Building
The intervening years saw many trends in free-play, the most
popular of which was the city-building game. It began in 1982 with Utopia, but the city-building genre
really came into its own when it ceased to be strategic/competitive and became
instead an exercise in "free" building for its own sake.
The genre grew out of the natural pleasure of designing
game-worlds -- a pleasure that game developers experience all the time. One
developer, Will Wright, thought that it would be a good idea to share this joy as
directly as possible, and this insight led to the development of SimCity, which became a record-breaking
success, defining one of the largest genres of the 1990s.
Sometimes this sort of free play was blended with economic
simulation, in such as the Tycoon games,
starting with Railroad Tycoon (1990).
Various more-or-less competition- and objective-oriented games joined its ranks
throughout the following decade, from SimIsle
to Capitalism (both 1995).
Opening game design to the player, even to a very limited
degree, heralded modern player-generated-content games, from Second Life to LittleBigPlanet to Spore.
Encouraging Player
Experimentation
The metaphor of the "sandbox game" finally emerged
at the turn of the century, around the publication The Sims and the following year, Grand Theft Auto III, the two games which are traditionally
considered the two original and canonical "sandbox" games.
The invention of the term did indeed accompany a new
development in game design, but this was not, as the term suggests, player
freedom, which was already available by any number of means: non-linearity; the
lack of objectives or central storyline; automatic variation of the game-world
and game-behavior.
It was in terms of responsiveness and encouraging player
experimentation that these games represented a gradual but transformative
change in game design.
"Sandbox" was a new development because it indicated a new promise: automated responsiveness
to player behavior. In this sense it does not mean "free play," "non-linear,"
and the rest; rather, it indicates that which makes this style of play
specifically and particularly interesting in its own right.
Most of all, this meant a radical development in design
detail. The evolution of sandbox-oriented quality between GTA2 and GTAIII is truly
astounding. The switch from bird's eye to 3D opened the world and shifted it
from cartoonish "Hot Wheels" platformer to a realistic city. But the
critical part was that the writing and detail followed through on the promise.
As mentioned at the beginning, sandbox design facilitates
and encourages a sense of player freedom, while providing a framework for play
and a rich and detailed world for interaction. This was definitively achieved by The Sims in 2000, and in 2001, Grand
Theft Auto III. Let's now consider their innovations, starting with The Sims.
Towards Believable
Characters: Psychological Games, A-Life, and AI
The amazing commercial and cultural success of The Sims might suggest that it was
entirely new -- which means we are likely to forget that the genre began with Little Computer People (1985), even though
the latter "game" was well celebrated in its time.
This is the birth of the mind game, the virtual seduction.
There were several studies in the 1990s, of what gameplay
structures and presentation/interface regimes increase attachment, what exploits
the player's tendency and desire to interact in a seemingly meaningful way with
the artificial character. These always somehow literalize the metaphor of the
game-world, bring the player into the virtual space and enmesh him there:
enabling "physical" contact (mouse-petting), sharing "space"
(e.g., the player and the character can manipulate the same on-screen objects),
and so on.
Today we are so close to such virtuality that it has perhaps become
difficult to observe its mechanism, but a primary aspect of sandbox play is the
formation of a psychological illusion of contiguity, if not continuity.
Thinking more towards psychologically effective programming,
let us consider the dual nature of AI. As any AI designer or programmer will
tell you, the task of designing a "believable NPC" involves fostering
an appearance or impression of that elusive philosophical notion
of intelligence: the psychological impression of intelligence.
What contributes
to this impression, however -- the underlying program -- is more or less "intelligent"
in an entirely different sense. Where we speak of the "intelligence"
of the program, we mean only the level of autonomy and generality. This is not
the place to get into the specific maneuvers and techniques, but be assured
that relatively simple programming can lead to really convincing NPC AI, and
really it's mostly in the presentation.
The NPC programmer's plan, then, is essentially to write
suggestive and interpretable
behavior, so that the player will "read in" a lot more sophistication
than is actually present. Computer-players can be good at winning a chess match
or a combat, which has relatively simple rules, easily-validated success cases,
etc.
But beyond this, the question of truly intelligent programming (in that
ephemeral, philosophical and psychological sense) is well beyond our
technological horizon and may well remain there forever. The question of NPC personality
in games is always the question of faking
it.
The main reason that this trend towards believable
characters is compelling for sandbox play is that the characters are, at
bottom, more dynamic and interactable. They help "sell" the game world
because they seem more realistic. Not "realistic" in the sense that
they can ever hope to pass the Turing test, but realistic enough that they'll
lull you into forgetting about their artificiality. The more intelligently the
NPCs respond, the more the game feels like a free and open world.
AI is widely various and can be complicated, but in general
it is effect-oriented. The programmer has in mind a goal behavior, and writes
code to meet this objective. In comparison with AI, Artificial Life is bottom-up
programming, and it's all about emergence. The emergent behavior is not
necessarily even known in advance.
The Sims, and
especially the range of games it inspired, was heavily influenced by
technological developments in computer science during the 1990s, and in
particular Alife. By 2000, this has developed into the art of manipulating
automated NPC behavior, even in an otherwise traditional title, as we have for
example in Majesty.
In this classic,
there is no player-character, and little if any direct action by the player.
Instead we have NPC agents whose behavior cannot be directly controlled, but
only indirectly influenced in some way: add stimuli and enjoy watching how the
automatons respond. It's a delightful gameplay model, which we look forward to revisiting
in the forthcoming Majesty sequel.
Playing with automated
systems, watching NPC AI agents interact with each other according to their
program, or even watching Alife virtual organisms go about their daily life,
has long been and remains a key sub-genre of sandbox play. Further, believable
and self-motivated characters have become key to sandbox play, because they
produce a rich space for interactivity and greatly help establish the
open-world aesthetic. But in another style of sandbox games, the game space
itself plays this role....
|
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.