That's not technically correct. There can be story, there can even be linear elements within the sandbox as long as they are optional and don't violate the abilities of the player to create emergent gameplay scenario's. As an example things like having missions outside of standard space or in an alternate timeline to give tutorials or integrate a story/background don't violate the sandbox concept. Another example is the Single/Co-op aspect of Star Citizen will have minimal impact on your character in it's Persistent Universe, yet allow for background, storyline and other aspects to be expanded upon.
STO could allow this but it would require a massive rework of the core of the game. Not gonna happen.
Again I addressed the problems of limiting a sandbox to not having a storyline or theme above. A sandbox need not be generic, having sandbox elements is perfectly fine within some games. Every sandbox needs a premise and if you remove that premise all you have is an editor and nothing else. Think Garry's Mod. That's probably the truest sandbox from your point of view. I personally think that point of view is limiting and outdated now though.
The Foundry can create their own stories/missions, but not games. The limitations upon the foundry are huge, something that can't be avoided due to the nature of the engine and requirements of conformity to CBS diktat.
I always thought one way around this would be my proposed "alternate universe as a form of player housing" approach, which is an ambitious expansion level feature that would require some continuous attention.
But basically, captains get sent to a parallel universe to fight the Iconians there and massive level changes and variations are possible there. Everybody can literally have their own Tovan or shove him out the airlock. Territory control is possible. Earth can be destroyed or Klingons can join the Federation. What you do in your universe is up to you as a goodwill ambassador from the prime universe... And you can invite your friends to see the world you shaped with your choices.
I agree that how it feels is key...and it kind of cuts to the point that quality is determined by the customer, not by the company that makes the product.
A point I made in the final installments of my review series. (FINALLY got that thing done...what a relief! Over a month of work--way more than I was expecting.)
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
How long we play
How often we play
Where we play
When we play
What we do
How often we get rewards
How fast we level
How many times we run a piece of content
... Then I have a proposal for Cryptic:
Just play my account for me if it all matters to you so much.
The sad part is that some of these are things I would do anyway. Last year, I did seasonal content all the time. Heck, last summer I did.
But telling me I HAVE TO for the new seasonal rewards?
That makes me not want to anymore.
That should be pretty logical.
Jane McGonigal (author of "Reality is Broken") defines a game this way, borrowing the definition from Bernard Suits:
Games are unnecessary obstacles that we volunteer to tackle.
The only unnecessary obstacle or voluntary thing left about STO is whether we login. Everything is about shaping our behavior now and tying every outcome to a required action.
Not that I trust McGonigal's approach or the extremes she takes it to, applying it business culture as a proponent of "gamification", using game design to influence behavior. She focuses way too much on the task design aspect.
Heather Chaplin (game journalist for the New York Times and NPR) offered a nice rebuttal to gamification in a Slate volume:
McGonigal and gamification's proponents have lost the script. They started with a good idea of what constitutes a game but have emphasized work over play, what constitutes "unnecessary", what constitutes "voluntary", what constitutes "intrinsic." They've lost play.
And so it's fitting if STO loses playERS following the approach.
I would argue that it is impossible to employ gamification and still even qualify as a game.
And that, I think, is where we are.
quoting off other people, amazing how misguided those words are, written by people who may not have the first clue.
jane and heather fail to realize that humans have a short attention span and vary wildly on behavior. the only unnecessary obstacle that exists the one you bring to the table, that goes for the ones who made the game, the ones who observe and the ones who play, and tackling them is not needed as you can side track them at any point. and people volunteer because they got nothing better to do, like a job, you volunteer your own life each day for tuppence at the end of the month is which goes back into the hands of the treasury anyway, so that money isnt actually yours, your just moving it around.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
quoting off other people, amazing how misguided those words are, written by people who may not have the first clue.
jane and heather fail to realize that humans have a short attention span and vary wildly on behavior. the only unnecessary obstacle that exists the one you bring to the table, that goes for the ones who made the game, the ones who observe and the ones who play, and tackling them is not needed as you can side track them at any point. and people volunteer because they got nothing better to do, like a job, you volunteer your own life each day for tuppence at the end of the month is which goes back into the hands of the treasury anyway, so that money isnt actually yours, your just moving it around.
Gamefication is traditionally focused on adding scoreboards, achievement points, timegates, and skinner box mechanics to things like work, relationships, politics, housework, shopping, advertising... Often its proponents want it in every aspect of people's lives.
Its opponents claim its hollow and takes the worst aspects of games without the best.
That's where I'm turning it back around on gameplay here. I'm saying what we have resembles a gamefied business model rather than a game.
Eye of the beholder. Just because someone chooses to take a warped, negative view doesn't make their perspective objective truth.
The fact is, some people have this bizarre fixation on the bonus trinkets / powerups in this game and resent not being given them immediately without playing the game to get them. Which is utterly bizarre, considering that these virtual items only have meaning or usefulness in the context of the game which they seem hellbent on avoiding spending time playing. They seem to want to log in, get items to fill in a slot on a spreadsheet, and log back out. It's insane.
If your goal is to play the game and enjoy doing so, there is no "grind" in playing the freaking content in the game. You play it because it's fun, and along the way you get a bonus trinket or powerup which is simply icing on the cake.
Some people want the bonus trinkets NAOW! and don't want to even play the game that gives them context and use. They see any delay in getting them as "grind!" and seem to structure their entire "play" around collecting items. It makes no damned sense.
Play the game to play the game. Collect the bonus trinkets and powerups because they're there, but they're an extra. They are not the goal. Playing the game, that part that some twistedly call "grinding", is the goal. They have it completely backwards.
Play to play instead of playing to collect trinkets and the feeling of "grind" disappears.
Unfortunately I fly an Intel ship and I want to train my Intel Bridge officer in the higher level powers.... but I can't because I need to get 22 Intelligence Specialization points first.
The ability to train my Intel bridge officer is gated behind the Specialization point system and there's no other way to get those skills.
Comments
I always thought one way around this would be my proposed "alternate universe as a form of player housing" approach, which is an ambitious expansion level feature that would require some continuous attention.
But basically, captains get sent to a parallel universe to fight the Iconians there and massive level changes and variations are possible there. Everybody can literally have their own Tovan or shove him out the airlock. Territory control is possible. Earth can be destroyed or Klingons can join the Federation. What you do in your universe is up to you as a goodwill ambassador from the prime universe... And you can invite your friends to see the world you shaped with your choices.
A point I made in the final installments of my review series. (FINALLY got that thing done...what a relief! Over a month of work--way more than I was expecting.)
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
quoting off other people, amazing how misguided those words are, written by people who may not have the first clue.
jane and heather fail to realize that humans have a short attention span and vary wildly on behavior. the only unnecessary obstacle that exists the one you bring to the table, that goes for the ones who made the game, the ones who observe and the ones who play, and tackling them is not needed as you can side track them at any point. and people volunteer because they got nothing better to do, like a job, you volunteer your own life each day for tuppence at the end of the month is which goes back into the hands of the treasury anyway, so that money isnt actually yours, your just moving it around.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Beautifully well said. I was groping for the words to express my objection, but you said it for me.
There are always enablers, aren't there?
Gamefication is traditionally focused on adding scoreboards, achievement points, timegates, and skinner box mechanics to things like work, relationships, politics, housework, shopping, advertising... Often its proponents want it in every aspect of people's lives.
Its opponents claim its hollow and takes the worst aspects of games without the best.
That's where I'm turning it back around on gameplay here. I'm saying what we have resembles a gamefied business model rather than a game.
Unfortunately I fly an Intel ship and I want to train my Intel Bridge officer in the higher level powers.... but I can't because I need to get 22 Intelligence Specialization points first.
The ability to train my Intel bridge officer is gated behind the Specialization point system and there's no other way to get those skills.
Free Tibet!