Elite Dangerous is not a sandbox

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Vikinger

Vikinger
Why is it so important for you to know if its defined as a sandbox game or not and you more or less talk bad whit the features they plan to implant and diss a game that you not even have tried. So why are you still here and obviously have no intention to play the game?

For me this is how trolls act.
Gona stop feeding them,,
 

devastat

D
If Elite is only mapping new systems, fighting and taking resources from point A to B, then yes I will agree that the game is not a true sandbox experience.

However, I think that it is way too early to say that Elite is not a true sandbox experience at this stage of the development. I have my faith in the development team that they will throw in enough elements into the game to keep us busy for a long time and make it a true sandbox experience.
 

Tobytyke1972

Tobytyke1972
Also how can we argue about whether ED is a sandbox game or not yet when it isn't even a game at the moment, just a collection of testbeds. We are all talking about the projected game on completion.
 

smsKONG

smsKONG
I don't like turtles

I do like artard ducks though

Everyone loves an artard don't they tho:)

Feeding the troll, feel the energy, it's circular.
All good things;)
 

Sisyphus

S
Tobytyke1972 said:
Sisyphus, I'm pretty sure you are just trying to start a flame war here. As most people have said you can't just an alpha on the finished product. Its like looking at a car engine and saying that its not a car. Yes correct but when its finished it will be.

I don't believe that any has been rude to you they have just stated facts. Firstly this is really not true definition what a sandbox game is just example of games which push the genre forward. Elite did it, GTA did and yes so it EVE. ED is just trying to push the envelope a little wider.Will to achieve that only time will tell.

Secondly you are trying to push your idea of what a sandbox game in as gospel this can not be the case because if so why call it sandbox instead just call it EVE.

Surely we can all agree that if ED achieves all its original goals (and extensions) then whether you or idea term the came as a sandbox is irrelevant what is important is that we are playing a great game and having fun in the process.
Click to expand...

First let me apologize for making you feel that I'm inflaming you. I share your feelings about the game - it's a good game. But I do have a right to criticize its development, so that it can be improved. If that upsets you, then maybe you should ignore me.

And yes I'm going to push my idea of what a thing is - that's what I truly believe. I'm open to rational persuasion, but that can only be instigated after I express my point of view. That is, this is literally and genuinely the way I define sandbox. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I also want you to know that my criticism doesn't mean I dislike the game.

In any case, yes, the original idea of the kickstarter campaign game is being accurately implemented. But I disagree describing the current game as a sandbox. Furthermore, I doubt that even with the future features this will become a sandbox game.
 

Hamerstein

Hamerstein
Sisyphus said:
I partially agree with you, in that it is not a sandbox game yet. But I disagree with you that this discussion is irrelevant - clearly some folks here are arguing that it is already a sandbox! Also, this discussion is relevant to the development of the game - I'd like to share my criticism of the game so that it may perhaps impact others opinions and maybe some developers. The bottom line is that I would like more control over the meta game in this game and that is hampered by not giving us more meaningful access to features that can affect the overall game - sector control, tax control, ability to topple empires, etc. I don't think the latter is even planned...
Click to expand...

I'd agree that what we currently have is not a sandbox game, as Bob H says - it's a test-bed. However the features you are arguing for personally wouldn't completely define a sandbox game either, only one possible iteration of the term.

The term "Sandbox" is such a broad and vague piece of gaming trope that, short of a game that simulates real-life to the minutest detail, the definition would never be completely satisfied (for clarity - only a real-life simulation would be acceptable as only it could possess a parameter set for a game that would be quantifiably comparable in real terms, any other game type would rely on speculation).

In your case, you really should have known better, the criteria for Elite Dangerous has been pretty well defined from it's inception and if you had done your research you would know this. The features (or lack of) that you criticise is akin to buying an apple knowing that it is an apple and then complaining it's not an orange...
 

Andrew Sayers

A
Sisyphus said:
The bottom line is that I would like more control over the meta game in this game and that is hampered by not giving us more meaningful access to features that can affect the overall game - sector control, tax control, ability to topple empires, etc.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable argument, and doesn't require us to agree definitions of wooly terms first :p

One of ED's core aesthetics is that you're a small part of a vast universe. That's quite unusual in a game, and means there won't be some of the things you'd see in a game built around mighty player-heroes. Not to say there's anything wrong with that sort of game, it's just not what Frontier are going for.

Controlling sectors and taxes are great ways to demonstrate strength, but work against the vastness of the universe. What that means in practice is that a game with 400 billion stars makes it easy for people to sidestep any possible attempt to restrict behaviour in any single system.

Toppling empires is more interesting. The universe features power struggles between three main power blocs and countless unaligned worlds, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if players will be able to play small but pivotal roles in relatively large events.
 

Sisyphus

S
Ian Doncaster said:
I wouldn't have described Elite (any version) as "sandbox" - that for me applies to more sort of "what if" games - so many of the Sim series of games (SimLife, SimEarth, etc.) for example where you can - within the limits of the game engine - change all sorts of parameters and see what happens as a result. They're more - as I think the SimEarth manual described it - "software toys" rather than "games".

Open-ended, open-world, etc. yes, definitely. No argument at all that Elite (all versions) is that. Sandbox, no. (and neither, by a similarly long way under my definition, is EVE)
Click to expand...

Okay so that's an even more narrow definition than mine. Why wouldn't you call EVE a sandbox game?? The meta-game in that game is so intense that the devs won't even step in to stop players from scamming each other on the forums! (Something I find absolutely unacceptable, but it does give more choices to the players).

I'm not an Eve fan or even an Eve player, but the features in that game seem to define sandbox for me. For example, there was a particular method that the developers created to mine and transport stuff... but players discovered a loophole in which they could drag cannisters of the stuff and thereby haul larger amount of cargo. The devs allowed that to take place because it was within the physical rules of the game. That, to me, is sandbox because it allows you to use your cleverness to play a game in the way you can figure out.

I'm not saying ED should be like that - but I'm asking why you think that things like that don't fit your definition of sandbox, as tinkering with parameters?
 

mattyboy1509

M
Sisyphus said:
In a sandbox game you can craft, you can manipulate the market by embargos, dumping on the market, can fly capital ships, can construct your own items, weapons, ships, etc
Click to expand...
I thought they said skyrim was a sandbox well you could craft.
Isnt the above just eve what you arevsaying is ed isnt eve!
 

ubermick

ubermick
devastat said:
When someone is criticizing something, he is automatically labeled a troll.
Click to expand...

There's criticizing, and then there's splitting hairs. For example the thread where someone pointed out that it's counter intuitive to have "priority 1" be the lowest. As opposed to a thread that claims the game doesn't fit a certain label because you can only do most things, but not every thing.
 

devastat

D
My impression of the original post is that there is some worry that if there is enough to do in Elite Dangerous.

That is slightly my worry as well. The real question is that once you have achieved what you wanted (which is the ship you wanted, no? ) then what is there to keep us interested in the game? The more sandbox elements (Empire building etc..) there is, the more longevity the game has.
 

gazzareth

G
Sisyphus said:
I partially agree with you, in that it is not a sandbox game yet. But I disagree with you that this discussion is irrelevant - clearly some folks here are arguing that it is already a sandbox! Also, this discussion is relevant to the development of the game - I'd like to share my criticism of the game so that it may perhaps impact others opinions and maybe some developers. The bottom line is that I would like more control over the meta game in this game and that is hampered by not giving us more meaningful access to features that can affect the overall game - sector control, tax control, ability to topple empires, etc. I don't think the latter is even planned...
Click to expand...

Then this is probably not the game for you.

I find it bonkers that so many people look at Elite and then moan that it isn't EVE / SC / X or even (apparently) Minecraft ..... it's a different game, built on the legacy of the original Elite series.

Just because you don't think it is a Sandbox doesn't mean it isn't (except to you) - frankly any gaming world (or Galaxy in this case) that you can free roam around and make your own path is (at least in my humble opinion) a sandbox. Which is why Battlefield isn't a sandbox (you can't do anything other than fight the enemy) isn't and GTA is. Again just my opinion, but I think that is the generally accepted definition of a sandbox game.

Yes that is a broad definition, but then again it is a broad genre and there is a lot of space for games that do not copy the feature sets of other games.

G
 

Dirtmuncher

D
gazzareth said:
Then this is probably not the game for you.

I find it bonkers that so many people look at Elite and then moan that it isn't EVE / SC / X or even (apparently) Minecraft ..... it's a different game, built on the legacy of the original Elite series.

Just because you don't think it is a Sandbox doesn't mean it isn't (except to you) - frankly any gaming world (or Galaxy in this case) that you can free roam around and make your own path is (at least in my humble opinion) a sandbox. Which is why Battlefield isn't a sandbox (you can't do anything other than fight the enemy) isn't and GTA is. Again just my opinion, but I think that is the generally accepted definition of a sandbox game.

Yes that is a broad definition, but then again it is a broad genre and there is a lot of space for games that do not copy the feature sets of other games.

G
Click to expand...

I agree and by that definition eve isn't a true sandbox. It forces you to use warpgates. Its not free roaming in that sense. Your jumping from one terrarium to the next. Real bug terrariums but still confined. Elite has one fast sandbox.

Eve is a terrarium
Elite is a sandbox
 

Tobytyke1972

Tobytyke1972
banging-head-against-the-wall.gif


@Sisyphus as of yet you have not criticized ED you have just pointed out that it doesn't make up to your definition of a sandbox game. Which is not a problem its a free world. But it would be nice until you atleast wait until a full produce before casting judgement.

What you could have said is 'It would be good is ED including META-Game controlling# instead of saying that thats a must for this type of game.

This thread is getting pointless, I think its time to agree to disagree.

Call ED what ever genre you wish, I'm personally going for banana.

So from now is Elite Dangerous is a banana type game.

With that Tobytyke out.
 

Sisyphus

S
Hamerstein said:
I'd agree that what we currently have is not a sandbox game, as Bob H says - it's a test-bed. However the features you are arguing for personally wouldn't completely define a sandbox game either, only one possible iteration of the term.

The term "Sandbox" is such a broad and vague piece of gaming trope that, short of a game that simulates real-life to the minutest detail, the definition would never be completely satisfied (for clarity - only a real-life simulation would be acceptable as only it could possess a parameter set for a game that would be quantifiably comparable in real terms, any other game type would rely on speculation).

In your case, you really should have known better, the criteria for Elite Dangerous has been pretty well defined from it's inception and if you had done your research you would know this. The features (or lack of) that you criticise is akin to buying an apple knowing that it is an apple and then complaining it's not an orange...
Click to expand...

First, I agree that there are many definitions of what "sandbox" means. To me, this game doesn't fit my definition of sandbox and I don't think it can fit other definitions either, unless you broaden that definition so much that it doesn't mean anything useful.

And as for the apples to oranges: are you saying that ED was not supposed to be a sandbox from the get go and that I should have known this? Or are you saying that ED was not going to develop in to the kind of game I call a sandbox and that I should have known this?

Either way, can't I start a discussion on the direction of the game? It is still in Alpha and not too late to do so.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom