I’ve already ranted, ad nauseum on the MMO design page, about the virtues and pitfalls of sandbox versus theme park game design but recently I think I might have stumbled upon a definition that works better. I think the problem revolves around the overuse of the term “sandbox”. My idea of a sandbox game comes from Ultima Online where the players were given a world without any structured content and essentially just told to go out and make their own fun, and we did just that for many many years. The problem arises when the industry starts slapping the term sandbox on anything that’s “non-linear”. Oblivion and Dragon-age are apparently examples of sandboxes these days. Sure, you can take an infinite amount of time walking in circles but eventually you’ll encounter the dragon, the climax cinematic will play and the game will consequently end.
A true sandbox, for me at least, doesn’t truly end until you get completely bored with the thing and walk away from it voluntarily. I think this is the problem with most modern MMO’s. They set about it with the intent to deliver a story. That’s not exactly a bad model. It’s working pretty well for the Mass Effect franchise, however, for an MMO people yearn for “endgame”. Which ends up being analogous to “gameplay”. If you build a game from the start to be fun and enjoyable when it is completely devoid of storyline (i.e. The majority of the FPS genre and a smattering of other games like Minecraft and the like) and then sprinkle in a storyline on top of that, you will truly have what people are looking for, a game with an endless horizon beyond that last dragon.
The reason this is an issue for me is primarily due to the impending release of Guild Wars 2. I have talked this game up with friends to ridiculous levels, and I don’t believe that it will disappoint, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they followed the Guild Wars 1 model too closely and made an awesome storyline driven game that unfortunately ends. I’ve noticed in interviews that when the development team is hit with the inevitable endgame question they will first point out their “world vs. world” mechanic, and then quickly fall back to talking about the games “replayability”. To me that really reads “We have 1 thing to do when you’ve consumed our scripted content, after you get bored with that roll an alt”. I am well aware that it’s a bit early to be criticizing a game that has not yet even reached beta, however, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to believe they would follow the model of their, very successful, first venture into the genre. I would even say, financially, it would be completely foolish not to do so. In this manner they are almost guaranteed to have a hit on their hands. To deviate from the equation for success that they have derived would be entirely foolish, but the best games, the ones people truly look back on with fond memories are almost always foolish ventures right from the drawling-board. I don’t expect the game to be completely devoid of “endgame” but I do expect, however, that it will be lacking enough to drive arenanet’s expansion driven method of monetization. While this wont instill the endless horizon we crave, it will at least give us another valley over the mountain to explore every 3 months or so.
