Oversimplifying MMOs

We are all familiar with soundbites, or short snippets of audio/video used in TV or Radio news broadcasts. In politics, the soundbite is a powerful tool that politicians use to distill very complex issues into very clear and simple points. A complex topic like supply-side economics can be summed up with “Stop Killing the Golden Goose.”

Shadowar wrote about this in response to my blog entry about the term Sandbox:

In this [West Wing] scene, the two characters are talking about the necessity of creating a simple, 10-word statement that explains the breadth and scope of just such a system. What the old, crotchety man is saying to her, is that it’s not possible. In no way can we ever reduce them to sound-bites and flash cards.

This really sums up my gripe about using the term Sandbox to describe specific games. Ask 10 people what Sandbox means and you’ll get 10 different answers. In response to my entry, Syncaine wrote a 1000 word essay about what is and is not a Sandbox or a Themepark. And I’ll credit him with a great explanation, but the mere fact it takes 1000 words to describe a Sandbox is indictment enough that it’s a bad choice of words.

Soundbites win elections
A soundbite has a very clear purpose. To break-down a much more detailed thing into a much shorter snapshot. In the political spectrum, it’s a means of persuasion. Politicians hire spin doctors to get 10-word statements to explain incredibly complex and layered issues. The intent is to convince you they are right.

And they work.

Effective use of soundbites will win you an election. It won’t actually solve anything, but it will win you the argument.

This is how I view the term Sandbox. It’s an ambiguous metaphor being used as the blogging equivalent of a soundbite. It’s useful for winning the argument, but not for any deeper discussion about MMOs.

Specific features or Game attributes
I took some criticism from people who called my dislike of the term Sandbox as being too Academic or Intellectual. I find this a bit comical.

MMOs are not deep complex political issues. They are pretty straight-forward. And if I speak about the feature or the specific game attribute of a game, I can get my point across very quickly and concisely.

Supposedly, the average gamer is too stupid to figure out what I mean when I call something Level-based or Skill-based.

Coppertopper had a comment on Syncaine’s blog that I found illustrated this problem perfectly:

I was reading Keens blog about his recent introduction and play time in UO and the idea of plopping down a house anywhere seemed way more ’sandboxy’ then what you had to go thru to get a house built in Darkfall.

The “feature” that Coppertopper is referring to here is Persistent Objects. Objects that you place or interact with that stay that way after you leave them. In UO, if you dropped a hammer on the ground, it stayed there until someone else came and picked it up.

Now, if I’m just using the term Sandbox to describe an MMO, this feature (or lack of feature) is lost in my description. However, if I say that UO and EVE both have Persistent Objects and Darkfall does not, then you know EXACTLY what that means. It means that if you abandon a ship, structure or cargo container somewhere in EVE, it stays there even after you log off.

EVE is like Darkfall?
Having recently played both these games recently, I can tell you that they have very little gameplay in common with each other. In fact, Darkfall has much more in common with EQ and WoW than it does with EVE.

But if I had a nickel for every time I read “Sandbox games like EVE and Darkfall” …

These two games are constantly being lumped together because of some very broad esoteric design decisions. It’s to the point where I read things like “EVE is Darkfall in space” and I cringe.

I guess that “space” thing is just a minor difference. I mean, it doesn’t have nearly the impact of something like not having levels or a clear progression path.

Never mind that combat is not remotely similar. Movement is not remotely similar. UI is not remotely similar. Inventory is handled differently. One is vehicle based, the other character based. One is 3D, the other is flat. One has sharded zones called Solar systems, the other one flat big world. That I can take a piss break in the middle of EVE combat and can't take a drink of soda while playing Darkfall.

Need I go on?

I first made this point on Syncaine’s blog, so in fairness, I’ll post his response:

From a game perspective, DF is closer to EQ than EVE. But from a player mentality (as in, wtf do I do today) DF and EVE are very close, and nothing like EQ/WoW. Now how you design your rules to foster that mentality varies, but I think that makes up the core of the ’sandbox’ term.

Ah.. so Sandbox is all about player mentality? Hmm. Well, that strikes me as a hell of a lot more Academic and Intellectual than my desire to discuss FEATURES instead of soundbites.

Don’t worry. Your Sandbox is safe.
I have no illusions that I’m going to magically talk people into using different terminology. Sandbox is ingrained in the community and it’s a very effective tool to argue a point.

It’s a great soundbite. You will win lots of internet arguments with it.

I’ll also concede that it’s been used often enough now that while ambiguous, it’s message is commonly understood even if it doesn’t mean the same thing to all people. In fact, for some, it’s enough that it simply represents EVE and Darfkfall.

I’d just like to see more discussion center around specific features of a game.

Grand Theft! My Sandbox was stolen!

I first heard the term “Sandbox” used by The Escapist to describe console games like Grand Theft Auto. The concept being that GTA didn’t have a track or a set path you followed, but was an open ended world. The player could drive around wherever they wanted, in whatever car they wanted, and do whatever jobs or activities they wanted.

At some point, someone (Syncaine, perhaps?) adopted the term and applied it to MMOs. In doing so, they redefined what “Sandbox” meant (open ended world) to something else entirely. The MMO definition of Sandbox is a lot more vague and harder to define, but I think the original interpretation can best be distilled down to: A game without levels.

Poor Word Choice
But as I say, this MMO usage is vague and it quickly became synonymous with other features like player controlled territories and the ability to loot other players. And so when people talk about a Sandbox MMO today, they don’t just talk about not having traditional levels, but really all the other flexibility that comes with territory control and looting.

The term Sandbox MMO has come to represent the combination of three separate features: No Levels, Player Controlled Territory, Full Looting.

One reason I don’t like the word choice is that these games actually have levels. They just aren’t levels in the traditional sense but skills. I won’t argue that such a system is more flexible, but it’s still a pretty straightforward character progression. If you want to do X, you need to level those skills. The term Sandbox MMO just seems so misused in that application.

Honestly, I think the best argument for the validity of this definition is that player owned structures and territory control in PvP games define the landscape and world.

And yet, Warhammer had such a feature and I’ve yet to hear one person label that as a Sandbox. So it would seem that at least by itself, no one thinks player defined territory control is good definition of why it should be called a Sandbox.

So you’ll have to forgive me, but I prefer the original usage of the word to describe opened ended worlds.

Warcraft is a Sandbox too!
Look, Warcraft by all accounts can be considered a Sandbox. Quite frankly, any virtual world can if you are using the original definition.

You can freely go anywhere you want in the game world. You can equip all kinds of different things. You decide what you want to do and when.

That’s distinctly different than a game like Halo or Half-life. That’s a track. You have stuff to kill and only one direction to go. You move from cutscene to cutscene merrily killing everything along the way until you get to the end. And then you are finished.

By comparison, you have unimaginable freedom in Warcraft. Sure, there are quests. But you decide which quests you want to do, where you want to do them, whether or not you want to complete them or if you just want to do something else entirely unrelated to questing.

The Word, not the Games
Keep in mind that my contention here is not a criticism of the games, but of the way the word Sandbox is used to describe MMOs. It’s a catch-phrase used to imply that such games have more freedom than other games.

The implication being that games like Warcraft have little or no freedom. As I pointed out, that’s not really true. What games like Warcraft provide is guidance. The free form nature of being able to do whatever the hell you want still exists. The difference is that you aren’t left to wander along with no direction.

And if you want to call out Warcraft for having levels, then call it a Leveling-Based game as opposed to a Skill-Based game. Why bother trying to have a separate ambiguous definition like Sandbox?

The point here is that the term Sandbox has been warped and disfigured into something used to describe games that are really no more of a Sandbox than any other MMO. The irony being that all MMOs, by their very nature as virtual worlds, are also Sandboxes.

The Folly of calling Warcraft a Themepark
Set aside your personal opinions about these games for a moment and consider the words being used to describe these games. In real-life, would you rather play in a Sandbox or visit a Themepark?

Themeparks are exciting! They spend millions if not billions of dollars making them incredibly fun and memorable. They are at the peak of all possible forms of entertainment.

Or a Sandbox. With sand. Oh, the joy.

Obviously the Themepark is a far superior form of entertainment and for the same price, no rational person would ever choose the Sandbox.

The term Themepark is used to describe MMOs in a negative way. It’s intent is to imply something is “on rails” and that you have less personal choice or freedom.

People like choice, so it’s a nice tidy little attack to label something rigid and inflexible by calling it a Themepark. However, without that context, an outside observer would say – gee, a Themepark sounds more fun and exciting than a Sandbox.

It just strikes me as silly to use the better of two things as the derogatory term.

Co-Op or VS Mode
As much as I'd like MMO players to adopt the original definition of Sandbox as it was used to describe open world games, I have no illusions that will ever happen.

The issue is that no one has really thought of a different word to describe games whose primary focus is not PvE progression. And let's be clear, that's the central difference between games like EVE or Darkfall and Warcraft.

It's the difference between playing a shooter in Co-Op mode where the other player is a teammate, or VS mode where you are competing directly against each other.

Why is PvE or PvP the defining characteristic? Well, imagine a game exactly like Warcraft except instead of levels, they had skills. Questing in progressively harder zones still existed. PvE Raiding still existed. The only difference is that your "class" and "level" are defined by your skills instead.

Is that a game like EVE or Darkfall? Not really.

What if we added full player looting? No. More consequential perhaps, but not a Sandbox.

That's because THE POINT of what you are trying to accomplish hasn't changed. It's still about PvE end-game and quest progression. It's still Co-Op mode.

What word would I use to describe EVE or Darkfall?

Dominion

1. power or the use of power; sovereignty over something.
2. a kingdom, nation, or other sphere of influence.

I would call them Dominion games because the end-game is about controlling things. Hell, EVE even uses the word 'sovereignty' to describe ownership of solar systems.

Because at it's core, what makes these games different than a PvE Raiding game is Dominion. The building of kingdoms, nations, areas and expanding a sphere of influence.

It's not about being a Sandbox.  It's about Domination.

NOTE:  Another reason I like the word Domination or Dominion better is because it describes the end-game, not a subsets of features.  I wouldn't call Warhammer a Sandbox, but I would call it a Level-based Dominion game.  Whereas, Darkfall is a Skill-based Dominion game.  And Warcraft is a Level-based Raiding game.

Darkfall Trial: Doomsday Clock

Darkfall is not a forgiving place. Of course, I wouldn’t know that yet because I’ve been under what is called New Player Protection. A protection that grants me immunity from being attacked by other players while I get my newbie skills all worked out.

And that’s important because in Darkfall anyone can attack and kill you. And when you die, your loot (including everything you were wearing) stays with your body and anyone can loot your corpse. Even new players aren’t protected from the corpse looting (but you soon learn that it’s not quite as scary as it sounds).

Of course, killing other friendly players is not without consequence. They might become outlaws unable to visit racial cities. But it’s a still a choice they can make. And so even the friendly guy grinding mobs right next to me might decide to take a shot at me if he has a bit of gear envy and I’m low on Health.

The Doomsday Clock
But for the first 24 hours played of any new account, you are granted New Player Protection. Others can’t harm you and you can’t harm others. The amount of Newbie Protection you have left is prominently displayed in big numbers near the minimap. I’ve taken to thinking of this timer as a Doomsday Clock.

A countdown to my destruction.

Because EVERYTHING changes once that clock hits zero hour. That big nice fella that gave me a buff? Ya, well now he might be the guy trying to shove a sword in places where swords aren’t welcome. Right now, I have little to fear from anyone. But when that clock strikes noon, I suddenly have to fear everyone.

Paranoia
I had my first experience with this paranoia on Sunday night. I was kitted up in what, for me, was finally some decent gear that I had gotten from Quest rewards. Mostly leather, which was better than the cloth armor the Goblins had been dropping.

A bit before I logged on Saturday, I had found some Kobolds I could kill. Kobolds are slightly harder to kill than Goblins and drop better loot. When I logged in Sunday, my plan was to finish two Goblin quests and then head over to kill some Kobolds. As I showed up to slay some Goblins, I got invited to a group with two other newbs who were already at the spawn.

I quickly wrapped up what I needed from the Goblins and announced to the group that I was taking off to go kill some Kobolds.

A mistake.

The more poorly geared of the two players thought this was a great idea and wanted to come. My first reaction was “Sure! Follow me!” and off I went with my buddy in tow. When we were about half-way there, a thought dawned on me: What if I die?

My body, rich with rewards, is going to be lying there with my “buddy” looking upon it enviously. And the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that he was just planning to steal all my stuff.

That bastard.

The reality is likely far more mundane. He was new, had only been killing Goblins, and wanted to see Kobolds. And yet, this fear or paranoia I had in a game like Darkfall is actually healthy. Trust is not something you freely give away, but something you give to those who have earned it.

Stronger Bonds
This paranoia episode immediately made me realize the importance of trust in Darkfall. A casual player who only enjoys loose bonds with other people would never like a game like Darkfall.

Something similar to Blizzard’s Dungeon Finder could never work. Dungeon Finder is a simply a tool used to help random individuals with no connection but a common goal find each other and form a group. The only bond is the common goal and once that is gone, there is no longer a purpose to grouping.

But in Darkfall, the risks associated with grouping with random people you don’t know are so high that they outweigh any benefit in the common purpose. You wouldn’t want to form a group with some random guy that might just decide to kill you for that drop instead of roll you for it.

That’s not an indictment of the Dungeon Finder (or Darkfall). The two ideas are just not compatible. There is definitely a lot of merit in just being able to quickly from a group and do stuff.  Particularly for one whose strength is in PvE goals against a computer opponent.

For a PvP based game which is very centric on territory control, the game itself is defined by the strong relationships.  Such relationships explain why it's important to HAVE territory in the first place.  .

Consider it an intrinsic property of these PvP games.  It's YOU versus THEM.  Anyone outside of your group is therefore alienated and the enemy.  The more territory your group controls, the more progressed you are relative to other groups.

Players who don't want to make these bonds or prefer loose relationships aren’t going to make friends with anyone. And without friends, who do you trust to not stab you in the back?

Adapting to No Protection
My time with Newbie Protection is quickly dwindling and I’m faced with the reality that I haven’t yet learned how to be paranoid enough in this game. I suppose recognizing that I’m not paranoid enough is a good start.

Part of my problem is that I’m impatient. Long years of playing MMOs without consequences taught me some bad habits about being risky. I think I earned that achievement in WAR for surviving a fight with really low health in about my first five minutes. I push it to the line. Always have.

That’s something I’m going to have to unlearn quickly. Because standing there victorious with 1 health is just going to get me one-shotted.