, Achievers, Socializers and Killers. Roleplayers of course fall heavily on the Explorer and Socializer side of things. I think most standard gamers, coming from other types of gameplay will tend to fall into the Acheiver and Killer sides of things since those are emphacized more heavily in most computer and console games.
Star Wars Galaxies used to be the one of the best examples of a true Sandbox game in its original iteration. It has undergone 2 major revisions to its game mechanics, and each one in turn has reduced the "sandboxy" elements of the gameplay considerably. The current iteration - the so-called New Game Enhancement - is the least sandbox like game design I have ever seen, and the only vestiges of sandbox gameplay are those elements of the game that have not yet been revamped. The game is also all but dead as a result of these changes. Ultima Online is of course the granddaddy of MMORPGs effectively, and it, along with Asheron's Call and Everquest, were all more or less Sandboxy in design. All have also more or less fallen by the wayside these days.
New MMORPG offerings tend to be more linear, more structured, more quest-based and often link leveling of characters to elements of the game in a manner they need not have chosen to do. For instance in Warcraft a person interested primarily in crafting, is also forced to level up their character in combat, since crafting level is linked to character level for some reason. This is the antithesis of sandbox design. Dungeons & Dragons Online is almost entirely quest based, as are City of Heroes/City of Villains (where we can replace the word quest with mission), and most other games currently on the market.
Many of course offer a bit of both. The now venerable Dark Age of Camelot offers accelerated advancement in levels by either hunting or doing quests or instanced missions - mostly this is an attempt to let people get to the end game faster and thus retain subscribers I am sure. This game is also sadly dying, although the next offering from Mythic (Warhammer Online) will no doubt build on the successes of DAOC.
Vanguard Saga of Heroes is a modern Sandbox game, although it does offer questing as well. You can take up Crafting or Diplomacy and progress in those areas independant of your character's combat level. Its a very promising game, although it has high end equipment requirements
The flexbility of sandbox gaming is perhaps not structured enough for most individuals.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Play Wurm Online. It's a 3D fantasy MMOG written by a couple guys out of Sweden, entirely in Java. It's a big come-down for people accustomed to Oblivion-level graphics, but it has the outrageous (by MMOG standards) feature of allowing the players to dig up the terrain, rearranging it to suit themselves. You can also tunnel through rock. It's a skill-based game, rather than level based. You can choose to concentrate on any mix of upwards of 70 different skills that pleases you, doing what you want.
Some things to note for all you amazingly twisted "classic" MMOG gamers out there:
1) There are absolutely no quests.
2) Mobs do not drop gold, weapons, armor, tools, panties, or anything else when you kill them. If you're good at butchering, you get meat, furs, teeth, eyes, and sundry other animal parts.
3) Cash is not required. Period. While there is an in-game currency, it is entirely superfluous, if you choose to play that way. Anybody can make any item in the game. (Eventually. Might take some practice.)
4) Two servers, with travel between. One PvP, one not. Don't even start to complain.
It's very much a boutique game. If you're willing to accept that it wasn't developed by a mega-corp, and therefore has some glaring deficiencies by modern standards (characters don't animate), and if you like self-directed gameplay, you might like it. It's one big sandbox world.
Yes, it runs in Linux.
http://www.wurmonline.com/
Slightly unrelated (hey, its Slashdot) but for a while now I have been noticing that the games I come back to play over, and over again are games which give me the freedom to play how I want to. Games where you chose how you solve problems, where you can charge in guns blazing or creep around the edges where you can out-gear/out-manoeuvre your opponents rather than out-twitch them.
Lets look at some examples that best explain what I mean:
Games which did it best:
Deus Ex
- Awesome game for many, many reasons, but relevant is the fact that you could approach each problem from many directions - two guards ahead - you can sneak past them using the vents (classic) you can go in guns blazing, you can set up some sort of proximity mine (gas/explosive) you can take control of nearby robots/turrets) you can tranquilise them, you can knock them out, you can find another way to go. Likewise, the way you create your character, you can dump all skillpoints into pistols, or rifles or you can put all your points into engineering/hacking and you can still finish the game. All styles of play are valid - you kill all the terrorists in the first level for example and your peacenik brother tells you off for killing too many people but the cops are cheering you on. Kill no one in that level and your brother praises you but the cops tell you off for being a peacenik.
Morrowind
- Huge game with incredible aesthetic value of art, flavour and atmosphere, lots to do and a ton of add on quests to expand it further. However, numerous ways to create and play your character open up the possibilities of actual, real re-playing. You can play a stealthy rogue or a rapid direct damage spell caster, or a demon-summoner or an armoured knight or any weird combination of these! You can catch on-rails transport or you can make ring of jumping or ring of flying or cast these spells yourself. The list goes on and on. If you play this game once and just charge everything with the biggest sword, you're missing out - there are many ways to play and finish this game! There is a kinda famous example of some guy that kept making intelligence potions to boost his int till he became so intelligent he could make potions to make himself invincible - yeah, borderline-bug exploit, but goes to show that even a lowly alchemist can make it in this world.
FarCry
- Yes, it is a pretty simple 1st person shooter. You can't bribe your way past the guards, effectively roleplay a "git off my lawn" druid or an evil knife wielding hacker. However, what this game did quite well was having huge open areas with plenty of cover for the player to approach most areas in any way they want. For example, there is a camp full of mercenaries up a head. It has some sniper towers, some guys in tents/buildings, alarm, radio that can call in for helicopter and two fixed position miniguns. You might need a vehicle from that camp, or a keycard, etc. Now this is where the fun starts: you can ride in your car blasting everyone. Or you can use a silenced gun and slowly creep through the camp taking people out 1 or 2 at a time from behind before they can fire a shot. Or you can sneak up into one of the sniper towers and take people out from there. Or you can get up on a nearby hill and sniper or rocket from there. Or you can fire some shots from one direction, run into the forest, run around the camp, then do the same thing from opposite direction, taking a few people out every time. Or you can drag all the mercs into the forest, taking them out as they are chasing you through the trees. Or you can run into the camp and take one of the miniguns and start mowing down everyone. Or find a boat and do bombardment from the nearby river! Or a combination of any of these! Then the helicopter with reinforcements arrives and you have many choices again, from shooting it down yourself to taking up one of the fixed miniguns, etc
Almost made it:
GTA-SA
- A lot of missions were basically "use this car, with this gun, to go on these streets, do not deviate"
"I find the popular MMOs (WoW, Guild Wars) to be incredibly restrictive and linear. Ya, I can wonder around a gameworld, but I can barely impact how it functions or really do what I want."
Gee, that sounds a lot like real life.
Hmph. That doesn't sound like a game so much as Second Life.
While I don't disagree that Sim-type games are fundamentally different, I don't see how mods for something like Morrowind don't count via your parameters. Is that because they're not actually part of the "game" itself and are instead included in an outside package? Or is it because the modding tools aren't the point of the game? If that's the case, then I point to NWN, which was billed as something of a DM's Playset. That latter one doesn't even have to have a fixed plot, which is perhaps an important feature of a Sandbox game--you build the custom missions that you like in the framework of the AD&D setting provided, or one that you mod in yourself (with a huge work investment, yes).
Sandbox games run the risk of lacking too much in structure to be considered games at all. Some will say that's the point-to lack structure-overlooking that others want (maybe need) structure. They want to be told, more or less, what they need to do in order to "win." Winning may be reaching the top level or getting a certain amount of in-game property, or whatever. Point is, if I can do anything I may decide that there nothing to do and leave. Like have 500 channels and saying "There's nothing on."
A game needs structure, rules and goals. Without those it something else, I don't know what. I believe (but don't know) that many gamers would rather play adversarial or co-op than have total freedom to do either or niether or both. Hence Counterstrike, WOW, and all the other big, famous games out there's popularity. Some say it is the want of imagination that limits some from enjoying the sandbox style, but I think time is a consideration too. I may just want to play casualy and not be bothered to learn all the intricit methods of play. That in mind, I still want to feel like I'm getting, if not the most, at least a fair amount of the total game play available. Like I said though, just my thoughts. How do you win the Sims, or Second Life?
In fact, having the game being so easy to solo is actually a problem at the later levels, when many folks do start grouping more often to tackle the dungeons. It becomes very apparent (and painful) when you are in a pick-up group with folks that really don't know key things such as aggro management, crowd control, etc. since they've been soloing the vast majority of the game.
-- jchenx
You can solo the whole way in either of these games (which are related of course). Sure, not every class can do so very effectively but a lot can.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
It's great that you pointed out that Vanguard is trying to do something a bit differently, having the individual levelling spheres for adventuring (dungeon-romping), crafting, and diplomacy, but it should also be noted that while they are all unique and do not directly depend on one another for advancement, they still indirectly do. For example, to get the high level trees to cut down to advance in lumberjacking, the high level firebloom plants for tailoring, the nodes of tin for blacksmithing, etc, you have to go to seriously dangerous areas that would not be possible without having a subsequently high level in adventuring.. Or a sufficient amount of guildmates/friends high enough level to protect you while you harvested the raw materials required to craft the high level items.
:) We'll have to see..
Granted, the game does have some high system requirements, but it runs a lot better now than it did in beta. I get on average 10fps more on my rig than I did when they had their debug code in. It's nice that they future-proofed the game-engine so that it'll continue looking great long into the future, because IMO- the game is a work of art and is a great change in all the MMO's of the past. You can look at any part of it, compare it to any of the current crop of MMO's, and see that it surpasses them all in one way or another. I'm extremely impressed and look forward to working together with many of the crafters in my guild to create our own sailing ship as well as a community of houses on one of the huge continents.
The only thing that really caught my eye in another MMO that's trying to do something unique and different, is the blending of AI/scripting/storytelling that LOTRO is doing. It's like they're blending traditional RPG storytelling/acting inside the MMO universe. Granted, my experience in LOTRO is very limited since I only grinded about 20hrs straight in the stress test a few weeks ago, but they did accept me into the closed beta going on now, and I'm curious to see how else they implemented their AI/scripting/storytelling in the rest of the game. Unfortunately since I got used to the beautiful graphics of Vanguard, LOTRO is hard to compare, visually, and reminds me of the colourful/childish theme of WOW. There is ~3-5 months before release, so hopefully they'll improve the graphics a bit before release.