[...] his points, not mine. 1. Ryzom“s a Sandbox-Kind-of-Game. Accurate – it is a sandbox as opposed to narrative type of game. Unique? Certainly not. EVE Online is a sandbox. Second Life is the ultimate sandbox. [...]

GTA presents a virtual world that the player can move around in, with constraints on the actions the player can perform within that world. While you can jack a car, drive around, run people over, etc. you can’t do *anything*.

I see this as analogous to world-hunting in the traditional EQ-model MMO. You can walk around, kill monsters, maybe team up with people.

GTA also presents a series of mini-games that you can play – many involving using the core mechanic to accomplish these. Games such as the taxi game, the follow-the-narrative game – all these are available to play within the ‘sandbox’ of the game.

MMOs follow a similar model. Quests are available that use a variation. Instanced areas may be created for the purpose of this particular mini-game.

So by the definition of a ‘freeform environment’ where you can pick which of the areas and game options you want to pursue at the time, a MMO definitely fits. The biggest constraint that a traditional MMO suffers is the level-limiting on certain mini-games. You can’t, for example, play the ‘raid’ mini-game in WoW until you’ve met the requirements (level 60).

The player within the game is still free to choose which activity they want to perform. I don’t see this being any different than GTA.

I think MMOs not only can be sandbox games, but many are. Unless we want to redefine sandbox to exclude games like GTA.

[...] http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/03/07/can-mmos-be-sandboxes/#comment-3830 (Leave a comment) [...]

Most mmorpg’s try to solve this by putting the player through a long and horrible tutorial which fails to be enjoyable, and succeeds in providing undesirable word of mouth.

Getting technical about solving this problem makes the tutorial even more boring. “Hi BobNoob, in this game you win by filling a bar with color. Attack this kobold to learn how it works.” Sandbox mmorpg’s are incredibly creative products, too much abstraction involved for the average dude to understand it.

Unfortunately, Quests in MMOGs are a means to an end. Because they do nothing else but further customize one’s character, understanding the story is largely irrelevant. If they truly impacted the world, people would pay attention. KOTOR is good example. Unfortunately, doing KOTOR for 3,000 concurrent users in the same virtual space can be, err, tricky

How many millions of people go bowling and never really get tired of it. You donā€™t see bowling dying off anytime soon do you? And certainly your average MMO quest is more interesting than your average bowling game.

Actually, bowling did go through a major die-off at one point, and is vastly less popular than it used to be.

That aside, I think I need to disagree that the average MMO quest is more interesting than your average bowling game. You can go back to the same bowling game and practice and get better; new stuff will reveal itself to you. Competition with other players will drve you to new socialization and new skills.

The average MMO quest is “bring me five xxx.” It doesn’t accomplish any of those very well.

You mean you want less of this, basically.

Did you ever read my stock example of a quest that doesnā€™t bring in significantly new tech but is at least decently written?

The wired article is very much in line with the point I was making. While I never played WoW, it did serve as a basis.

The quest example however adresses exactly the major issues I perceive. Characters have an evolved history, not just static background (even if written by excelent writers). The end result affects the world, without drastic permanent changes. Experience through such encounter is unique for each individual, despite the common epic battle theme. Personally, this is considerably closer to what I would consider imersive content.

Remember, cynicism will only get you so far. How many millions of people go bowling and never really get tired of it. You donā€™t see bowling dying off anytime soon do you? And certainly your average MMO quest is more interesting than your average bowling game.

The market definitely needs a decent sandbox game, but people will always like to bowl.

Strangely enough, I’d consider the bowling example to demonstrate a sandbox game. In the context of sandbox vs. linear experience, there are very few directed stories when looking at bowling.

The game itself is just mechanics, and the scoring is for most part insignificant. The world doesn’t really change, but the players do. As people get more serious, they will bring personalized items in the game (bowling balls and shoes), each with elaborate story which was player defined (“oh, my wife bought me this ball for anniversary, and I had her name engraved on it in return”). There is room for plenty of lore (“oh, our competition for Bob’s birthday was great. Of course, we wanted to let him win, but his game was so good, the he won anyway.”).

In view of linearly directed storyline vs. player created sandbox content, I’d have to go with bowling being a glorified chatbox within a sandbox game, that allows players to evolve through both skill and heavy item customization.

And yes, bowling is popular. It’s accesible, easy to get into, a nice social environment (“powergamers” get into competitions obviously), and yet it lacks any kind of forced storytelling, just to keep people playing.

And the intention of my example was not to consider any gaming concept unfun or wrong, it was merely my personal experience with quest driven storyline in many games i’ve encountered.

tho, you do have valid points ā€” if you were talking about the hardcore minority.

But I wasn’t, and I’m not sure why my points would have only applied to them.

well. first, iā€™m talking about subscription numbers, not sales.

Second Life doesn’t have subscriptions.

second, iā€™m also talking about once they jumped the chasm, heading into mainstream adoption (which, you are correct that swg went *ping* iā€™m there. second life didnā€™t.) ā€” that relative stagnation thatā€™s occurred.

Every game’s curve goes flat, eventually, and then, if they are subscription games, will suffer a slow deflation, as the players get bored with the game and move on to new ones. Dark Age of Camelot was never a sandbox game, and displayed this same curve. It has nothing to do with sandbox games, and everything to do with how the market works.

last thing. escapism. maybe you are just putting a finer, game theory related definition on it than i am, but, iā€™m sort of using it as a catch all for ā€™something i want to do that is not part of my everyday routine.ā€™ you know, vacations, tetris, softball tournaments ā€” all kinds of ā€˜recreationalā€™ things. pretty much just escaping the daily grind.

If Tetris is escapist, by your definition, then how could you possibly argue that the old Star Wars Galaxies was not esapist?

by niche mmog, iā€™m not talking about niche-within-a-niche. uber-geek AND star wars for example. lots of people out there like star wars who arenā€™t uber-geeks. (my wife, for one.) so, the first requirement is that it have access to joe q. second is for it to be tightly focused ā€” either in subject or mechanics ā€” to appeal to a specific flavor of the public.

So… like A Tale in the Desert? Puzzle Pirates? Virtual Horse Ranch? Virtual Pups? Neopets? Audition? Hello Kitty Online World?

Tess>Youā€™re right. [Second Life is] hard to describe. But, I assure you, no one who has ever played it for any length of time would ever describe it as living a ā€œnormal life.ā€

Unless your idea of “normal” means being completely surrounded by porn