Contents
The History and Theory of Sandbox Gameplay
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Environment Artist
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Evnironment Modeler
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [7]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [49]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Time Fcuk [1]
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  The History and Theory of Sandbox Gameplay
by Steve Breslin
7 comments
Share RSS
 
 
July 16, 2009 Article Start Previous Page 2 of 6 Next
 

Prelude: Leisurely Play, Discovering Elite

As popular gaming moved from the arcade into the living room, the stage was set for a less frantic, more leisurely presentation of the action -- gaming "off the clock."

No longer was there a need to kill the player off as quickly as possible, in order that he (or the people waiting in line behind him) insert another quarter.

Advertisement

It became feasible and even desirable to give the player a break from the action, some time to thoughtfully explore his environment, rather than race him towards inevitable destruction.

Thus were born a number of popular gaming genres, including the adventure game and the flight simulator.

The adventure game popularly began in 1978 with Warren Robinett's breakthrough game for the Atari 2600, entitled, appropriately enough, Adventure. 1980 saw the release of the more sophisticated and seminal Rogue and Ultima.

This genre moved through the popular classic Pitfall and the unforgettable catastrophe E.T. (both, 1982). The player now had his leisure -- his world was now basically open. Pac-Man had broken out of his labyrinth -- and found a real world waiting for him outside.


Adventure

A seemingly distant genre, the flight-simulator, popularly began in 1980 with subLOGIC's appropriately-titled Flight Simulator, later licensed to Microsoft. These games were groundbreaking for the sense of freedom -- and what better sense of freedom than flying through the open air? Their basic problem was that the air was empty, so there was literally everywhere to go and nothing to do. The game was the movement alone.

Movement alone is a fantastic concept for gaming, of course, as has been well demonstrated by recent parkour-inspired games (Assassin's Creed, Mirror's Edge), and the closely-related genre of sports games. Also, exploration is the fundamental gameplay concept of open-world games. So, even while the early flight simulators were devoid of narrative or action, they were perhaps the first pure expression of open-world joy.

Then there came Elite (1983), which synthesized these emerging forces, and in so doing shifted the paradigm.


Elite

Elite was outstanding in many ways. Its graphics engine was original and groundbreaking: wireframe 3D graphics with hidden-line removal was a big deal back then. The auto-generation of the universe was brilliant, and its combat was clever (although dogfighting had already been incorporated by subLOGIC/Microsoft's Flight Simulator back in 1982). Its economy was a game just by itself, and it had a rich gameplay all around.

But Elite was truly profound because it presented a game-world space and a freedom of movement and choice that for the first time felt real and unbounded. The game-world no longer appeared to be a closed labyrinth or a hilly continuum, but was now an open universe -- and so the game-world metaphor began to operate on a new level.

With The Seven Cities of Gold (1984), this was of course the birth of a genre: the trade/exploration/combat/adventure sandbox, typically in space or at sea (key metaphors of freedom). The successors are far too numerous to list, but they include: Starflight (1986), Pirates! (1987), Star Control (1990), Privateer (1993, and following), X (1999, and following), Freelancer (2003), Darkstar One (2006), SpaceForce 2 (2007).

In the whole history of computer games, there have been only two other innovations which are on the same level as this moment: 1) the explosion of multi-player; and 2) the paradigm-shift from 2D "platform" to 3D world -- the latter already anticipated by Elite's cockpit view, though this was already done in the popular arena by the arcade game Battlezone (1980).

(Technically speaking, Jim Bowery's 1974 game Spasim was the first multiplayer 3D combat, but as it ran on a PLATO network mainframe, its audience was relatively small and specialized.)

However, it would be about sixteen years before game designers began to use the term "sandbox" to describe this kind of free-form play. Nevertheless, the concept of the open game-world is essentially the same, from Elite all the way to Assassin's Creed, Spore, or GTAIV.

 
Article Start Previous Page 2 of 6 Next
 
Comments

Luis Guimarães
profile image
My personal top list of games that did well what everyone around today calls "open-ended" games. The way it has become a "trend", or at least a discussion trend nowadays, is what makes sandbox games do be more sands of box.

Not necessary to be in the following order:
. Bioshock. (beeing indoor and having linear story does not mean having no freedom)
. Desperados: Wanted Dead or Alive. (simple mechanics with only useful interaction can do a lot)
. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. (very little non-meaninful interaction and most good mechanics)
. Super Mario World. (one more exemple that game mechanics richness really open the world)

Gerard Gouault
profile image
Spore:
not a real sandbox as you notice that every time you play the same events happen at the exact same spot. ie. the meteor shower in creature stage, UFO flying over, the offered missions in space stage, etc..
The only sandbox aspect in Spore are the editors for creatures, vehicles and buildings. The gameplay itself gets boring after a couple of passes.

It is strange that the author only makes a small mention of THE only real sandbox game. Neverwinter Nights 1.
Nwn is still an active game system after more than 8 years.
Not only a sandbox game by itself but it also lets player design their own sandbox for other to explore.

Thomas Eidson
profile image
Any game that lets you create your own content is to some degree a sandbox. I believe that the author is saying that the content creation is created as part of the gameplay and not principally by external tools. A concept he mentions is player interaction with the game, which implies "in the game". This is not to say that external tools should not play a part with sandbox games, but that I think external tools do detract from the collaborative and social aspect of building something together in a world.

I definitely agree with directed content as a requirement from a developer, when building a sandbox world.

Ken Nakai
profile image
The idea of a "sandbox" games really has to be considered on a sliding scale. When you have something like SimCity where you've got a clean slate and can build your city however you want creating your own problems along the way (build too much of this, get that problem), you're on one end of the scale. When you're in a game like Spore or whatnot, where there is little you can do to the world except achieve some goals to exit the stage and move on, you're talking about the other end of the spectrum. Outside of this scale, running through platformers or other games on rails (Wolverine, for instance) is no where near a sandbox experience. It's like the shooter reference, Doom, that's no sandbox game. Once you've cleared a level, there's nothing to do unless you want to try to figure out how to get up to some hidden spot. You also can't argue that multiplayer shooters are in anyway a real sandbox. You're not making a new game...trust me...all those people playing CS and COD...on the same maps over and over again. You might have a different gameplay experience each time but that's no different than running through a single player game of L4D or something where the AI automatically adjusts the game for you.

Sandbox play is all about making a game out of a game. Whether it's the Sims or the vast array of tycoon games that came and went.

As far as the boredom aspect, it's so true. A poorly balanced or written sandbox game (for instance, those tycoon games or the 4X space RTSes) become boring fast. A big part of that is the lack of any short-term goals. Long term you're trying to get the most money or biggest city or dominate a market or whatever. When you've got shorter term goals, whether it's generating enough money to buy the next upgrade or game-generated ones that tell you to attack someone or that create enemies to attack you, it helps stave off that boredom. And, a lot of that boredom can come from the devs. To help extend the game experience (i.e. make it last 10 hours rather than 1), building something might take minutes at a time or generating enough income to build out or expand your city/empire/household/whatever takes a very long time unless you're lucky or you're deeper and farther into the game.

I personally love sandbox games...games that let me screw around or build out my business or empire however I choose...but it's rare to find one that's truly engaging over the long haul. I was done with Spore in no time but I still have Patrician 3 installed and play it from time to time. I guess it tells you just how much better some game devs were (even though we're talking no more than a 5 year difference). I think a big part of it might be the larger teams. Bigger teams mean increased diversity in thinking but at the cost of dilution of potential excellence. Someone could have a great idea but if the rest of the team doesn't think so, it's gone. On a smaller team, that someone might have been better able to convince the team to go with it. This combined with short-term sales goals that are similar to movies (publishers want to sell a million copies and once sold, could care less about how long you enjoy the experience). Ever notice how movie trailers are starting to actually show scenes from the endings of the movies in the trailers? If you didn't know the plot of the movie, you wouldn't know until AFTER you dropped $10 to see it. But, if you did know or could recognize what looks like an ending (sorry but "Knowing"...end of the world in the trailer? Check!), it ruins the experience. So it is with more recent games that either don't bother padding more than 4-6 hours of game play in their games (tacking on higher difficulty levels to compensate for a lack of replayability) or just find something stupid and monotonous for you to do (grinding, overly complicated puzzles) to fill the time.

Maybe we need to spend more time making games fun again, rather than taking a Wall Street view of things and trying to make the next moneymaker...you might be surprised how profitable a good game can be...

Michael Rivera
profile image
Great read.

Spore deserves a lot more credit for how it integrates sandbox mechanics into the overall game narrative, so it's nice to see an article that focuses on that rather than the "simple" game play.

Alex Covic
profile image
Elaborate article; tip my hat.

In the 80s I read an academic magazine about game theory (nothing to do with 'video games') and the definition in one article was truly simple:

1. Create a closed world
2. Define 'entities' within the world
3. Define a set of rules.
GO!

That's it.

This does not contradict with anything written above (or in the comments). It just shows, how much one can make out of fondling and tuning these basic rules.

Mark Venturelli
profile image
Interesting read, Steve. Keep them coming! =)


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment