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