What's your sandbox?

Traceur · 26th April 2008, 09:17

I think when people say a sandbox game, they actually mean different things.

The first difference comes up when people start asking for things that take away from the freedom: Rather then "you can do everything you want", they ask for "you can do it but [insert consequences]", they reject context-free freedom.
Sure, some people really do want a sandbox, they want to be freemen beyond context and limitations, but many are willing to forgo freedom for the sake of an immersive world.

But not all is peaceful in immersion-nation, because there's another huge disagreement on how to achieve immersion, a disagreement that starts with the sentence "your character wouldn't do that". In retaliation to hearing that sentence, the rest of the immersionists say that a game should react to your actions correctly, that you should be put in your character's circumstances. These immersionist start to scheme together subtle mechanics that would manipulate and derive certain behaviors out of the players in organic ways, things like PD, food-consumption or a player justice system, things taken out of rogue-like survival games and pushed into social contexts: these people are the Organic Immersionists, who believe they can ingeniously use game mechanics to manipulate you into thinking like your character.

However, those who uttered the sentence "your characters wouldn't do that" stand by it, and remain certain that even while you think your character would do it, the lore & choices you've made says otherwise.
But paradise can't last forever, cause they can't decide how they want to tell your character what to do. The Lore cops are alright with you not doing things they think your character should do, and prefer to tell you want you can't do: the Lore cops want Lore-restrictions on gameplay, and they want them hard-coded.

However, others want to go a step further: they grow to appreciate the more subtle things in life, the smallest of nuances. They want your character to run away when it's scared and sneeze when it has a cold, they want you to take care of the players morale and emotional needs. They want your character to have it's own AI. Unfortunately, with no Bionic implant into your brain, what the Sims want means your controlling your own Sim' in a fictional setting.

On the other hand, others believe the lore-restrictions should be more lenient, and every case should be examined to it's own case. They call for human judgment, and they want it consistently. These wishes often aspire to a hierarchy of moderators, often embedded into factions in the game world, mixed with MGing and masked as leaders. They have no guilty feelings for ratting on someone when they think he's not doing good role playing: how else will people learn?

so in this non-perfect world where even the sandbox minority of MMO-players has conflicts and splits into 5 smaller minorities, where would you put yourself?

Merkur · 26th April 2008, 09:37

How dare you forgot Eve Online?

Traceur · 26th April 2008, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkur

How dare you forgot Eve Online?

i didn't forgot, EVE online is designed by immersionists IMHO.

Shawk · 26th April 2008, 10:29

I like a sandbox where I can move the sand wherever the hell I want..

#1 ftw.

Lotharr · 26th April 2008, 10:52

Where's Wurm Online?

I guess it'd rank under "Freemen", though.

Traceur · 27th April 2008, 12:34

why is everyone looking for a specific game to apear in the pole options? it's a general question of what sort of sandbox game do you want to play...

F0rd · 27th April 2008, 22:14

Freemen seems to be the way I'd go. The only real restrictions that players should have in a true sandbox is what other players make for them. That being said, MO shouldn't be a true sandbox, which is why I usually put large quotations around the word. MO should be a sandbox, that is, completely player-dependent, everywhere but the major cities, where NPCs will enfoce the "laws," more or less (probably less) offering a safe haven for the "newbies."

Nolvadex · 3rd May 2008, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rd

Freemen seems to be the way I'd go. The only real restrictions that players should have in a true sandbox is what other players make for them. That being said, MO shouldn't be a true sandbox, which is why I usually put large quotations around the word. MO should be a sandbox, that is, completely player-dependent, everywhere but the major cities, where NPCs will enfoce the "laws," more or less (probably less) offering a safe haven for the "newbies."

Agree. Also a complete immersion in a real persistant world that doesn't act only step by step, but it's a free exploration one (the world is here right now, not when you hit level 70

).

CryeMoore · 4th May 2008, 03:24

It seems to me, if you claim to be:

a) interested in RP
b) interested in story lines
c) interested in racial traits
d) interested in anything that looks or feels like any representation of civilization;

then you have to choose 2-5.

If you are interested in any of the above, then something would come into conflict with being a Freeman.

KroqGar · 4th May 2008, 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by CryeMoore

If you are interested in any of the above, then something would come into conflict with being a Freeman.

I agree. I think that a completely free reign game like the Freeman type would detail would be complete anarchy. A structure is needed, or else the game devolves into a boring, single minded venture.

Siegfried · 5th May 2008, 05:41

*ding, ding* we have a winner...s...

*hands giant teddy bears to Crye and Kroq*

Honestly wasn't going to go there, but ya'll did it for me. *thumbs up*

MasterRabbi · 6th May 2008, 13:56

While doing anything you want in a game environment is appealing, there has to be some reason to join that world and play by it's rules (while I guess we weren't given a choice to join our world, but surely has rules we need to play by).

I mean, a game where you could join as a laser pistol wielding Ameba and fight a dragon that wears tu-tu's has it's own appeal, but I'd rather play a game that has lore, rules, and social/game play repercussion.

Geoff · 7th May 2008, 03:33

I see ppl say they want Freedom no resticions at all. What they dont understand is that Freedom and Anarchy are 2 totaly diffent things.
In the US I have freedom. I can decide not to work. Not to Drive. If i choose I can hop into my car right now and drive anywere i want. I'm free.
But there are rules. I can go kill my Boss right now if i choose, But I'll have to decide if its worth the penilty.

Anarchy is close but with no penalty and if there was none I'd probly have killed him by now.(not the one i got now hes cool, but past ones for sure They was almost worth the penalty)

sorry i want freedom not anarchy. you think you want anarchy play SB for awhile.
then decide.

Traceur · 7th May 2008, 07:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by CryeMoore

It seems to me, if you claim to be:

a) interested in RP
b) interested in story lines
c) interested in racial traits
d) interested in anything that looks or feels like any representation of civilization;

then you have to choose 2-5.

If you are interested in any of the above, then something would come into conflict with being a Freeman.

i think you've the first one of the voters who actually got it

Pavlos · 7th May 2008, 21:19

Well, there won't be total sandbox since every action will result in a reaction and pay back. You will have your freedom but your actions won't go unnoticed.

Rhygar · 7th May 2008, 22:44

Very simple a Freeman game won't be that fun, at least not for me. You would have no goal. In RL you have a goal - survival, companionship, achievement and all those things that make you happy (isn't there 5 rules of wants or something like that?).

You need some organic-immersion to create an artificial goal. Otherwise you have Second Life in a fantasy setting with the ability to kill people. And I'm pretty sure the people that play Second Life would stop playing if they kept on being ganked - because if they wanted to fight they would be posting on these forums.

Traceur · 7th May 2008, 22:52

exacly

i'm not sure if all the freeman who voted understood that though...

Arxon Havenloft · 9th May 2008, 09:11

I'm an immersionalist. You've pretty much described me rather well in the OP. It seems more real when I can strike down an annoying pest. As well as satisfying. I like to get into my character, I don't enjoy things such as chat zone boxes, pop up messages, or the like reminding me that I'm actually playing a game and not really in the world myself. I enjoy entertaining the idea that I'd rather live in such a world as this than the real world and that I have grown up in the wrong dimension, haha.

My character is more often than not and extension of myself within the game. Acting as I would act if I were as skilled as he were and placed in such positions. When it comes to certain features that I may argue against, it is simply an outcry from my character over how upset he might be if such features were to exist.

silenced · 9th May 2008, 11:02

freemen = you set your own goals and try to achieve them, if reached: next goal !

all about phantasy and "thinking"

Lector · 16th May 2008, 10:23

I tend to fall into the Sandbox category, simply because the prospect of absolute freedom fills me with awe... HOWEVER

With such a sandbox (from a sheer RP standpoint) you begin to find God Moders, metagamers and elitists who create situations that are impossibly incoherent and illogical. While some use the freedom generously, and to inspire genuine creativity others abuse it to attain absolute power or dominance.

So this also makes me lean partially towards the Lore cops, because without some sort of general guidelines to a world, how can it exist? You would have a void of things that have no origin and no explanation which is both dangerous and overly complex. It makes it impossible to comprehend, with so much information floating around that no single player could ever "solve" the equation of a lore-less world.

At the same time, Eve Online holds a special place in my heart because they found a way to achieve something I have yet to see in another MMO. So I suppose I am a mixture of each, because I also believe that there are instances where authority must step in to spare the general welfare of a community's players.

BruceMcDuff · 16th May 2008, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhygar

Very simple a Freeman game won't be that fun, at least not for me. You would have no goal. In RL you have a goal - survival, companionship, achievement and all those things that make you happy (isn't there 5 rules of wants or something like that?).

You need some organic-immersion to create an artificial goal. Otherwise you have Second Life in a fantasy setting with the ability to kill people. And I'm pretty sure the people that play Second Life would stop playing if they kept on being ganked - because if they wanted to fight they would be posting on these forums.

I think you are talking about Maslow's Hierarchy Laws
Self-actualization
Esteem
Love/belonging
Safety
Physiological

Lector · 16th May 2008, 18:05

Rhygar, that's not really true.
Our life IS Freemen. What we've done is taken that freedom and implemented rules, beliefs and standards into the sandbox, which have given us goals and ambitions based on our desires. A Freemen sandbox is really not much different than a Organic-immersion one. Out life is still a technical sandbox. If you wanted to go postal tomorrow, nothing is stopping you until you actually attempt your goal. If you wanted to see what it felt like to free dive off of a skyscraper, you could... for you know, five seconds. There is no real limit, save physics.

Traceur · 16th May 2008, 18:29

the difference comes when you add realistic consequences which derive limitations:

in the free diving example you gave, the immersionists thing to do would be to add fall damage, while the freemen thing to do would be to let people enjoy jumping as much as they want.

while a total context-free freemen world would seem like second life, there are a lot of levels of gray between freemen & immersionists IMO.

the difference within the context of gaming is portrait in the last 2 levels of PtP:
the last one is immersionists - you depend upon civilization - while the one before it is more of a freemen world.

Rhygar · 20th May 2008, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceMcDuff

I think you are talking about Maslow's Hierarchy Laws
Self-actualization
Esteem
Love/belonging
Safety
Physiological

Ah, yes. That's the one. Thanks.

Rhygar · 20th May 2008, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lector

Rhygar, that's not really true.
Our life IS Freemen. What we've done is taken that freedom and implemented rules, beliefs and standards into the sandbox, which have given us goals and ambitions based on our desires. A Freemen sandbox is really not much different than a Organic-immersion one. Out life is still a technical sandbox. If you wanted to go postal tomorrow, nothing is stopping you until you actually attempt your goal. If you wanted to see what it felt like to free dive off of a skyscraper, you could... for you know, five seconds. There is no real limit, save physics.

Not that I want to restart the old permadeath argument, but... the desires that drive you in RL are to some extent based on real fears. And fears are biological and therefore to some basic extent outside our control. Instinct etc.

In a game world there are no real fears unless the gameworld is designed in such a way that drives you to some "goal" even if it's only survival of your character.

I remember way back when playing Doom a friend gave me some "cheats" for it. I tried them out. It was great running around in godmode for about 10 minutes and then... ?

"What was the point of this?" I had to ask myself. Other kids could do it for hours on end.

Different strokes.

Anyway... I think both freeman and immersionist would work but will depend on whether the player enjoys it or not.

I prefer the immersionist type unless permadeath/aging is in to give me survival as my plastic goal.

Drudley · 26th May 2008, 18:45

It sounds do me that the OPs idea of a sandbox is being in a "world editor" and not actually playing in the world you made with it.

I thought the general idea of a sandbox game at the very least had physics, without that it's not even a game, it's an editor where you just fly around and do whatever the hell you want.

Anywho I'm for which ever option is reality in a fantasy setting (without a requirement for sleeping).

View Poll Results: What's your sandbox (please first read the OP)?
Freemen (An actual Sandbox)	67	48.55%
Immersionists (Organic-Immersion)	56	40.58%
Lore cops (Lore-Restrictions)	11	7.97%
Sims (partial AI control)	2	1.45%
Rats (Moderator surveillance)	2	1.45%
Voters: 138. You may not vote on this poll

26th April 2008, 09:17	#1 (permalink)
Traceur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,587 Rep Power: 8	What's your sandbox? I think when people say a sandbox game, they actually mean different things. The first difference comes up when people start asking for things that take away from the freedom: Rather then "you can do everything you want", they ask for "you can do it but [insert consequences]", they reject context-free freedom. Sure, some people really do want a sandbox, they want to be freemen beyond context and limitations, but many are willing to forgo freedom for the sake of an immersive world. But not all is peaceful in immersion-nation, because there's another huge disagreement on how to achieve immersion, a disagreement that starts with the sentence "your character wouldn't do that". In retaliation to hearing that sentence, the rest of the immersionists say that a game should react to your actions correctly, that you should be put in your character's circumstances. These immersionist start to scheme together subtle mechanics that would manipulate and derive certain behaviors out of the players in organic ways, things like PD, food-consumption or a player justice system, things taken out of rogue-like survival games and pushed into social contexts: these people are the Organic Immersionists, who believe they can ingeniously use game mechanics to manipulate you into thinking like your character. However, those who uttered the sentence "your characters wouldn't do that" stand by it, and remain certain that even while you think your character would do it, the lore & choices you've made says otherwise. But paradise can't last forever, cause they can't decide how they want to tell your character what to do. The Lore cops are alright with you not doing things they think your character should do, and prefer to tell you want you can't do: the Lore cops want Lore-restrictions on gameplay, and they want them hard-coded. However, others want to go a step further: they grow to appreciate the more subtle things in life, the smallest of nuances. They want your character to run away when it's scared and sneeze when it has a cold, they want you to take care of the players morale and emotional needs. They want your character to have it's own AI. Unfortunately, with no Bionic implant into your brain, what the Sims want means your controlling your own Sim' in a fictional setting. On the other hand, others believe the lore-restrictions should be more lenient, and every case should be examined to it's own case. They call for human judgment, and they want it consistently. These wishes often aspire to a hierarchy of moderators, often embedded into factions in the game world, mixed with MGing and masked as leaders. They have no guilty feelings for ratting on someone when they think he's not doing good role playing: how else will people learn? so in this non-perfect world where even the sandbox minority of MMO-players has conflicts and splits into 5 smaller minorities, where would you put yourself? Last edited by Traceur : 26th April 2008 at 09:24. Reason: disclaimer: please don't be alarm by the slightly sarcastic tone, it was used in reference to all the groups including my own

26th April 2008, 10:29	#4 (permalink)
Shawk Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: British Columbia, Canada Posts: 1,503 Rep Power: 5	I like a sandbox where I can move the sand wherever the hell I want.. #1 ftw. __________________ Unofficial Mortal FAQ Join The King's Dragons!

26th April 2008, 10:52	#5 (permalink)
Lotharr Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 224 Rep Power: 1	Where's Wurm Online? I guess it'd rank under "Freemen", though. __________________

4th May 2008, 03:24	#9 (permalink)
CryeMoore Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 104 Rep Power: 1	It seems to me, if you claim to be: a) interested in RP b) interested in story lines c) interested in racial traits d) interested in anything that looks or feels like any representation of civilization; then you have to choose 2-5. If you are interested in any of the above, then something would come into conflict with being a Freeman. __________________

26th April 2008, 09:37	#2 (permalink)
Merkur Newbie Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2 Rep Power: 0	How dare you forgot Eve Online?

27th April 2008, 12:34	#6 (permalink)
Traceur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,587 Rep Power: 8	why is everyone looking for a specific game to apear in the pole options? it's a general question of what sort of sandbox game do you want to play...

5th May 2008, 05:41	#11 (permalink)
Siegfried Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: "Teh South" Age: 20 Posts: 112 Rep Power: 1	ding, ding we have a winner...s... hands giant teddy bears to Crye and Kroq Honestly wasn't going to go there, but ya'll did it for me. thumbs up __________________ Could've sworn I smelt blood in the water...

6th May 2008, 13:56	#12 (permalink)
MasterRabbi Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17 Rep Power: 1	While doing anything you want in a game environment is appealing, there has to be some reason to join that world and play by it's rules (while I guess we weren't given a choice to join our world, but surely has rules we need to play by). I mean, a game where you could join as a laser pistol wielding Ameba and fight a dragon that wears tu-tu's has it's own appeal, but I'd rather play a game that has lore, rules, and social/game play repercussion.

7th May 2008, 03:33	#13 (permalink)
Geoff Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 111 Rep Power: 1	I see ppl say they want Freedom no resticions at all. What they dont understand is that Freedom and Anarchy are 2 totaly diffent things. In the US I have freedom. I can decide not to work. Not to Drive. If i choose I can hop into my car right now and drive anywere i want. I'm free. But there are rules. I can go kill my Boss right now if i choose, But I'll have to decide if its worth the penilty. Anarchy is close but with no penalty and if there was none I'd probly have killed him by now.(not the one i got now hes cool, but past ones for sure They was almost worth the penalty) sorry i want freedom not anarchy. you think you want anarchy play SB for awhile. then decide. __________________ You can run on for along time, run on for along time, But sooner or later God's goinna cut you down" Jonny Cash.

7th May 2008, 21:19	#15 (permalink)
Pavlos Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 27 Rep Power: 0	Well, there won't be total sandbox since every action will result in a reaction and pay back. You will have your freedom but your actions won't go unnoticed.

7th May 2008, 22:44	#16 (permalink)
Rhygar Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cape Town Age: 28 Posts: 428 Rep Power: 1	Very simple a Freeman game won't be that fun, at least not for me. You would have no goal. In RL you have a goal - survival, companionship, achievement and all those things that make you happy (isn't there 5 rules of wants or something like that?). You need some organic-immersion to create an artificial goal. Otherwise you have Second Life in a fantasy setting with the ability to kill people. And I'm pretty sure the people that play Second Life would stop playing if they kept on being ganked - because if they wanted to fight they would be posting on these forums. __________________ "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Denis Diderot - French philosopher and editor of L'Encyclopédie

7th May 2008, 22:52	#17 (permalink)
Traceur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,587 Rep Power: 8	exacly i'm not sure if all the freeman who voted understood that though... __________________ stop looking at my post count!it's not a habit, it's cool, i feel alive.... welcome to the TBC!

9th May 2008, 11:02	#19 (permalink)
silenced Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 162 Rep Power: 1	freemen = you set your own goals and try to achieve them, if reached: next goal ! all about phantasy and "thinking"

16th May 2008, 10:23	#20 (permalink)
Lector Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 51 Rep Power: 1	I tend to fall into the Sandbox category, simply because the prospect of absolute freedom fills me with awe... HOWEVER With such a sandbox (from a sheer RP standpoint) you begin to find God Moders, metagamers and elitists who create situations that are impossibly incoherent and illogical. While some use the freedom generously, and to inspire genuine creativity others abuse it to attain absolute power or dominance. So this also makes me lean partially towards the Lore cops, because without some sort of general guidelines to a world, how can it exist? You would have a void of things that have no origin and no explanation which is both dangerous and overly complex. It makes it impossible to comprehend, with so much information floating around that no single player could ever "solve" the equation of a lore-less world. At the same time, Eve Online holds a special place in my heart because they found a way to achieve something I have yet to see in another MMO. So I suppose I am a mixture of each, because I also believe that there are instances where authority must step in to spare the general welfare of a community's players.

16th May 2008, 18:05	#22 (permalink)
Lector Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 51 Rep Power: 1	Rhygar, that's not really true. Our life IS Freemen. What we've done is taken that freedom and implemented rules, beliefs and standards into the sandbox, which have given us goals and ambitions based on our desires. A Freemen sandbox is really not much different than a Organic-immersion one. Out life is still a technical sandbox. If you wanted to go postal tomorrow, nothing is stopping you until you actually attempt your goal. If you wanted to see what it felt like to free dive off of a skyscraper, you could... for you know, five seconds. There is no real limit, save physics.

16th May 2008, 18:29	#23 (permalink)
Traceur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,587 Rep Power: 8	the difference comes when you add realistic consequences which derive limitations: in the free diving example you gave, the immersionists thing to do would be to add fall damage, while the freemen thing to do would be to let people enjoy jumping as much as they want. while a total context-free freemen world would seem like second life, there are a lot of levels of gray between freemen & immersionists IMO. the difference within the context of gaming is portrait in the last 2 levels of PtP: the last one is immersionists - you depend upon civilization - while the one before it is more of a freemen world. __________________ stop looking at my post count!it's not a habit, it's cool, i feel alive.... welcome to the TBC!

26th May 2008, 18:45	#26 (permalink)
Drudley Newbie Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 1	It sounds do me that the OPs idea of a sandbox is being in a "world editor" and not actually playing in the world you made with it. I thought the general idea of a sandbox game at the very least had physics, without that it's not even a game, it's an editor where you just fly around and do whatever the hell you want. Anywho I'm for which ever option is reality in a fantasy setting (without a requirement for sleeping).

27th May 2008, 05:40	#27 (permalink)
Traceur Senior Member