Elite Dangerous is not a sandbox
- Thread starter Sisyphus
- Start date
- Status
I think we all set up our goals for what we will archive. but one thing that will keep me occupied for long time is Mining and Exploring.
To boldly go where no man has gone before
And that you actually can own multiple ships but just be able to fly 1 at a time. So you can have a trader , fighters, explorer ships etc.
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6753
Iam also sure they will add content on a regularly basis. I most look forward to planetary landings.
unfortunately definitions in English can become blurred very quickly, something only accelerated in today's media driven world.
Gamer's of different ages or experience may have very different interpretations of terms like "sand box" and "meta-game" and both would be correct in their own context.
Gamer's of different ages or experience may have very different interpretations of terms like "sand box" and "meta-game" and both would be correct in their own context.
A rose by any other name...
Semantics.
Open world and sandbox are considered interchangeable descriptions of the genre by many (ie. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game)
Dropping that portion as debatable or semantics we're left with specific features/activities (ie. crafting/construction, commanding, governing, etc.)
On a case by case basis I believe all of these already have (multiple?) threads dedicated to them. If we are going to re-visit them (in any seriousness) this isn't the thread to do it.
Do a search on crafting or whatever you think Elite needs to be a better game and post on that thread, or ask and someone might link you the thread to help you find the best place to read up on why something you think should be in the game isn't.
Bottom line is ED is a sandbox type game and exceeds the scope (in some areas) of any that have come before it.
As far as concepts, Elite pretty much led the pack.
But the model isn't for everyone. Many want to be the center of attention and the galactic hero of all they survey.
Last edited:
one thing that will keep me occupied for long time is Mining and Exploring.
To boldly go where no man has gone before
And that you actually can own multiple ships but just be able to fly 1 at a time.
Owning multiple ships is a good one. I think that mining and even exploring will become tiring very quickly for me (mining is the most boring thing you can do in EVE for example).
If there is no empire building whatsoever in the game, I'll just create a wolf pack among my friends and will be trolling people around the galaxy and that should keep me busy for a while
Which is (in my opinion) the problem with the term "Sandbox". It's been tacked onto so many games with such diverse parameters that (in gaming terms), Sandbox is already so broad that the definition is meaningless. To be honest I pretty much ignored your use of the term and concentrated on what you critiqued, which takes me to the point below.
The latter, the premise for the game Elite: Dangerous was pretty clear from the outset. If there was any doubt, then the history of the franchise provides considerable clarity into the game's direction. In addition, the information given on this forum (in the Design Decision Archive) expands greatly on the original concept. Yes, you should have known this (and personally, I suspect you did).
Discussion of existing and planned features? - of course. Speculation on other possible features while understanding the underlying premise and the limitations they inherently impose? - yup definitely. Expecting the apple to magically turn into an orange?...
There have been lots of games where players putting together unexpected but legal combinations of things have given an effect the developers didn't expect, though. I don't think it indicates "sandbox" - just that the game is above a threshold of complexity and has a reasonable degree of freedom in how the player can interact with the components.
For me it's about the role: a sandbox gives the game player top-level control over the game environment (just like a non-virtual sandbox): EVE certainly doesn't do that - if a player in EVE wants to say "how might the political map have evolved if the high-sec systems were arranged in stripes" or "how would the battle of Somewhere have turned out if the Blue reinforcements had arrived on time", they can't. Well, maybe the second, with enough cooperation, they could re-enact it ... but it's not the same as being able to reload the game state from before the battle, drag-and-drop highspeed drives onto the reinforcements, and press play again, and then reload it again and this time have the initial suicide run on the flagship succeed, etc. etc.
I like turtles... up until the point they laid eggs in my sandbox.
Seriously, does it matter what label you put on the game as long as its good? I know no credible academic would take the following seriously, but:
Googling 'sandbox games' takes you to Wikipedia's 'open world' entry as the second hit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
Now, have a look under history...
Seriously, does it matter what label you put on the game as long as its good? I know no credible academic would take the following seriously, but:
Googling 'sandbox games' takes you to Wikipedia's 'open world' entry as the second hit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
Now, have a look under history...
11+ pages on whether an alpha fits the specific game genre as explicitly defined by the OP, and whether that somehow amounts to criticism useful to the developers?
Obvious troll is obvious. Nothing to see here.
Obvious troll is obvious. Nothing to see here.
So the general gist of the discussion seems to be that defining "sandbox" is problematic (or "semantic", as erroneously asserted by some).
Let me propose an alternate definition to my own and every one else's:
Sandbox is a genre that is not a boolean (neither simply "true" or "false"), but it is a collection of features, which when weighed in total, demonstrates HOW MUCH "sandboxy" a game is, in the SLIDING scale of "sandbox-iness".
For example, if a game is open world, that's +1 to sandboxiness, if it also has crafting, another +1, etc.
This way everyone's definition of sandbox is included, no one is left out and we can analyze how much a game is sandbox like, instead of whether it is or is not a sandbox in the absolute sense.
Hopefully that can get everyone on board to analyzing ED and move away from fruitless debates on what constitutes sandbox.
Applying this definition to Skyrim:
Open world: +1
Crafting (limited but it's there): +1
No physical limitations of where you can travel (no invisible glass walls, as for example, in Elder Scroll Online!): +1
No class restrictions (that is, are not forced to choose only warrior OR mage OR thief, etc): +1
Good/evil/neutral choice: +1
Total points: 5 points.
Applying it to Advanced Dungeon and Dragons:
+1 to everything:
Crafting, no physical limitations, no class restrictions (in latest DnD, I believe), limitless character choices, etc. You get the point.
Total points: +infinity (because it's not a video game. I'm just using it as a demonstrable example of an extreme)
Apply it to Eve:
No physical limitations: +1
Open world: +1
Crafting: +1
good/evil/neutral character role playing: +1
can build ships that signficantly impact universal politics: +1 (I want to give this a +10, but that's my personal bias!)
Completely (or almost completely) player driven market: +1
Meta-gaming (such as making alliances, secret alliances, playing politics within player groups, etc): +1
Player owned and controlled empires: +1 (again, deserves a +100 in my opinion)
Can pursue variety of careers/roles: +1
Total points: 7
Apply it to ED:
No physical limitations: +1
Open world: +1
No crafting: 0 points
good/evil/neutral character role playing: +1
No player driven market (only a slight influence): 0
No player empires: 0
Can pursue 3 careers: +1 (combat, trading, exploration only... don't think it deserves a +1 when compared to other games' career paths, but will give it 1 point anyways)
Total points: 4.
____
In any case, this isn't a comprehensive analysis of all features of each game, it's only an example of how to do the analysis without bickering over definitions.
Hope this helps develop the discussion in a positive way.
Let me propose an alternate definition to my own and every one else's:
Sandbox is a genre that is not a boolean (neither simply "true" or "false"), but it is a collection of features, which when weighed in total, demonstrates HOW MUCH "sandboxy" a game is, in the SLIDING scale of "sandbox-iness".
For example, if a game is open world, that's +1 to sandboxiness, if it also has crafting, another +1, etc.
This way everyone's definition of sandbox is included, no one is left out and we can analyze how much a game is sandbox like, instead of whether it is or is not a sandbox in the absolute sense.
Hopefully that can get everyone on board to analyzing ED and move away from fruitless debates on what constitutes sandbox.
Applying this definition to Skyrim:
Open world: +1
Crafting (limited but it's there): +1
No physical limitations of where you can travel (no invisible glass walls, as for example, in Elder Scroll Online!): +1
No class restrictions (that is, are not forced to choose only warrior OR mage OR thief, etc): +1
Good/evil/neutral choice: +1
Total points: 5 points.
Applying it to Advanced Dungeon and Dragons:
+1 to everything:
Crafting, no physical limitations, no class restrictions (in latest DnD, I believe), limitless character choices, etc. You get the point.
Total points: +infinity (because it's not a video game. I'm just using it as a demonstrable example of an extreme)
Apply it to Eve:
No physical limitations: +1
Open world: +1
Crafting: +1
good/evil/neutral character role playing: +1
can build ships that signficantly impact universal politics: +1 (I want to give this a +10, but that's my personal bias!)
Completely (or almost completely) player driven market: +1
Meta-gaming (such as making alliances, secret alliances, playing politics within player groups, etc): +1
Player owned and controlled empires: +1 (again, deserves a +100 in my opinion)
Can pursue variety of careers/roles: +1
Total points: 7
Apply it to ED:
No physical limitations: +1
Open world: +1
No crafting: 0 points
good/evil/neutral character role playing: +1
No player driven market (only a slight influence): 0
No player empires: 0
Can pursue 3 careers: +1 (combat, trading, exploration only... don't think it deserves a +1 when compared to other games' career paths, but will give it 1 point anyways)
Total points: 4.
____
In any case, this isn't a comprehensive analysis of all features of each game, it's only an example of how to do the analysis without bickering over definitions.
Hope this helps develop the discussion in a positive way.
I agree with the sentiment of the OP.. what is the end game here... ED has stayed true to it's roots, which I liked in '84 and do today, but when you have one of very ship and small moon made of credits what is the plan then?
Please understand me, I am not saying "in 8 days time there had better be and end game or I want my cash back" I am just interested as to what people and the devs are looking towards as being the long term game play options.
Personally I would like there to be some of the industry type features that the X games have, eg building your own factories and starting to become the source of the market activity... issue is that IMHO this didn't work out all that well in X because there was no one else to compete against past the AI so again I would be hoping that the player population you have the ability to encounter would grow.
Sure people will read the above and point me back at EvE online but that is not my point, I am honestly not comparing, just saying "What will be aspiring to 12 months from release" because if it's just more trade x to y and shoot z on the way I don't see the long time playability.
Respectfully
-CJ
Please understand me, I am not saying "in 8 days time there had better be and end game or I want my cash back" I am just interested as to what people and the devs are looking towards as being the long term game play options.
Personally I would like there to be some of the industry type features that the X games have, eg building your own factories and starting to become the source of the market activity... issue is that IMHO this didn't work out all that well in X because there was no one else to compete against past the AI so again I would be hoping that the player population you have the ability to encounter would grow.
Sure people will read the above and point me back at EvE online but that is not my point, I am honestly not comparing, just saying "What will be aspiring to 12 months from release" because if it's just more trade x to y and shoot z on the way I don't see the long time playability.
Respectfully
-CJ
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Thankfully it's not a competition for which is the "most-sandboxy" game. Including the features from EvE that are percieved to be both missing and essential would allow a determined group of players to dominate the game (or at least a tiny part of it - the galaxy is *really* big) which would be a fairly unpleasant outcome for the other players.
Just as well that we can form private groups to escape from the madhouse if it ever occurs.
Just as well that we can form private groups to escape from the madhouse if it ever occurs.
Last edited:
I agree.
Someone mentioned that you will be able to land on planets eventually... but then what? There has to be a better end game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There is no end game.
Yes there is, as mentioned by the previous commenter: once you own every ship and have too much money, the game is essentially over.
By "end game", one doesn't mean the end as in "mario saves the princess", but where a game stops satisfying you because all possible achievements have been made. Simply exploring space is not going to be enough to keep this game going.
As an example, building and holding on to empires WILL keep players interested.
This. Exactly this.
There is no possible way to exhaust all possibilities in Elite. Player-owned empires are contrived and incredibly dull.
Last edited:
- Status