Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

This is an interesting quote from another thread in the General Discussion.

What are your opinions on sandbox games? What qualifies a game as "Sandbox" to you?

In the quote above, I disagree with one part:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
... and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

This quote is specifically talking about EVE Online, but I disagree. I think a sandbox game is a game that allows you to do whatever you want to do within the confines of a game, whether it be griefing, mining, fighting, etc. I don't think a game's developers should make an extra effort to protect someones way of play at the cost of someone else. There are people within the game that make a living off of piracy. The act of killing other players and profiting off of their stuff is a career choice for certain players. The person that keeps getting killed has a large number of options to deal with something like piracy without relying on the developer to step in and save them.

Your thoughts?

I think sandboxes are simply what happens when you make the base engine for the game, make it playable and then just hand it over to allow people to do what they will.

I suspect the answer is that "sandbox" is just marketing-speak these days and is whatever you can manage to broadly stretch the term to encompass. Marketing aside, though, maybe a sandbox is just something that doesn't have a strongly-directed goal. So EVE Online would be a sandbox, as there's no particular progression in it. Many other games would also qualify, from 4X games to SimCity. You could even have a sandbox shooter if you want.

I definitely agree that not being able to kick other people's sandcastles is not an integral part of the sandbox definition.

So do highly modable games, such as the Fallout series count as sandboxes, or is it the case that all item placement must be done in real time? Actually in the case of Fallout there's at least a few mods for the latter games that allow you to do just that, but does that just mean that they have sandbox elements, not enough to call the whole game a sandbox experience?

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I definitely agree that not being able to kick other people's sandcastles is not an integral part of the sandbox definition.

It's not an inherent part of being a sandbox.

But I would certainly agree with an assertion that it's just an inherent part of being a GOOD sandbox.

Even Minecraft does better than EVE in that regard.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
So do highly modable games, such as the Fallout series count as sandboxes, or is it the case that all item placement must be done in real time? Actually in the case of Fallout there's at least a few mods for the latter games that allow you to do just that, but does that just mean that they have sandbox elements, not enough to call the whole game a sandbox experience?

I kind of judge the "sandboxyness" of a game by one big question. How much fun can I have in a game without killing?

With EVE Online, if I want to I can make my entire game-career doing nothing but mining, or sitting in a station and buying/selling materials. In a game like Fallout there's not much you can accomplish without killing. Granted, the standards may be different for online/offline game, but by golly if I can't round myself up a Brahman and make my name as a trader I don't want to play

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How much fun can I have in a game without killing?

That kind of thinking sorta worries me. Are you saying you can't have fun in a video game without killing?

To me sandbox games are about what you create. If murder, mayhem and misery at the expense of others are what you desire to create, then I think I don't want to play games with people like you.

The most fun I've had in multiplayer sandbox games are collaborative creative fun, games like minecraft and Second Life.

I would absolutely say that Fallout, skyrim are top singleplayer sandbox games, especially on PC with mods, where you can create your own sandbox and basically do as you please, and tailor the game to whatever flavor you desire.

Btw I played EVE for many years and had loads of fun with it just doing my own thing, mainly mission running with RL friends. I never got into the PVP aspect of it due to the extremely angry nature of many of the PVP'ers. Then there's the tear collectors/extractors. I've encountered my fair share of these sociopaths.

Sure, the open nature of the game allows this kind of behavior, if not encourages it. But in talking to a RL friend who engaged in this kind of stuff, ganking, slaughtering low-level newbie miners in high sec, and such, it really made me wonder about the brand of 'fun' he was having. It all came at the expense of a human behind the computer on the other end. A feeling person.

It's just not the way I want to spend my spare time. But that's just me!

Actually he's saying he judges a game by how much fun he can have WITHOUT killing.

He'd probably find the X series rather fun for that reason, you can live your life without firing a single shot and be extremely successful in that game.

I really recommend X3: Albion Prelude for anyone who likes sandbox space simulators. You can do anything from be a crack fighter pilot, to an admiral of a massive armada, to the executive of a trading company, and so on and so forth.

Hell you can even play space taxi if you want.

Melissia has it right, thank you!

 Melissia wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I definitely agree that not being able to kick other people's sandcastles is not an integral part of the sandbox definition.

It's not an inherent part of being a sandbox.

But I would certainly agree with an assertion that it's just an inherent part of being a GOOD sandbox.

Even Minecraft does better than EVE in that regard.

I always thought defending a sandcastle from the waves was part of the fun of making them. Building little channels and bulwarks and stuff to see how long I could make it last. That's not really the same thing as someone kicking it, though.

What's dubious about EVE, I think, is that a lot of the attacks aren't aimed at the character, they're aimed at the player. That's probably almost universally bad? For some reason I'm thinking of the Bartle test and the different types of player and the ecosystem they create.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Melissia has it right, thank you!

Apologies

My definition of what a sandbox game is, or should be, comes from the actual sandboxes, were children are left to let their imagination roam, do whatever they want given skill and tools available, but as is with playgrounds when one kid misbehaves there is always an adult around to put things into place.

Going this a step further and going to computer games, a sandbox should give players a plethora of tools and space to allow them freedom to do what they want, but also guard them from people kicking their sand castles, especially if they do not what to.

My argument on EVE and specifically my opinion of bad gameplay design is, that there are many disproportionate parts, building your "castle" takes far more effort than the one who just comes and kicks it and more importantly there is no reasonable retaliation to the one misbehaving, to do so requires much talent, work and hard decisions, CCP just decided to leave it as is and cater to the players that prefer to kick other peoples castles seeing it as a steady revenue, that's a bad game design, its easy to shatter other peoples effort, it has no actual risk and on the opposing end the one doing the constructive things not only has much to loose, but must put effort in it.

A sandbox game, is or should not be an "I don't care do whatever you want and deal with it" open game, but a proper challenging entertaining game allowing many ways to experience it and all been equally valid, that is something hard to achieve and a real challenge on the game designers work.

I would mostly call a game a "sandbox" when you are not forced to do anything, you do what you want when you want. Minecraft is the most obvious one for me. before any says you are forced to eat then that is false, its just better if you do.

There are many RPG's, hell even some action games I would class as sandboxes, okay so the devs may not give you every single tool to play with but its fun trying to use what you already have to get the result you want.

The developers should not give you every single tool, but the more they give, the better the experience is.

A really nice sandbox game.

A game that allows you to, in the confines of the game, do what you want and when you want. There also is no aim - there may be goals the game sets you, but you don't have to actually do them if you don't want to.

A game like Minecraft, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Mount & Blade, the Paradox strategy games etc. are sandboxes.

An RTS like Starcraft is not, since you're funnelled into one goal.