The big issue with sandbox games is that "Joe Average" wants to have a big red arrow over a NPC so he knows that he must click on him, and then he wants a big "X" on his map and better yet another big red arrow that points in the direction where he needs to kill 3 goblins.
And, while there certainly exists the Red Shirted League (apologies to Sir Conan Doyle for that pun), a lot of people really are not all too much interested in why they need to collect 6 rat tails for Frimbo Toenail's magic coffeemug ointment, or whether Zonko Bignose died in the Battle of Seven Hammerstrikes. As long as it involves flashing lights and XP, it's all good.

In one word: people want to be served. Which explains why sandbox games ("do everything yourself") are not such big successes.

That may sound grossly exaggerated, but it is actually paraphrasing something I've read in a review of the Rift beta not long ago where the author gave it a lot of praise because it was basically like WoW with better graphics, and you didn't need to use your brain at all any more. Which pretty much reflects the spirit of the "uh, crap, I never read those... what did I have to kill?" statements that I've seen from literally hundreds of people in online games before.

A Sandbox is literally just that, an environment you can play and make things with.

A Sandbox Game is that to some extent, PLUS other tools you can also play with and use in a flexible way. Such as combat and AI controlled environment

Minecraft does not have many additional tools, and therefore I would class it as much closer to a Sandbox than a Sandbox Game.

---

As to what there is new or controversial in my post worth commenting on... well, I would crystalize it thus: The Sandbox MMORPG concept is perfect, and the only problem with past implementations is that too many fundamental mechanics of the game were badly designed and not accessible enough.

I am currently running what could be considered an ultimate sandbox: OpenSim.

This is just a virtual world server that is like Second Life (it is based on the code for second life that was released as open source). You have to make everything. However, there is no Game-play in it (other than what you make yourself). It is also multi-player so you can play over networks too.

The above might not on the face of it seem very comment worthy, controversial, or new, but why then have those mistakes been repeated for every Sandbox MMORPG so far?! I can't imagine it being an impossible or even improbable extra effort to implement smooth versions of basic mechanics, and want to know introductions to said mechanics.

I think the mistakes that are made with Sandbox MMOs is that they treat them like regular MMOs but the player does not have to follow the story line if they don't want to. In most MMOs the players are PvE, which means that they are driven to interact with the environment and interacting with other players only comes about due to the difficulty of the dungeons (as multiple people are usually needed to defeat the enemies, especially bosses), but in a Sandbox MMos, the environment does not have any clear direction to it and the players can get lost or leave for lack of direction.

What is lacking is motivation to do something in the game.

The way to solve this problem is to think about the game differently. The main driver can't be pre-set quests and the quest givers, so the only thing that can really do this is other players. IF you just apply the old MMO model of player interaction, there is nothing they really need to communicate about. A player might need someone to help them through a difficult area, but the motivation for doing so is sole dependent on the player in a Sandbox game. Thus only the player who enjoy grind for the sake of grind will end up driving the game experience, not something that really works.

The idea then it so increase the depth and breadth of player interactions. Allow players to set challenges for other players and have the winners rewarded. This does not have to be that players create the areas, but it could be that there is some metric that players can gain by setting goals.

One example is that players can swear fealty to other players and can own land. The maximum amount of land you can own is dependent on how many vassals you have, the more vassals, the more land (although it does mean that you actually own it, just that you can own it).

Players can give other players missions to fulfil, such as attacking another player's buildings as quests. The player setting the quest identifies the location, the bounty that is rewarded for completion and the time frame the mission needs to be done by, and the game determines boss monsters and minions of the place. When another player take up this quest, and completes it, that player is rewarded by treasure and other resources and the player setting the quest is rewarded by capturing the location as their own and gaining some other resources (eg: prestige, etc).

The game-play between the players engaged in the area domination causes the story of the players playing the hack and slash to have motivation (quests). However, the skill that these players have in completing the quests feeds back into the game-play of the Area domination game to resolve their actions. Because of this, it is in the interests of the Area Domination players to provide the Hack and Slash players with interesting and fun quests as that will keep the good players around their areas, but as these will be inherently risky quests (but not too risky), then the Area Domination player must balance the risk against the ability to hold onto valuable players. It creates a complex interaction between both types of players that drives them to create more and more interesting game-play (as the Area Domination players are really competing for Hack and Slash players).

It is a sandbox game as there is not developer created missions, and player are really free to do what they want. Players would be allowed to be both Hack and Slash players and at the same time Area Domination Players. They would be free to spend as much or as little time on either as they see fit (or not player one or the other). However, the game-play is still focused and players would have direction and motivation at all times.

Although there is truth in what you say, playing Warhammer Online which had quest locations on the map and then going back to other games did feel like a step back at the time, this seems to be an issues with theme park MMORPGs.In-fact it's an issue, and i do see it as one, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum to the issues found plaguing Sandbox MMORPGs. The designers seem to pander somewhat to the idea players don't read the quest text and seem to have given up trying to engage them through it, instead using everything at their disposal to remove the need to read it.

I would argue from what i have experienced that Rifts questing system is the worst part of Rift (at least in the area of game-play), the redeeming factor in this is the use of Rifts and invasions as you level that adds a dynamic feel to the world (something you would expect more from a Sandbox MMORPG).

For a sandbox MMORPG the use of questing is not necessarily required and even when it is the flexible nature of the world can mean a much more dynamic and interesting questing system. In-fact the questing system/Help system in EvE was an area that received a lot of hate when i used to follow some EvE related forums, but in comparison to the majority of MMORPGs its easily one of the most successful games out there. This isn't to say that there will not still players that would rather be served the information, there will always be players like that but i feel it should be the designers job to engage the player in the game not given them an easy way to avoid a large portion of content within the game.

I'm not saying the player should not be given a helping hand through the game at times, especially at the start, quite the opposite in-fact. This help shouldn't remove the need for player to think but actually encourage them to think so they can enjoy the game without the need for such obscene"hints".

(sorry probably got a tad off topic at points )

Nice post Bigdeadbug, I can only agree with your well explained points. Welcome to gamdev.net forums btw!

Thank you very much.

I agree with the general premise of the OP and have some ideas regarding "content" of a sandbox game.

Most sandbox games rely on pvp for content as it doesn't have the supporting mechanics required to have procedural pve.

There is the run of the mill procedural pve which is like diablo or city of heroes. This is pre-structured "lairs or dungeons" that randomly generate groups of mobs.

There is a deeper and technically manageable method for procedural content but it requires the game design to support it from top to bottom.

Just as pvp is player generated content confined and shaped via game mechanics so too can pve content be generated.

Player generated quests, transportation of scarce goods across distances that don't have easy or instant travel, bounties as in Star Wars Galaxies.

The original Ultima Online ecosystem was designed to have a procedural monster generator and mobs that leveled up but they squashed it for a simpler implementation.

These issues are fixable with some creativity.

I agree. In my last post, in the system I described, the Area Domination game could be played by Ais, so all the actual players would experience is the results of the AIs fighting it out. They end up with a dynamic sandbox world where their actions have consequences. Also the AI could be designed to create a form of stability (where if one faction becomes too powerful the other gang up on it).

Another note I'd like to create and add on here is that Sandbox games can have a perfect implementation and still fail miserably because Sandbox games require a good community. If the driving force of your game is based off of community-driven aspects, without a good community, that game is lacking one of its core 'selling-points'. Also, another thing I see, at least with the people I've had the experience discussing with, is that sandbox games rarely have that ease to them. They make great, diverse, expansive tool-sets to do just about everything imaginable, but they take a genius to figure out. I believe there should be a good portion of Sandbox elements in most, if not all, modern mmorpgs, but you also have to have at least a few basic towns, quests, etc. built in, that way the player isn't striving to create civilization all by himself.

Usually people say that most people can't handle too much freedom, that most people need a lot of hand holding and direction because otherwise people won't know what to do and will get bored, and that the harshness of PvP interactions will alienate most people. I will only grant the validity of the last point. Truly open PvP can only ever appeal to those that enjoy PvP, and certainly not everyone enjoys PvP. However I strongly refute the validity of the other points. People enjoy freedom, and only enjoy freedom. The more freedom a player has the more they will enjoy their game, even if they aren't interested in 99% of the options available to them, they will enjoy the game more, simply because of the excitement such a plethora of meaningful options provides, and because it will make their choice all the more meaningful. What people don't enjoy however is being overwhelmed with information... Also people don't enjoy being left without a clear and concise clue as to what might be fun/good/best for them to do next and how to actually do it... These factors are of paramount importance. But the successful consideration of these points is not exclusive to theme park games! Sandbox games can take them into account too! And if these points are taken into account in a sandbox game, then the generally perceived "disadvantages to sandbox mmorpgs" disappear!

You should read the paradox of choice. People, in fact, do not enjoy the freedom of choice, and more times than not become increasingly stressed because of it.

A good example of a sandbox game would be horizons. One of the most in depth crafting systems and an all around solid game except for the fact that it was almost entirely missing what you refer to as theme park elements.

One thing you fail to note is that most MMO worlds are enormously expansive, which is a good thing, but if a player has no map they will wander into places they won't like or they will not go anywhere. That's what happened to me in Horizons. I totally loved the game except for this problem. It gave quests, but it did a very poor job of telling you where to go.

The player is thrown into a huge world they know nothing about. The quest lines should be an introduction to the world, and having very direct quest lines isn't a bad thing. If I told you right now to go to Bubba Rays in halifax and dropped you at the airport with a car, what would you do? Probably get lost or go to an info kiosk/use a navigation system. The former two are both akin to the quest lines in something like WoW.

You also don't really touch on how optional the quest lines in a game like WoW are. You could do alright in that game without ever doing a quest. The quests are an option for people who want to have guided advancement and introduction to the world/back story.

There doesn't need to be the distinction you've made. A good MMO should have options. There is no reason some people can't have their hands held, and there's no reason that some people can't do whatever they want within the constraints of your world. However, if you take out the "theme park" side of an mmo, you will have to come up with a better way of introducing your players to the world, backstory, and gameplay mechanics.

This is coming from someone that loves sandbox elements in MMOs. Being able to build your own cities, skill based advancement rather than a level system, in depth crafting, and player driven war all appeal to me. That doesn't mean I never want to be told when I'm missing something awesome, or that what I'm working on has some impact on an existing story, or that, while what I'm doing works, if I do it somewhere else or some other way I can do the same thing faster/better, or that some global event is going on, or that there might be some linear explosion filled action quest that I might want to do once a month.

There are tons of reasons for having the theme park elements you describe.

edit: another thing you might consider "theme park"ish is the travel system in WoW. There are tons of places I never would have seen and ended up going to if it weren't for the on rails experience that purposely flys you through/around the most interesting parts of the world.