next »

[LemonScented]

If I wanted to make a stone hammer, chop some wood, and build a shelter, why would I need a game to do that?

Because if you didn't have a game to do that, this would be you:



 

[gimymblert]

@LemonScented, they've been marketing Roblox as a kid's game for the past few years, that's probably why you've never heard of it. Blockland is similar but kind of obscure.

The distinction between Minecraft/GTA and the first pair is that Minecraft and GTA have a few preset objectives, while the others do not.

Okay, so there are two distinctions:

1: Roblox because is marketed at a small segment of the potential games market, and it sounds like Blockland's marketing is even more niche. Whereas Minecraft generated huge amounts of coverage across many different parts of the games press (indie and mainstream alike), and Rockstar has the marketing budget to buy huge amounts of press for GTA. Might go some way to explaining the differences in success. People can't play a game they've never heard of.

2: Games need at least one objective to be considered games. A sandbox "game" without an objective would be better defined as a sandbox toy. Toys are fine, and are popular, but comparing games to toys is a little bit like comparing apples and oranges.

I think minecraft barely have a goal, maybe we should reframe "goal" as a "failure" elements in this specific case.

The other things is also "subject", a game like princess maker have no clearly reachable goal. "Raise your daughter" is more like a permanent direction with non linear solution. Or maybe we should distinguish "goal" and "direction" (goal provide direction, but direction don't need a goal). Maybe direction is the key word, failure and goal give direction.

But how popular gary's mod is? I mean in term of number? I guess creative tool can have some popularity but is still niche contrary to a game with "direction", isn't it?

[Tanner]

I don't know, but I think one sticking point Blockland has is that it's $20. If Eric got it on Steam and lowered the price to $10, that shit would sell like hotcakes. It's one of my favorite games, but the community could use some people that aren't whiny preteens.

[LemonScented]

But how popular gary's mod is? I mean in term of number? I guess creative tool can have some popularity but is still niche contrary to a game with "direction", isn't it?

I can't find a total cumulative sales ticker, but a bit of Googling brings up stories like this:

http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/12/03/over-3-million-in-revenue-so-far-from-garrys-mod/
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/10/08/garry-s-mod-sales-performance-revealed/1

$3 million over the first two years (2006-2008), and just shy of 35,000 copies sold over an 8-day sale period in October last year. I'd say that's pretty successful.

[Landshark RAWR]

I'm actually surprised this is the only discussion about Garry's Mod on this forum so far

Basically it's a physics sandbox mod with modding support. One of my friends actually made one the most popular toybox entities (Turtles), and considering how simple it is to mod, using LUA or even E2 with wiremod (mod in mod) to program stuff It's amazing there hasn't been a proper discussion about it here.

so yeah, pretty popular.

[moi]

I remember playing the first basic version of gary's mod in 1998 it was already very fun.

[dantheman363]

I don't know, but I think one sticking point Blockland has is that it's $20. If Eric got it on Steam and lowered the price to $10, that shit would sell like hotcakes. It's one of my favorite games, but the community could use some people that aren't whiny preteens.

I've heard that getting software on steam is not the easiest thing in the world to do.

[XRA]

Gmod having all of Valve's content there to use is another reason why it is popular, if it were the same thing with some stick figures and colored blocks I don't think it would be doing as well. On top of that, user generated content is relevant in some ways, because if it works for Gmod it can work for any source mod or may even be from a source mod.

I don't play much minecraft but the thing that always grabbed me about it was the monsters to defend yourself from, and the fact that you can lose it all due to fire, etc.. I guess that is the same as why anytime I've played GTA I'd ditch the storyline in favor of just seeing how long I can last causing trouble.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

well I can provide you with advice on why I bought minecraft

I didn't think much of the game until someone explained to me that at night, monsters come out and the game becomes very difficult. At that point I realized there was some real challenge to it. In a strange way, it hit the same nerve for me that Demons Souls did (although Deomsns Souls has done a much better job of keeping me interested).

I do have to say that I find myself not playing minecraft currently and waiting for more difficult monsters at this point. On the other hand my other half loves minecraft and continues to build houses incessantly.

Personally I love the night challenge and the sense of urgency to have your house ready by night. I find my other half is enamored with the same features but is not a gamer so minecraft poses enough of a challenge for her at this point.

Just a slightly deviated perspective

[archagon]

Most sandbox games aren't particularly user friendly. It takes technical know-how to even build something simple. There's also usually not much to do if you're not building (apart from chat), and it rarely feels like you're a solid part of the world.

Minecraft subverts this by offering a world with an extremely easy building mechanic: you destroy identical tiles and put them back where you want. Creative freedom is constrained, but this is a good thing, since it's much easier to figure out what to do. What's more, since your building materials are identical to rest of the world, it feels like your structures are as much part of your surroundings as everything else, something that's severely lacking in games where you create your structures from scratch.

Minecraft is also a joy to play even if you don't build anything. It handles as smoothly as any first-person shooter, and it's fun to just run around and smack things. (Indeed, one could say that the building aspect arises out of this, rather than being the point of the game. You discover how to mine and build through exploration of the game mechanics.) The NPCs and infinite world sweeten the deal, of course, but they're not essential. My first experiences with Minecraft were on finite public servers with no mobs, and that's what compelled me to buy the game.

Garry's mod succeeds less because of the former and more because of the latter. Even though good-looking structures are somewhat difficult to build, it's still extremely fun (and easy) to just mess around, glue random objects together, and shoot things. (A given, since Garry's Mod is built on top of one of the best FPS engines out there.) As a result, servers often have as many people hanging out as they do building. Another reason is (was) the low barrier of entry: the mod was originally free. (As was Minecraft.)

My theory is that the easier it is to play a sandbox game casually -- that is, the more of a "game" it actually is -- the more likely it is to succeed.

[Tiderion]

Let's not forget that many sandbox games are too open. That seems to defy the idea of what a sandbox game is. Minecraft is successful because it focuses a player's attention. There is a technology tree by which all players must abide by even if there is no goal. GTA has a specific objective. Roblox and Blockland have neither. Gmod is successful because it has a vibrant community at it's gate. It's fun but it is also true that if it were not a Steam Mod, it would never have become what it is.

Players need structure to understand, play, and therefore enjoy the game. It's not a game if you can do anything at any time with unlimited resources and no threats. So there is no such thing as a successful sandbox game that is actually a true sandbox. Turning on God mode while in a game of Half-Life is good for some laughs and truly opens the game up but quickly becomes boring.

The best sandboxes are games where there is something, even vague, worth working toward while allowing the player unlimited leeway in figuring out how to go about achieving said goal. Add some necessary constraints to make the world feel realistic.

[Muz]

I think, for the most part, gamers love having an objective. Sandboxes allow them to define their own objective, which is great and all. Would GTA be as popular without all the missions? I doubt it'd get as far as it has.

Dwarf Fortress is an odd sandbox game. The world does react to you, by trying to kill you. The game starts off actually giving you the motivation to try to do something, whether it's finding food, water, wealth, defend yourself, etc. You have a huge amount of freedom, and you can play it as a 'pure' sandbox with the options, but the default settings doesn't play it off as a sandbox.

You have to guide them towards doing something. They're not going to just build stuff (and pay for it!) without the right motivation. Something like Simcity benefits you with more resources for good building and it goes along with the theme.

And IMO, overall, sandbox games get very repetitive after a while. "Make your own fun" games aren't really that fun. Many people don't want to work at finding fun, they want it handed down to them.

IMO, the Sims 1 sucked, because there was nothing to do. Get a job, make money, buy stuff. Some people loved it. Some people hated the money making grind and cheated to buy stuff/house. They'd get bored after they've fully explored the game, which is after a few days. Gamers liked the money making aspect, but after becoming wealthy, there were no other real objectives, so they stopped too. The expansions were so popular just because they gave more things to explore, and gave the gamers more objectives.

The Sims 2 and 3 put a lot more focus on giving the players something to do. You'd have all sorts of mini objectives, from 'eat a burger' to 'max out all skills'. You get minor rewards for them. You can still play it as a pure sandbox game, without the objectives, but it catches on because there's so many extra things to do.


So, in short, I think people who actually play a game to make stuff are pretty rare. Most are people who want to accomplish an objective, and do the whole sandbox thing after they've achieved mastery of the game and figure other ways of doing stuff with it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm actually surprised this is the only discussion about Garry's Mod on this forum so far

especially considering that mr podunkian worked on garry's mod (he did some modeling / art)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Players need structure to understand, play, and therefore enjoy the game. It's not a game if you can do anything at any time with unlimited resources and no threats. So there is no such thing as a successful sandbox game that is actually a true sandbox.

what about second life?

[dantheman363]

IMO, the Sims 1 sucked, because there was nothing to do. Get a job, make money, buy stuff. Some people loved it. Some people hated the money making grind and cheated to buy stuff/house. They'd get bored after they've fully explored the game, which is after a few days. Gamers liked the money making aspect, but after becoming wealthy, there were no other real objectives, so they stopped too. The expansions were so popular just because they gave more things to explore, and gave the gamers more objectives.

The Sims 2 and 3 put a lot more focus on giving the players something to do. You'd have all sorts of mini objectives, from 'eat a burger' to 'max out all skills'. You get minor rewards for them. You can still play it as a pure sandbox game, without the objectives, but it catches on because there's so many extra things to do.


So, in short, I think people who actually play a game to make stuff are pretty rare. Most are people who want to accomplish an objective, and do the whole sandbox thing after they've achieved mastery of the game and figure other ways of doing stuff with it.

I agree. I couldn't get into the Sims games at all but my sister loved them. But then again I wasn't their target market and I don't like buying things anways.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the sims was the best-selling pc game of all time for quite a while (i think it still is) so saying that the sims did something wrong doesn't make sense to me (it's akin to saying that minecraft is a bad indie game). i personally didn't like the sims, but i wouldn't so flippantly say that it's a bad game considering how many people enjoyed it and how successful it was.

i'm not sure it was a sandbox game at all though, since you didn't really 'build' anything. sim city and sim earth are better examples of sandbox games.

[Tiderion]

Players need structure to understand, play, and therefore enjoy the game. It's not a game if you can do anything at any time with unlimited resources and no threats. So there is no such thing as a successful sandbox game that is actually a true sandbox.

what about second life?

I'd argue that Second Life is not a game. More people use it for business meetings than anything else. All sorts of companies went crazy adding crap to it that no one uses.

While I respect that there plenty of people who use it, if you fly around a bit, most of Second Life is abandoned. A lot of it is also covered in graffiti.

[Muz]

the sims was the best-selling pc game of all time for quite a while (i think it still is) so saying that the sims did something wrong doesn't make sense to me (it's akin to saying that minecraft is a bad indie game). i personally didn't like the sims, but i wouldn't so flippantly say that it's a bad game considering how many people enjoyed it and how successful it was.

i'm not sure it was a sandbox game at all though, since you didn't really 'build' anything. sim city and sim earth are better examples of sandbox games.

You built houses. And families. Make girl, girl meets boy, gets married, lots of kids. Or start off with a big family. Or start off a single rich (via cheats) person or a group of roomates or a divorced parent or someone with an alien fetish and alien babies. Or mod and add wallpapers to build haunted houses, post modern buildings, etc.

Sandbox is kinda weakly defined as a game where you get to go around and do whatever you want and make something interesting out of the environment. I'd categorize The Sims as more of a sandbox game than Simcity, because it gives you more flexibility to make odd things.


I felt that The Sims was/is the best selling game, not really because they got a lot of things right, but simply because they practically monopolized a huge market. Nobody else makes a good social simulator and there's a massive female market who are looking for one. In contrast, genres like FPSes, RPGs, and platformers are much more saturated and appeal to a smaller niche of gamers. Sims 1 was sort of like Doom 1, they can do a lot of things wrong, but is still the best game of its genre. And it actually did the evil 'make money from your mistakes' by charging extra on expansions to fix the lack of gameplay. But that's kinda off topic

[mcc]

Are we talking about sandbox games or crowdsourced-content games

[Μarkham]

I think beatsbydre was talking about hotdog-content games.