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.'"
Most of us never played knight in shining armor off to rescue the princes; cops and robbers; or tag since we were kids, yet we play Mario and FF; Need for Speed and GTA; and Super Smash Bros as adults.
Funny thing how so many of us are just kids at heart and we're loving it. Peter Pan rocks.
That sounds like the kind of question an editor would ask.
Hmmmm..
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
"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
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
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
Yes, having the option of multiple approaches to the main goal is the best. However, those multiple approaches have to be interesting (cue Sid Meier).
In Far Cry I'd redo the same encounters just to see what result I'd get compared to the others. Can I use cover and manage with only a handgun? Can I take the boat and assault the beach from afar? Grand Theft Auto didn't have so much of this for me. Taking a different road generally doesn't matter, and handi-capping with worse cars is still via the same approach. There were sometimes opportunities for interesting alternatives, eg. driving into a group of mobsters with a huge truck and bumping their cars over them, or driving past them with a fast car, or, taking a route where the cops will have a tougher time crashing into you.
I've always thought a game would look fine if the models were blocky and untextured, as long as their animations were decent (eg. minimal, but reflect the action such that it's identifiable) and the game ran smoothly as a result. Special, accurate lighting doesn't necessarily add anything to the gameplay either. I vaguely remember playing a game like this years ago, which was very fun; it was a 3rd person view assault-the-base with a diverse-choice-of-weapons sort of game.
A possible conclusion then is that indy game developers might be the ones to introduce better sand-box games.
I totally agree. I still miss the crafting system that was in place in the original game - I haven't heard of anything that has come close to that, yet.