| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (7)

Posted: Nov 15th 2010 2:21PM cic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
/sigh, another Massively trolling article which will lead to bickering and splitting the community further.

Why is this even important to anyone? It's like you took the random inane chatter inside your head and thought it was a good idea to base an article on it.

Posted: Nov 15th 2010 7:04PM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, I hear those two definitions thrown around (usually as insults) without anyone trying to define what they are.

I thought he did a great job with this post.

Even if I disagree. :)
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2010 3:14PM Fakeassname said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sand box = no point.

in a good way!

I don't think that sandbox needs to be restricted to unlimited physical creation, "Sandbox" should represent unlimited mental creation. Any game that turns you loose without any kind of instructions on what to do with your game life is a sandbox to me. lots of titles over lap between the "no direction" and "craft everything" distinctions, but that's mostly coincidence. there is no physical restriction between having a "craft everything" mentality and leading players by the nose through a plot line, hell there could already be plenty of games like that right now and I've just never heard about them ...

I have heard about at least one game that isn't a "build everything" type of sand box: Ragnarok online.

can you craft "everything" in that game, no!
can is there game supplied character direction, HELL NO!

that game has got absolutely no theme park elements outside of preconstructed towns, and that's what makes it a sandbox: it's up to the players to create their own world, just so long as it's not a physical construction.

think about it this way: when you were a kid, what made that mound of sand a fortress for your GI Joes? your impressive modeling skills, or your imagination.

(oh, yeah, if you don't agree with me than your a poo eating, poo head :P)

Posted: Nov 15th 2010 3:35PM rgolch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The biggest difference is that sandbox players think they are superior to players who play theme park games ;).

No, but really, it's an overall philosophy. Sandbox = multiple paths to greatness, while themepark = success defined by completing developer created content. Also, in sandbox games, all of the most epic events are player driven and created.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 7:30AM thebillyman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To me, RoM is very Themepark. Which I don't really care for, but that's not to put down on RoM because out of all the themepark games out there, even including the pay to play ones, I think RoM is one of the better made games. But still, it's a game that I've played 20 times over.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 2:28AM Sleaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Didn't one of the most reknowned Sandbox games of all time come up with the term 'Themeparks' for it's dungeons? I am of course referring to Star Wars Galaxies. Please correct me if my references are wrong.

I do remember SWG using the term Themeparks though for the various areas like Jabba's Palace etc, and yet it was heralded as one of the more open Sandbox games ever made (full player economy!)

Posted: Nov 18th 2010 4:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RoM is clearly a 100% theme park game. Suggesting that it's a sandbox is like saying WoW, Aion, and LotRO are sandboxes. They aren't. I played for a while and there are no "sandbox" elements I can remember. In my experience if you play any "sandbox" title out there it does not feel or play with any similarity to RoM at all.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW