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.'"
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