What does Sandbox mean to you?

[Pthigrivi]

6 hours ago, James M said:

Those who don't agree on some things may have reasons for such. For example, I'd prefer to fill out my own tech tree and select which parts I want available to me so I don't have to filter through and find the stuff I do want in the junk I don't. 

The way to do this is through better management of the parts window in the VAB—better filters and favorites, custom folders, etc. not a separate game mode. They’ll probably need that anyway with so many new parts coming. 

 

6 hours ago, James M said:

The only things that should unanimously be seen as a sandbox stable in KSP is unlimited Money, Science, Kerbals and of course the inclusion of a cheat menu. Note however I said "unlimited" and not "absent". 

Even this isn’t unanimous. There really isn’t a functional difference between unlimited and absent resources. The costs and supply of these resources is being ignored. Even if you wanted to toggle this on and off in the middle of a save you’re essentially removing all additions and subtractions.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

7 hours ago, James M said:

Those who don't agree on some things may have reasons for such.

Never said all these different opinions aren't valid or with reason. Just that they exist.

It doesn't seem much, but after years (literally) being told "Well, sandbox is just sandbox, you know sandbox" every time I tried to point out that there may be some problem with the definition of the gamemode in KSP2 I think is a huge step forward.

[t_v]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Even this isn’t unanimous. There really isn’t a functional difference between unlimited and absent resources. The costs and supply of these resources is being ignored.

Again, interprétation problems. I actually love the idea of “unlimited but not absent” and I think applying it everywhere in sandbox would solve a lot of the disagreements on what the game mode should be. First, what I take to mean “unlimited” and “absent”. If you have unlimited fuel, your ship will still consume fuel as it does burns, but you can supply more, without limit. If fuel is absent however, your ship can’t consume fuel because it doesn’t exist. Unlimited is better because it allows for the systems to still exist while also allowing for progression constraints to be broken. Unlimited science allows you to unlock every tech, only specific techs, or nothing. Absent science means that everything is unlocked and collecting science just doesn’t do anything. Stuff like that. 

[Rutabaga22]

I generally believe a sandbox mode is important to any game, even games with an AMAZING progression mode. Subnautica for example, it has a very nice survival mode, but sometimes you don't want to  go through the whole game just to build a base somewhere, use certain tools, or visit new places. For example, the new "progression mode" probably won't let you just throw together a rocket and go to the mun, but what if I want to do that, I know a lot of people will.  The lack of a sandbox mode would be a lack of what many people enjoyed about the first game. Even if this progression mode is amazing and on a completely new level of gaming, I may still want to just throw together a rocket sometimes with no worry of [Limiting Resource]  or [Other Limiting resource] or [Resource of Infinite Powa!™].

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, t_v said:

Unlimited science allows you to unlock every tech, only specific techs, or nothing. Absent science means that everything is unlocked and collecting science just doesn’t do anything. Stuff like that. 

Ah I see the miscommunication here. If the options listed in the OP were difficulty settings and you wanted to achieve this you'd not select "All vehicle parts unlocked", instead you'd want an option for "no science required for upgrades" (if science even exists). You'd toggle it on, unlock what you wanted, and then toggle it back off and play normally. If you make science "unlimited" you can't add any or do science because your readout will just say "∞" or "unlimited" and neither spending it nor collecting it will have any effect. 

Of course some or most of this may be totally irrelevant depending on how Adventure mode works at the end of the day. We tend to hang on snippets and suggestions from 2 year old interviews as gospel but even many of the dev's early ideas on how this would all play out may have changed quite a bit. 

[t_v]

1 minute ago, Pthigrivi said:

If you make science "unlimited" you can't add any or do science because your readout will just say "∞" or "unlimited" and neither spending it nor collecting it will have any effect. 

Unlimited, not infinite. You have certain amount of science, fuel, money, etc., but you can just give yourself more or make it infinite at any time. This way, you can test, for example, how fast your colony processes 10,000 units of ore, or you can fill your base with LS resources if you can’t bring a supply mission in time but want to make the base use LS resources still. 

[Pthigrivi]

Just now, t_v said:

Unlimited, not infinite. You have certain amount of science, fuel, money, etc., but you can just give yourself more or make it infinite at any time. This way, you can test, for example, how fast your colony processes 10,000 units of ore, or you can fill your base with LS resources if you can’t bring a supply mission in time but want to make the base use LS resources still. 

Oh so an "add x resources" cheat? Im hung up on "unlimited" in the context of science or money because obviously there's no tanks for that and no limit to how much you can hold or add this way.

[t_v]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

Oh so an "add x resources" cheat? Im hung up on "unlimited" in the context of science or money because obviously there's no tanks for that and no limit to how much you can hold or add this way.

Think of it like the creative mode in Minecraft: you have unlimited items, but not infinite, because if you put them into a container and process them with some sort of mechanism, they will be limited. You technically don’t have a (meaningful) limit to how many you can have and you can keep creating more, but it isn’t infinite. When placing blocks, that is infinite because it doesn’t deplete, but you can make it unlimited by going into a different game mode mid-game. The way I would see it implemented is that there is a page in the Sandbox menu (which I would rename the cheat menu) where for each resource, there is a way to add and remove it, and a toggle to make it infinite or not. This can go for anything, from kerbals in colonies to heat in crafts. 

[Pthigrivi]

Just now, t_v said:

Think of it like the creative mode in Minecraft: you have unlimited items, but not infinite, because if you put them into a container and process them with some sort of mechanism, they will be limited. You technically don’t have a (meaningful) limit to how many you can have and you can keep creating more, but it isn’t infinite. When placing blocks, that is infinite because it doesn’t deplete, but you can make it unlimited by going into a different game mode mid-game. The way I would see it implemented is that there is a page in the Sandbox menu (which I would rename the cheat menu) where for each resource, there is a way to add and remove it, and a toggle to make it infinite or not. This can go for anything, from kerbals in colonies to heat in crafts. 

Gotcha. Just thinking about this from the back-end that sounds like a lot of fuss and UI to manage things so specifically. You don't even really need cheats. If there is a simulator tool in adventure mode you could just design your rig with as many tanks or radiators or LS systems as you wanted to test for and let it run in simulation. You don't need separate UI for adding and removing resources if you can use the VAB interface to add or remove parts and test them for free. If you want one or a few resources to be "infinite" just add a couple of ginormous tanks for the test. No? 

[t_v]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

Gotcha. Just thinking about this from the back-end that sounds like a lot of fuss and UI to manage things so specifically. You don't even really need cheats. If there is a simulator tool in adventure mode you could just design your rig with as many tanks or radiators or LS systems as you wanted to test for and let it run in simulation. You don't need separate UI for adding and removing resources if you can use the VAB interface to add or remove parts and test them for free. If you want one or a few resources to be "infinite" just add a couple of ginormous tanks for the test. No? 

I think it comes down to wanting this through an entire game. I’m imagining the description for Sandbox mode being “Play with systems enabled or disabled, Create and test designs freely, and set up custom scenarios easily!” What I’d actually like is for Adventure mode to not have a cheat menu and only have cheats in the simulation, so that progression is pretty enforced (ofc difficulty settings to change the balance, but no set position or stuff like that). This means another mode where anything goes is needed for players who want that wacky stuff. If in Adventure mode you have the ability to choose your starting planet, then in Sandbox mode you get to choose your starting location, plus add another colony on another planet to start with, and disable heat problems, and then play through an entire playthrough with that starting setup. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, t_v said:

and set up custom scenarios easily!”

This, what if I want to start my "adventure mode" with all KSP1 tech unlocked but just that?

What if I want a final tier fully autonomous colony on Laythe, with the full plane tech tree unlocked but no rocket parts and start like that? With (float) plane exploration slowly progressing unto suborbital rocket (float) planes.

Creating those scenarios to play in adventure (maybe with a "no way back" switch)  is also something I want to use sandbox for.

 

[Xelo]

On 8/16/2022 at 7:21 AM, shdwlrd said:

It doesn't help that the term "sandbox" for games is so broad. I mean that games like SimCity, GTA3, Gary's Mod, Minecraft all fall under the sandbox definition for games. (It's funny that the Wiki didn't cite more "modern" games like Space Engineers, KSP, Empyrion, Scrap Mechanic, Terra Tech, Factorio, DSP, Cities Skylines, Surviving Mars, Satisfactory, Valheim, Icarus, etc.)

With so many games that fit the sandbox definition, everyone will have a different opinion to what sandbox means in the game sense.

There's an important distinction to be made between 'sandbox' as a genre of game and 'sandbox' as a gamemode however, the latter is more unambiguous, as while the genre just means the player isnt as rail-guided via game mechanics to play, and instead relies on creativity and resourcefulness to fully explore the game, it is the gamemode that pushes the greatest degree of creative expression and testing as possible. Minecraft is a sandbox genre game with a 'sandbox' gamemode (creative) and its differences are obvious, creative is literally the mode where you play god, there is no game-enforced progression beyond intrinsic creative pursuits like building.  Likewise, Space engineers is also a sandbox genre game with a 'sandbox' gamemode (creative), like minecraft the blocks are free, you are unkillable, and you can spawn entire ships and asteroids in. GTA is a sandbox game, without a sandbox mode. Mindustry is a  tower defense game with a sandbox gamemode (everything is free, blocks that spawn infinite resources, spawn enemies in, etc). All of these sandbox game-modes have one goal in common, it is to remove essentially all game-enforced progression and allow unrestricted testing and creativity (within the limits of the game's capabilities).
KSP however is a unique case of a sandbox game, where the sandbox mode was the 'normal gamemode' and then new game modes got added on later in late alpha which made the normal mode seem vaguely like sandbox. As a result those who have played KSP to the bitter end have a weirdly skewed idea of sandbox, because it was never really designed as a proper sandbox in the first place. @Master39 @PthigriviI recognize the conclusion being pushed here is that,  "Oh well, since everyone on the KSP forums has such a unique idea of 'sandbox' how could we ever decide on why or in what form sandbox should exist in the other thread?". I will say that the premise of this poll may be also equally flawed as people answered it with the expectation of KSP1 sandbox and its 'skill progression' in mind. The poll did not state the goal of the gamemode but rather its wildly misconstrued label. (consider instead a poll question like "What features do you want to have in a game mode that facilitates creative expression and testing?") It asks what people imagine when they think of sandbox as if all people want was the label of 'sandbox', like asking what is the best car without stating how you are going to use it.  But considering the experiences of people that will be coming to KSP2 and whose idea of sandbox have not been tarnished by the "sandbox" gamemode in KSP1, is this good basis we are discussing sandbox on? Would it be more productive to remove this 'sandbox' label altogether (in favor of something like "Do we need a creative mode?") so we can start from a common understanding? (I recognize the name itself doesn't remove the ambiguity but it at least signals to people that it is not the sandbox we all know in ksp1). I feel like all this poll has revealed is that we're debating about semantics to some degree, not the idea of sandbox itself. Frankly if Intercept is implementing a proper sandbox they would do good to change the label too to avoid the carried expectation.
There's also this notion that "sandbox" should be a make-your-own gamemode 'gamemode', where you can turn off core features of the game at will. I feel that should really just be considered a completely different feature altogether like a scenario maker, as that isn't a singular deliberately designed gamemode anymore. It's not to say a creative mode should not be used to make scenarios to be played in adventure mode however, like how other games use their creative modes to make user-generated content (maps and etc).

Small aside: I also have an issue with sandbox being compared to 'cheat mode' as that is just bad way of representing a perfectly legitimate way of playing the game. You cheat because you wish to pass a challenge without effort or time spent. You do not 'cheat' in creative, because surmounting challenges was never your intent to begin with and the game offers no  explicit reward to surmount them. Its only cheating because you have an unfair advantage over others, but as the adage goes "once everyone's super no one will be", as is in sandbox where everyone can play god and regular progression means nothing. Such a cheat mode can only exist if you can switch between '''god mode''' and adventure easily at will and hence why a cheat menu that offers such a capability is by far not a  thing to be compared with.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Xelo

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Xelo said:

  "Oh well, since everyone on the KSP forums has such a unique idea of 'sandbox' how could we ever decide on why or in what form sandbox should exist in the other thread?"

Nope, my point is: "what sandbox mode in KSP 2 is is not clear, not obvious and everybody had a different idea of what need to be cut from progression to obtain sandbox".

It's not relative to this specific couple of threads, I've been saying it since 2019.

 

34 minutes ago, Xelo said:

if Intercept is implementing a proper sandbox

Which is something that is still not defined.

For you sandbox is the equivalent of a creative mode, for someone else is a strictly "no tech tree but everything else is on" mode.

 

40 minutes ago, Xelo said:

There's also this notion that "sandbox" should be a make-your-own gamemode 'gamemode', where you can turn off core features of the game at will. I feel that should really just be considered a completely different feature altogether like a scenario maker

Which would only increase confusion. You make scenarios in creative/sandbox and then play them in adventure/survival.

It's a pretty standard setup among many games.

 

47 minutes ago, Xelo said:

Small aside: I also have an issue with sandbox being compared to 'cheat mode' as that is just bad way of representing a perfectly legitimate way of playing the game.

Creative modes are cheats.

Cheats are a perfectly legitimate way of playing games, as long as you are not ruining someone else's experience.

One of the most popular sagas in gaming history, GTA, wouldn't be fun at all if it weren't for cheats. The story is cringy if you're older than 13 and the "social commentary" is as subtle as a kick in the face. Having to drag through all of it to unlock the fun messing around part of the game is just wasting time.

[Xelo]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

Nope, my point is: "what sandbox mode in KSP 2 is is not clear, not obvious and everybody had a different idea of what need to be cut from progression to obtain sandbox".

It's not relative to this specific couple of threads, I've been saying it since 2019.

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

3 hours ago, Xelo said:

if Intercept is implementing a proper sandbox

Which is something that is still not defined.

For you sandbox is the equivalent of a creative mode, for someone else is a strictly "no tech tree but everything else is on" mode.

I mean its never going to be "clear" or "defined" until the devs say otherwise, were just debating what would be a good approach to it. The two threads are the relevant ones in this context, I don't see anyone digging up ancient Master39 quotes from 2019 here. My point was to define a goal for this 'hypothetical mode' labelled sandbox, then move on from there? Creative mode is really just an example of a goal defined as maximum creative expression/testing in-line with other games, and the choices naturally follow.  Do you really want to turn this into an eternal semantics argument about what sandbox ""means"" by saying it isnt defined? Its just a label. Again its like arguing about what the best car or tree is, deciding the intention helps magnitudes with the choices presented.

 

 

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

3 hours ago, Xelo said:

There's also this notion that "sandbox" should be a make-your-own gamemode 'gamemode', where you can turn off core features of the game at will. I feel that should really just be considered a completely different feature altogether like a scenario maker

Which would only increase confusion. You make scenarios in creative/sandbox and then play them in adventure/survival.

It's a pretty standard setup among many games.

Its not a new feature like a different UI screen graph that detracts you from the game or w/e. An option being confusing or not is the entire job of the UX/UI designer. Its a feature in the sense that it more or less changes how the game is designed in its entirety. The game designer will now have to make sure every feature can work in isolation, and every combination thereafter specified in the settings: 

On 8/14/2022 at 3:18 AM, Master39 said:

My point is that I want the cheat mode, I want the "everything enabled, but the tech tree unlocked" mode, I want the one with only the building upgraded at the start but everything else enabled, I have a use for every possible combination of the options offered by this pool.

I want sandbox to be this pool, when you start the save it shows you that list of check's and you pick your own sandbox.

If this were to be a literal sandbox I want the ability to choose which toys I want to bring in it with me, at every time.

Its a massive ask, hence why I think such a paradigm shift should be discussed separately(not implemented separately as your response would suggest?), as it puts you directly in the shoes of the 'game designer'. What if you did not have to go by the carefully designed game-modes? How should KSP 2 be balanced around it? And also why I think its more unlikely to happen then you think, this kind of thing will have to be planned from the start or else it just become a crudely implemented feature with none of the customization you want or another delay from immense code refactoring and debugging for features that did not expect to be turned on and off individually.

 

 

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

3 hours ago, Xelo said:

Small aside: I also have an issue with sandbox being compared to 'cheat mode' as that is just bad way of representing a perfectly legitimate way of playing the game.

Creative modes are cheats.

Cheats are a perfectly legitimate way of playing games, as long as you are not ruining someone else's experience.

One of the most popular sagas in gaming history, GTA, wouldn't be fun at all if it weren't for cheats. The story is cringy if you're older than 13 and the "social commentary" is as subtle as a kick in the face. Having to drag through all of it to unlock the fun messing around part of the game is just wasting time.

The thing about cheats is the meaning behind the word. A legitimate cheat is a oxymoron. There is a very negative connotation about cheating as it is almost always used in the context of being unfair and ruining an experience.
And while your point is that some games require cheating in order to be fun due to bad game design and/or slow pacing, putting that in the context of KSP2 is a bit of an tough ask. Are you implying a creative ""cheat"" mode is only viable if KSP2 is kinda badly made? I think that dearly misses the point, but again its another argument on semantics and the fact we have not defined the goal of a """"cheat"""" feature and are arguing on a different basis.
 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Xelo

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Xelo said:

Do you really want to turn this into an eternal semantics argument about what sandbox ""means"" by saying it isnt defined?

Whether or not you have to build a colony or you can just spawn it, or if you need or not to mine the resources needed to feed it it's as far as a discussion about semantics as you can go.

You are saying that you want something like the creative mode from Minecraft (which I interpret in KSP would mean spawn anything anywhere at any time), someone else is arguing for a mode that just removes the tech tree, and there's a discussion that's already more than a page long about the difference between infinite resources and no resources. That's not semantics, those are elements of gameplay that are going to define what a gamemode is like and what is useful for.

 

40 minutes ago, Xelo said:

in-line with other games

Even this is not clear.  I could interpret "In line with Minecraft creative mode" as no gravity, infinite fuel, no part breaking and full creativity to build whatever you want with the VAB interface following you in the flight screen.

 

45 minutes ago, Xelo said:

Its a massive ask, hence why I think such a paradigm shift should be discussed separately(not implemented separately as your response would suggest?), as it puts you directly in the shoes of the 'game designer'.

No, is just what sandbox does for KSP1, minus probably the "all building upgraded" but, again, that's like 1 minute editing of a save from the cheat menu, and KSP2 is complex enough that already there are several potential scenarios people may want to start with. 

 

48 minutes ago, Xelo said:

What if you did not have to go by the carefully designed game-modes? How should KSP 2 be balanced around it?

"The gamemode" one, not multiple ones. The game should be designed and balanced around "adventure" with all optional systems enabled. That's how it works for every game, to use the Minecraft example, you design for survival and the standard world gen, not for creative and superflat maps.

If you want to play a custom scenario outside of the provided "Adventure" default parameters then it's the scenario creator job to balance the game.

At the end of the day sandbox is already just an arbitrary amount of systems turned of from "Adventure", we just seems not to be agreeing on how many of them and which ones, my proposal is to let the player choose.

 

55 minutes ago, Xelo said:

The thing about cheats is the meaning behind the word. A legitimate cheat is a oxymoron. There is a very negative connotation about cheating as it is almost always used in the context of being unfair and ruining an experience*.

*for someone else.

You can't cheat yourself.

Any negative connotation disappears the moment you're talking about a mostly single player game.

57 minutes ago, Xelo said:

Are you implying a creative ""cheat"" mode is only viable if KSP2 is kinda badly made?

Nope, I already said that I'm going to use sandbox a lot. Being a backup for a poorly made progression system is something I hope is not needed (which is, BTW, the whole argument of the other topic).

And I used creative in Minecraft a lot too, as a former server mod I spent probably hundred if not thousand of hours in creative in Minecraft, doing anything from just building to designing dungeon and complex puzzles using command blocks for our players.

 

1 hour ago, Xelo said:

I think that dearly misses the point, but again its another argument on semantics and the fact we have not defined the goal of a """"cheat"""" feature and are arguing on a different basis.

"Fun game about flying and managing your space program in a world with realistic orbital mechanics"

If you can land on the Mun avoiding some of all of the gameplay elements implied in that description then is a cheat, no negative connotation with that, I cheat in single player games a lot and often. I like using games in unintended ways and define my own dumb challenges.

[Pthigrivi]

6 hours ago, Xelo said:

 It asks what people imagine when they think of sandbox as if all people want was the label of 'sandbox', like asking what is the best car without stating how you are going to use it.  

You may be right! I listed these as discrete, concrete game features rather than abstract ideas exactly to avoid ambiguity and semantics, but in a way both are important. To use your car-choice metaphor I asked questions like "do you want 2 or 4 doors?", "do you want a truck bed", "do you want a convertible roof?", and "do you want gas, electric, or hybrid?" hoping to get a clear list of things folks want or don't want included. If I'd asked "why do you want to use this car?" I might have gotten answers like "I just want a car for fun" or "I need a car to get back and forth from work", but by "fun" some people might mean off-roading and others might mean going down the highway with the top down, and by "work" some people might mean an office and others might mean a construction site. The advantage though would be that features I might not have even guessed would be revealed. They might say "I want to dig a foundation" and I'd realize that we aren't even just in the realm of cars. 

In either case I think we've come to something of a consensus that there should probably be at least two game modes listed, Adventure and Sandbox, and sandbox would take you directly to an advanced difficulty settings menu where you could turn on or off everything from probe control and reentry heat to unlocking all tech and spawning vessels and colonies wherever you choose. 

Edit: Oh I missed this whole post:

3 hours ago, Xelo said:

Its a massive ask, hence why I think such a paradigm shift should be discussed separately(not implemented separately as your response would suggest?), as it puts you directly in the shoes of the 'game designer'. What if you did not have to go by the carefully designed game-modes? How should KSP 2 be balanced around it? And also why I think its more unlikely to happen then you think, this kind of thing will have to be planned from the start or else it just become a crudely implemented feature with none of the customization you want or another delay from immense code refactoring and debugging for features that did not expect to be turned on and off individually.

Hmm see it seems like way more of an ask to try to individually craft and balance several different versions of Sandbox than to just focus on Adventure mode as the complete, well-tuned experience and let players turn off or max out various resources and capabilities, knowing full well that turning on things like "build all parts with no resource cost" or "can teleport vessels anywhere" might disrupt game balance. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[James M]

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

someone else is arguing for a mode that just removes the tech tree

That was not my whole argument. I just said it was an example. Options are good. Anything that adds to the ability to be creative and test creations is good. Subtracting options is bad. Creative mode removed the ability to mess with the tech tree in my own way. That's all I was saying.

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

"The gamemode" one, not multiple ones. The game should be designed and balanced around "adventure" with all optional systems enabled. That's how it works for every game, to use the Minecraft example, you design for survival and the standard world gen, not for creative and superflat maps.

If you want to play a custom scenario outside of the provided "Adventure" default parameters then it's the scenario creator job to balance the game.

At the end of the day sandbox is already just an arbitrary amount of systems turned of from "Adventure", we just seems not to be agreeing on how many of them and which ones, my proposal is to let the player choose.

This feels like a step in the right direction.

[shdwlrd]

@Xelo I don't mean to be rude, but I'm too scatter brained today to read a wall of text. I've tried several times and was unable to do so. 

I posted that for a reason, it's the true definition of sandbox for games. Sandbox is a style of games that don't (severely) limit how the player decides to complete a task. But there are limits.

Sandbox has morphed over time to only mean games where you have full discretion on how you play the game. (Rules be damned, I don't want them.) But that really isn't the case. All games have rules you need to follow, including KSP.

The real in this issue thread lies in what rules do you need, what rules can you bend, and what rules you can ignore. That's the point of contention. Some people want full control over every aspect of play, even if it's not possible. Some people want free parts and resources to let their creativity free. Some people want to learn how to break the game, for reasons. Some people want to learn the systems before they are introduced in progression. Some people don't want to play with progression. And all these wants fall under the term "sandbox."

[James M]

58 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I posted that for a reason, it's the true definition of sandbox for games. Sandbox is a style of games that don't (severely) limit how the player decides to complete a task. But there are limits.

Would you call Skyrim a Sandbox game? What about Scribblenaughts? By your definition both games are. But I think most people would agree Skyrim is not a sandbox game. While you're free to do as you wish, it's truly more of an open world game as creativity is often not involved. The extent of Sandbox there is how I build my houses. 

If you really want to talk about the sandbox genre, then all you need to do is compare what you're doing to a kid in an actual sandbox. Is Flight Simulator a Sandbox game? No, right? I fly planes where I want, how I want, when I want. But I don't design anything. When's the last time a kid played with their model plane in a sandbox? What about building a sand castle? I think this really gets to the heart of the argument here.

Sandbox gives the player tools, toys, and resources and lets them decide what to do with them. A goal MAY be involved, but is always optional. As are the use or constrictions of said toys, tools, and resources. Anything should go in a sandbox game/mode so long as it keeps to the game's physics/rules. Beyond that.. You're hardly playing the same game I'd say. (God modes excluded as that alters the physics/rules involved)

Too add, the only reason KSP NEEDS a Creative mode, is due to save files. I don't want what's unlocked in my creative mode to be unlocked or available in my adventure mode. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by James M

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, James M said:

Would you call Skyrim a Sandbox game? What about Scribblenaughts? By your definition both games are. But I think most people would agree Skyrim is not a sandbox game. While you're free to do as you wish, it's truly more of an open world game as creativity is often not involved. The extent of Sandbox there is how I build my houses. 

Yes, they technically are sandbox style games. You have the choice of what you want to do. You have a choice where to go. You have the choice how to solve the problem. GTA, RDR, Fallout series, hell even WOW, Everquest, Ultima online, Eve, or any other MMO fall under sandbox because you have a choice of where to go and what to do, even if you character wouldn't survive one encounter.

The sandbox definition is so broad, it does include games that you would think it shouldn't. Or another way to think about it is any game where you have only one path, one choice, one way to complete the goal isn't a sandbox style game.

[James M]

3 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Yes, they technically are sandbox style games. You have the choice of what you want to do. You have a choice where to go. You have the choice how to solve the problem. GTA, RDR, Fallout series, hell even WOW, Everquest, Ultima online, Eve, or any other MMO fall under sandbox because you have a choice of where to go and what to do, even if you character wouldn't survive one encounter.

The sandbox definition is so broad, it does include games that you would think it shouldn't. Or another way to think about it is any game where you have only one path, one choice, one way to complete the goal isn't a sandbox style game.

Excluding Fallout 4's base construction, what problems in GTA, RDR, WoW, Everquest, Ultima, Eve, etc are you trying to solve? How best to murder something? The Box is the world. The tool is my weapon. I am the child. The resource is the... npcs? The creation is what? A pile of bodies? No. And if your argument also extends to "customization", then by definition, Fortnite could be a sandbox game. What with it's building of towers and different skins. But it's not. MMO's just like the others have a story to tell. That is what the game is built on.

(Also if designing an interior of a house in an MMO is an aspect, then it still falls in line with my Skyrim example.) All of these example you gave are just Open World RPGs. Not Sandboxes. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by James M

[James M]

Oooh Okay yes or no question here then. Is Job Simulator a Sandbox Game? Why or why not? If we can agree on this, then I think we can start talking about the necessities of KSP 2's Sandbox stuffs

Edited August 18, 2022 by James M

[NBDesigns]

Imo, sandbox mode is where you can build or use any aspect of the game without limits. It’s where I go to be creative. 
 

thank you for the privilege  for me to share my thoughts. 

[Pthigrivi]

Just as a point of agreement upon which further exploration could be built, we should attempt to parse the difference between "Sandbox" and "Open World".

[shdwlrd]

7 minutes ago, James M said:

Excluding Fallout 4's base construction, what problems in GTA, RDR, WoW, Everquest, Ultima, Eve, etc are you trying to solve? How best to murder something? The Box is the world. The tool is my weapon. I am the child. The resource is the... npcs? The creation is what? A pile of bodies? No. And if your argument also extends to "customization", then by definition, Fortnite could be a sandbox game. What with it's building of towers and different skins. But it's not. MMO's just like the others have a story to tell. That is what the game is built on

You're missing the point, sandbox has nothing to do with building. Sandbox is about choice on how to play the game. 

Open world is sandbox because you can choose where you want to go and in what order to do the goals/missions.

MMO is sandbox because you can choose to stack bodies. You can choose to craft items. You can choose to mine. You can choose to become a merchant. You can choose to become a trader.

RTS is sandbox because you can choose your tactics. You can choose your forces. You can choose what to attack or defend.

City/Colony builders are sandbox because you can choose the layout of your roads. You can choose how to layout your buildings. You can choose what services to provide. You can choose what your taxes are. You can choose what maps to use. 

Factory builders are sandbox because you can choose your layout. You can choose what you want to upgrade. You can choose what to export. You can choose what rates you want.

Survival games are sandbox because you can choose what resources to gather. You can choose what to attack or avoid. You can choose where and what to build. You can choose what to equip your character with. You can choose what to build with.

Flight/driving sims are sandbox because you can choose your vehicle. You can choose your route. You can choose your upgrades. You can choose your tactics. You can choose how to pilot the vehicle. You can choose to crash.

RPGs are sandbox because you can choose you character. You can choose your team. You can choose your skills. You can choose your powers. You can choose your attacks.

Shooters can be sandbox because you can choose your weapons. You can choose your tactics.

Now, do all games in these genres fall into the sandbox definition? No, there will always be exceptions. I've played shooters that are very linear. I've played RPGs that are linear. I've played flight/driving sims that are linear. I've played builders that are linear.

Also, if you noticed that I bolded choice and choose a lot. That's because it's the primary component to sandbox games. You can choose to play how you want.

Nowhere in the definition for sandbox does it say there must not be limits. Nowhere does it say there can't be goals. Nowhere does it say there can't be progressions. Nowhere does it say you can't have locked items/skills. Nowhere does it say you can't have rules and boundaries.

So sandbox as a genre has games where you have a choice on how to play. Sandbox in a game means the same thing, you have the choice to play how you want. But remember, it doesn't say that there can't be rules or boundaries you have to abide by.