Talk:Open world/Sandbox (video games)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More Games[edit]

Kevinbi2004 17:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rougelikes[edit]

Should we add some roguelikes to the list here? They seem to fit the description rather well

Lochok 02:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utlima VII / Exult[edit]

Should Ultima VII / Exult be considered as an open concept sandbox-style game? Or does being a game engine disqualify it?

Eric Anctil 02:27, 14 March 2006 (EST)

Couldn't Metroid or Zelda be considered Sandbox[edit]

I mena, you are not limited to going through the story. You do must complete dungeons and other things to explore everywhere, but most of the time you can go around, looking for anything you may want to do.

No, because it still follows a completely linear story, and even when you can run around doing anything you are too limited in what you can do to say its non linear gameplay, its basically running around looking for the next part of the linear story - chngbat 21:33, 29 January (GMT)

Both Zelda and Metroid have very definitively aspects of a sandbox game, however the basic game mechanic is a little different. In both games you are not allowed to walk freely in the around in world, but instead you are blocked by elements that require certain upgrades to pass (heavy stone requires power glove item to lift it, red doors require missiles to open them, etc.). So the games tend to be more a hunt for an upgrade to enlarge your explorable world then a 'do what you want' kind of game (the first Zelda is probably the exception, since it has much freeer movement then later titles). Both however have a large world in which you can go forward and backward as you please and that is definitvly sandbox-style.
However the very definition of sandbox game is blurry to begin with, i.e. GTA is always cited as a prime example of sandbox, but it is still very different to a RPG like Gothic, since in GTA the whole world doesn't have persistence. You can kill as much people as you want and they will just respawn, everything you do doesn't matter. The whole 'world' is really more like a very elaborate mission select screen than a persistent world. You are also limited to what missions you can take and have to follow a rather linear narrative, there are a few side missions, but nothing more. Outside of missions you really can't do much in GTA. In a game like Gothic on the other side there really isn't a mission, you get quests which you can solve or not and the order doesn't matter and everything plays in the same persistent world, if people get killed they stay dead and there is no magical reset after you die that brings everything back into place, you are simply dead and have to reload and earlier save.
-- Grumbel (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prime examples of sand-box style games are the Elder Scrolls series. Every action you make has concequences. If you kill someone they will never respawn. If you are wanted then the authorities will hunt you down forever. The bounty won't go away except if you pay someone to get rid of it. The game world is massive and is completely open to you from the start. Certain areas aren't locked in the beginning. Basically it is the model that all sand-box style games should be made after, not GTA.

Black & White[edit]

In my opinion Black & White is a classic example of sandbox game: you can do whatever you want with every object around you AND you can train your creature to become whatever you like it to be.

However, each level has a goal and purpose. The game ends when you reach certain goals, etc. -z

Merging[edit]

Note: Given the lack of support for the merge, I am removing the notices. Also, since these conversations were all about the same topic, I relocated them under one heading so it is easier to follow in the future. --SevereTireDamage 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge it. Sandbox and open-ended are not nearly the same thing.Syberwolff 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)syberwolff[reply]
Assuming they are not the same, the intro of this article should be edited to emphasize the differences. Shawnc 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with syberwolff. Also, if it had been merged, I never would have known about any of this stuff. -the Lone Stranger

Merging with open ended[edit]

Technically Video games are not completely open ended you are still limited by what you can do, while i do agree such games as Morrowing or Oblivion or Garrys mod for HL2 are VERY open ended they still have thier limitations, you cannot fly an airplane in elder scrolls morrowind, you cannot dig holes in the ground in Garrys mod. therefore while it is "open ended" it is too limited to be completely considered open ended.

Ye shall not merge.[edit]

"Sandbox" and "Open-ended" are not the same thing. "Open-ended" is a part of "Sandbox, but an "open-Ended" game might as well have a very fixed story and/or mission-pack and still have some "open-ended" options.

E.g.

Deus Ex is an open-ended game, but the missions are pretty much fixed and you cannot choose in which order you shall do the missions, while Grand Theft Auto does have this feature. So, GTA is a sandbox game and DX is an open-ended game.

[Leon June 04, 2006 7:43PM GMT]

Exactly! SSSerggg 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems most of the people discussion this are against the merge, so we should probably remove the merge notices in a few days if no one else objects. The problem remains, however, that both pages are mixing up the definitions (open-ended mentions The Elder Scrolls, which I believe is sandbox, not open-ended). Just so we're clear:
Sandbox is Grand Theft Auto III and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, where even though there is a solid beginning and end to the missions/single player game, there are many other activities to complete in-lieu of those.
Open-ended is Sim City, Civilization, The Sims, where the games have multiple methods to reach multiple endings (the ending is not set in stone, unlike the previous sandbox games), or in the case of the Sim games, possibly no ending at all.
What do you think? --SevereTireDamage 09:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

[Re: removal of HTML-commented notes I added; see edit summaries in history for comments rational and reversion rationale. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

First of all, in the future, you should probably use the talk page if you want to talk about an issue, don't leave a comment in the code. It makes it that much harder to read, and this kind of discussion about the page write-up is what these talk pages are for.

But anyway... yes, it was a press release. However, it's incredibly difficult to get reliable cites otherwise for video game sales (NPD has a lock on most major records, and you have to pay for that information). But it's Electronic Arts, a publically-traded company - it is hardly likely they would make up these numbers, when the series is such an obvious sucess. This figure has pretty much never been remotely contested by any PC games in the last 5 years or so. (It's part of the overall Decline of PC game sales in the US). I really didn't think this was a very contestable source, but I have no problem with replacing the cite with a more objective source.--SevereTireDamage 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, on your first paragraph there. I'm tired and I was being lazy. Not necessarily agreed on your removal of the other HTML comment in there, which was strategically placed to help whoever next came along with an eye to improving that bit in particular. But not a big deal either way. As to the 2nd para: If you get into the WP:-space discussions far enough, the guidelines on vanity posting, neutrality and citations basically converge on a clear consensus that quoting a company, band, whatever, or and advocate of that entity, about their own output, to source anything other than the barest uncontroversial facts ("this model of our product is grey", "the company is based in London", etc.) is essentially an unsourced claim (citation or not! - the source is non-reliable or at least non-neutral). It's a vanity-post-by-proxy, in a sense. So, I'm suggesting it be replaced by a gaming/computer industry publication statement that supports the claim based on their own market analysis (i.e. not just parroting the EA press release.) Maybe I'm being anal, but that sort of refrerence citation triggers a big flappy waving red flag in my mind.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LostMagic[edit]

It seems like a sandbox game to me. You can choose 4 different paths, catch different monsters, and basically have your own 'style' of playing. I wanted to see what other people thought before posting it in the article. Also, would it go under 'Strategy' or 'RPG'?

Are the different paths linear?guitarhero777777 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


2nd paragraph

(and widely considered the most significant[citation needed])

Couldn't that just be removed? Seems irrelavent. VoltageX 09:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wolrd of warcraft is probaly the LEAST sandboxy MMORPG

Tony Hawk[edit]

Tony Hawk 4 and American Wasteland both give you the freedom to travel to any unlocked map and choose from a number of missions to complete in any order you like.

Seems like a closer match to GTA's gameplay than many others on this list.

Reversion[edit]

Have reverted to previous edit; paragraph which mentioned "Elite" was removed and the text subsequently didn't make sense. Also within this topic there is evidently a cross-over to "Open-ended" forms of gameplay, and the entry was discussing this, even though they are now very distinct styles. Major Bloodnok 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting merge of GTA clone into this[edit]

Based on a recent notability comment on the GTA clone page, I think it may be worthwhile to consider moving some of the content from the GTA Clone page into this one. (I'm going to post this suggestion there too). Basically, I think it is notable that the specific "GTA" style clone made a big impact on future games (the "History" part of that article, which can be inserted here as a subsection near the top as "GTA Influence"), but most of the rest of that article really is just lists for lists sake, and references to these clones in GTA, which may or may not be needed.--Masem 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Doom clone is not merged into FPS, GTA clone is not merged into this. --Joffeloff 12:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doom clone is as bad if not worst than GTA clone, because the first-person shooter article covers nearly everything in Doom Clone, and there's very little that the clone article adds; the term does need to be called out in the FPS article, but there's no point in having an extra article which basically duplicates information and maybe adds one or two new items. (Basically save for a couple, all the game genre articles are in terrible shape and need major work, this merging is part of the work). --Masem 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal[edit]

I am suggesting the merging of two articles, Open-ended (gameplay), GTA Clone, into this one. Reasons include:

- If you look at other video game genre pages such as platformer, the articles are less about just listing examples and give a good breakdown of what variations are in that in that field with a few SELECT examples. These four articles (this one and the three I have listed) are not well written, but I think overall would provide a very good article in the same lines.

- "Open-ended" games are a subset of sandbox games in that, as noted on their talk page, there is generally no fixed end point of the game (eg Sim City). However, they all are sandboxes that give the player the freedom to move about. Note that open-ended games can be of many genres. Many sandbox games do end up as open-ended, and having its own page which has only a bit of information and a list of examples seems to be unneeded.

- "GTA Clone"s are definitely Sandbox games, but the line between what is a GTA clone and what is not is hard to maintain due to users adding irrelevant examples (eg "Saints Row" and "True Crime" are correct, but things like "Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4" are not. Since GTA Clones are a specific subset of Sandbox games, this article, in particular some of Rockstar's response.

I propose that these pages be merged into this, and the article rewritten to highlight sub-genres with links to appropriate pages (these sub-genres include things like God game or strategy game), less focus on having just lists and lists of what games are sandbox (that's what categories are for) and more on giving a nice overall picture of open-ended games.

Please leave comments (and if you agree or disagree or something in between) below. --Masem 12:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree --SkyWalker 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. It's probably enough to note that a few "clones" (e.g. Saints Row, True Crime) exist on one of the GTA pages. We don't need an article. Also, like Doom clone, the term will inevitably date - for instance, no-one refers to modern FPS games as "Doom clones". If anything, the Doom series is borrowing from other titles these days! --Plumbago 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOE III[edit]

Age of Empires 3 is in no way a sandbox game. I removed it. Tiger97882 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Crap, that's a lot of games![edit]

I find the game list too be way too long. This article pretty much throws around the label 'Sandbox' around quite liberally. By the definition here, any game that has a game world outside of the linear story seems to be be Sandbox. Silly. It seems there are three types of games according to this; Default games (linear story, closed world), Linear-story games featuring sandbox elements, and Open-ended games. I think the article would just be better with stricter criteria. Like, for example, I would say it should be defined as , "style where a large portion of the game is devoted to the world engine, and allowing the player(s) to experiment with the various elements, physics, construction, items, NPCs, maps, and etc." But, that would leave it to extremes and to the ones that just feature those elements. That way, games that just feature side-quests like extra levels, races, mini-games, etc, wouldn't count, as it doesn't feature a testable world, but just a derailment for the main story. Things like Garry's Mod would be high up on the "scale" as the most sandbox, as it's completely dedicated to building and experimenting; whereas others, like The Sims, would be open-ended, but stay rather traditional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.167.93 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question ... how many examples *is* too many? I was tempted to add the Sly Cooper series--games 2 and 3 seem more sandbox-like than even FF7 (cited as an example earlier in the article). Perhaps 'sandbox' can be better narrowed to refer to a game where most of the area is unlocked, perhaps also avoiding references to other RPG conventions?IL-Kuma 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. With the current definition, it just seems like most of all modern games fit into the category, as opposed to old school gaming. Final Fantasy also seems silly as an entry, since its straightforward, but only featuring maps an minigames.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.167.93 (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

define by usage[edit]

The only corroboration of sandbox as a style of gameplay that I can find is common usage and pretty recent.

Sandbox has always been a mode of gameplay, a secondary mode of play in which the criteria for success are nonexistent or minimal, in contrast to the main mode of play e.g. campaign or concurrent quests, or storyline.

The idea of the sandbox as a game mode is that it is unhampered and open to experiment without affecting the main mode of play. A player can simply play with the game, testing its full capabilities and characteristics, without consequence to the game’s main premise of story or goals.

The online platform Second Life offers many creation tools ingame which can cost money, but has geographical territories accessible to all players called sandboxes for building to an extent that would otherwise be a relatively large commitment. As in a real sandbox, once may play without consequences. This is a perfect example of a sandbox.

A game may include a sandbox mode, editing mode, and multiplayer option in addition to it's main offering, only one of these is a sandbox mode.

However, it in the context of a gaming term- this may sound glib- we should go by usage. If gamers are going to use it as a synonym for 'large' or 'full of options' or 'non-linear' then thats how it should here be defined.

So yes, most games listed here are sandbox games. And Morrowind, which has no areas inaccessible (as opposed to many listed here which do) certainly deserves to be on this list. You can also do quests in that game without being prompted to- that is, the quest can be discovered without prompting.

The blog link at the end of the page "Senzee 5 - Explorers and the Game of Tag — An analysis of sandbox-style game mechanics" should be removed. It's a blog entry by a gamer about what games they like. Redrum Frank 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, maybe Sandbox is a useless term, anyway. The majority of games fall under that criteria; and what's the point of labeling everything with the same, broad category? Silly gamers. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.167.93 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What good is is there in trying to find a definition for sand-box style -- I mean, an exact, precise and final term to describe such a thing? Are there books written about it? I don't think so. Do not take me wrong, I am not trying to depreciate the subject, I am just pointing out that it is a recent concept, not yet quite clearly defined. All the discussion here around it simply proves it. Perhaps we ought to state this in the article -- that it is a loose-term, that there is no formal definition, but rather a generally accepted idea of what is sand-box style gameplay. 201.67.30.233 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life? Garry's Mod?[edit]

At its core, Second Life is nothing but a big multiplayer sandbox. Would it possibly merit a mention in the article? Almost the same goes for Garry's Mod, but it's more restricted in that you can't make your own objects from scratch. --72.196.151.10 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of GTA Clones[edit]

This article seems a bit odd, in that a list of sandbox-style games has been removed, apparantly in favour of a list of GTA Clones. Whilst GTA Clones may well be a subset of Sandbox games, I'm not sure that devoting half the article to that list is justified. Should it be pruned? Teut 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename[edit]

I suggest renaming the article to Sandbox game. The article starts with "a sandbox-style video game". Might as well rename the article. GameSpot even has a special tag for these games [1]. All the other genre articles have "game" or something like it at the end. SharkD (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. --MASEM 14:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a good change. Teut (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Merger"[edit]

Just to clear up any misconception, no article was deleted, and I do not have deletion privileges.

All properly-sourced information from the sandbox article was merged and re-organized into nonlinear gameplay, which is now properly referenced for the first time. The sandbox article was previously a merge of open-ended gameplay, and so merging this back with nonlinear gameplay made perfect sense. Facts about non-linear gameplay, open-ended gameplay, and sandbox gameplay were scattered throughout the article, with reliable sources to verify such information. Unsourced or badly sourced information was scrubbed during the merge. If someone wants to re-add WP:VERIFIABLE information about this broad topic to the merged article, they are welcome to do so. No RFC is necessary to re-add such information. Randomran (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can possibly construe it in this way. Bulk deletion of an article's text in this way is what I believe to be "deletion". You did not request discussion for the removal of the text or even for the merger. SharkD (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Be bold. Only some of the article's text was outright removed, namely the unreferenced parts. The merger made sense because the sandbox article previously merged-in facts about open-ended gameplay, and a merge with nonlinear gameplay made sense because it was synonymous. Randomran (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from RfC. I don't see anything for me to comment on. Merging and redirecting is not "deletion" and doesn't require an AfD discussion. Having said that, if the merge is controversial, it should be discussed here. SharkD, please tell us whether you don't like the merged page, and, if not, what you don't like about it. Then we will have something to discuss. AndyJones (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purposes of this effort is to direct attention toward what I believe are questionable practices of a user. WP:DR says that, "Turn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for disputes about user conduct" (emphasis added), and that is what I'm doing. First of all, Randomran didn't actually merge the information as he claims. If you compare the articles as they were at the time, you'll see that the material is absent. The "Sandbox" section in nonlinear gameplay (at that time titled "Linearity (video games)") was added by another user after this article was turned into a redirect.
Secondly, Sandbox (video games) (6,211 bytes) is now reduced to a short section consisting of five sentences with an altered meaning. The current format gives short schrift to a particular "mode" of video games, whereas the article originally concerned an entire genre. Even the subsequent additions by the the other user were altered after the fact.
Finally, the claim that, "All properly-sourced information from the sandbox article was merged and re-organized..." is false, and the impression the statement is trying to convey (e.g., that the edits were made in order to improve article quality and verifiability) is dubious. I don't see the great similarity between the articles that Randomran claims. Of the seven references used in nonlinear gameplay, only two of them existed in "Sandbox (video games)" previously [edit: and, hence, the other three were not "merged"], and only one of those two is being used to make the original point. Also, The new article possesses only two more references than "Sandbox (video games)" had originally—no great number. SharkD (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about sandbox/nonlinear/open-ended games are in the article, but scattered, and minus the numerous unreferenced statements. More information was merged in as time went on, and some information has since been removed. An RFC isn't necessary if you want to add in more referenced information. This is far from the first time you've had an issue with my edits. If you have a problem with my behavior, start a comment about me as a user rather than an editing decision. Randomran (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, I see you guys have a bit of a history, but let's mediate the dispute we've got, here, and see where that takes us. Here are some of my thoughts:

  1. The first thing to say is that redirecting isn't deletion. The text of the article is still here, fully preserved (see here), and the redirect is reversible, so we can restore this page to it if we decide that's appropriate.
  2. I think we need to avoid arguments about whether we're at the right venue for this discussion, and about whether Randomran's action was procedurally right. Those types of arguments are what we describe as wikilawyering, and they're really a distraction from the matter we ought to be discussing, which is how to make this encyclopedia, and specifically these two pages from it, the best they can be.
  3. I think we need to avoid discussing behaviour, at least for the moment. There are indeed venues to deal with the bad behaviour of other editors, but at the moment you are both still talking, which is a good thing, and building a working relationship will be easier to do if we focus on the specific problem rather than on personalities.
  4. Looking at Sandbox (video games), it seems very well written. My main problem is its lack of sources. I think we need to address the following sourcing issues:
    1. Only one paragraph is sourced, and regarding its five sources:
      1. What two statements in the article are sourced by the Freelancer review? Specifically, I do not find the word "sandbox" when I search that page.
      2. I find neither the words "Elite" nor "Sandbox" when I search this page, so I don't understand how it sources "...simulators, such as Elite ... are examples of sandbox games".
      3. It looks as if the only reliably sourced statements in the article are that The Sims is the best-selling PC game of all time and that SimCity is "open-ended".
    2. Since the sources we do have source rather specific statements, we need to know:
      1. Are there reliable sources for the general premise of this article, namely that "sandbox" is a genre of game, a subset of non-linear games? (This is by far the most important issue. If there are none then the article should not exist on Wikipedia.)
      2. Are there sources which discuss the nature of sandbox games? If yes, they can presumably be used to source the "Common features of sandbox-style video gaming" and "Open-ended gameplay" sections.
      3. What sources did you (i.e. whoever was the main author) use when you wrote this page? If you could add those we would be off to a good start.
  5. If the above issues cannot be resolved, is there any real objection to Sandbox (video games) being a redirect to nonlinear gameplay? That isn't a long article, so I see no reason why those who are working on this page shouldn't put their efforts into expanding that one. As more sources become available, the two pages could be broken apart again, per summary style. AndyJones (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AndyJones, thanks for taking a closer look. Like I said, I was being WP:BOLD, and I've done nothing wrong from a behavioral or procedural standpoint. So please, no more accusations. As for the content itself, you're right that only a few of the sources from the previous sandbox article actually supported the statements, and those are the kinds of unsourced statements that I left out of the merge. The value of the merge wasn't just to bring together related topics and reduce numerous short articles. It was to make the resulting article higher quality, with no WP:OR. If someone added information supported by reliable sources, I can't anticipate a reason I'd prevent that. As for the premise of the merge itself:
All of these support the statement in nonlinear gameplay that "A game that is noticeably nonlinear will sometimes be described as open-ended or as a sandbox." There's also a couple other references that show how sandbox can describe a specific level[2] or mode[3] within a game. I agree that expanding nonlinear gameplay would be a good use of efforts, and that any section that becomes overly large could be split into its own article. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1-3. I searched Wikipedia pretty thouroughly, and I don't see any place other than RfC to raise these types of concerns. Far from being "wikilawyering", it can be frustrating when an article simply disappears without a trace, and this sort of behavior can be disruptive to the editing process. I believe that editing an article in such a way is equivalent to deletion; the results are indistinguishable unless interested wikipedians happen to have the article on their watchlist.
4. You've made a mistake with regard to the Freelancer reviews. Both cited articles mention "sandbox". Using the search feature of your web browser might lead to better results than simply scanning it visually. And, as for the article mentioning Elite, did you notice that the article is split into several pages? The page number is noted prominently in the article's title. Try searching one of the other pages.
4.2.1 A quick Google search shows a "Sandbox" genre exists.
4.2.2 Here are some good articles that discuss the topic in depth [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
5. I don't think a simple redirect is advisable (see WP:PRESERVE). An actual "merger" might be safe, but I still wouldn't prefer it.
   "...you're right that only a few of the sources from the previous sandbox article actually supported the statements, and those are the kinds of unsourced statements that I left out of the merge." Is that so? I'm glad that you took the safeguard to look twice so as to avoid misleading anybody. I just wish you would show this level of concern in all your edits.
   Finally, simply because the articles support the fact that the games use nonlinear mechanics doesn't mean the article needs to be merged into another only about the mechanics. SharkD (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think another issue here is that Wikipedia's motto of bold editing is being thrown around here as the reason for these changes. That motto also adds "...but be careful." While users certainly don't need to get approval before editing, a thoughtful mention on the discussion page first does much to avoid edit wars and bad blood between opposing viewpoints. Just my humble thoughts... Wangry (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I did a merge based on the research I found, and was WP:BOLD. As you can see, I tried to incorporate as much of the reliable information from the old article into the merge, and the research supported that sandbox style games/levels are nonlinear games/levels. Also, you'll notice this old edit included the information about Freelancer and the articles that mention its use of a sandbox. I know some people feel strongly against merges in general, but there's also the guideline from WP:VGSCOPE against multiple small articles. These two articles are stronger together than apart, speaking in terms of guidelines. And there's nothing stopping this article from being expanded to the point that a split would be necessary and desirable. Randomran (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that Wangry is trying to make is that if you insolently cite WP:BOLD every time someone takes issue with your edits then people aren't going to appreciate it. I don't see the validity behind the argument that people shouldn't take issue with your conduct if you consistently do this. SharkD (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not citing WP:BOLD because someone had an issue with my edit. I've already explained the rationale behind my edit, which can be discussed on its own merits. I'm citing WP:BOLD because you had an issue with my behavior, when I've done nothing wrong. Randomran (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, picking up on the points raised in this discussion so far. Starting with SharkD and following the first few of your numbers:

  1. The page you're probably looking for is WP:DR. However we're making some progress here, so let's keep the discussion here for the moment. You do understand, though, don't you, that the article hasn't "disappeared with out trace", and is here, where any of us can revert to it, at any time?
  2. I see your point, but there are definite dissimilarities in the results of redirection -v- deletion, of which easy reversability is the main one.
  3. I definitely don't find "sandbox" here even with the CTRL+F feature, which is what I used yesterday, also. Can you quote the sentences used in that article and clarify what assertions they source from the article. (I agree the Freelancer interview refers to a sandbox.)
  4. I seem to have reached the same conclusion as Randomran on this point. I'd prefer to avoid personal attacks on him in relation to other edits he might have made, if possible. Specifically, I refer you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

I agree with Wangry that WP:BOLD isn't a carte blanche, and that a merge discussion would have been better. However, focussing on how this could have been done won't help us focus on how the matter can be progressed now.

I see lots of proposed sources in the discussion above. I think now the time has come to try incorporating material from them, either into a WP:SANDBOX article (it'll be cool: it'd be called Sandbox/Sandbox!) or else incorporating them into the sandbox section of the merged page. SharkD do you want to start on that? AndyJones (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. WP:DR simply directs editors to WP:RFC.
  2. I just have to raise the point again that I feel that redirection without discussion is a "poor man's" version of deletion, and is a rather sneaky practice no matter who does it.
  3. The sentence containing the word "sandbox" is, "You can elect to enjoy the gaming world entirely as an interstellar sandbox, governing your explorations by whim, by ignoring the main storyline's missions or by playing the game's multiplayer mode."
  4. I think it's unfair to say that I am making personal attacks based on his other edits. If you'll look closely, you'll see that the topic of "other edits" was raised by Randomran, not by me.
If you read this talk page in its complete form you'll see that a merge discussion has already occurred and the consensus was to not merge. SharkD (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you want to discuss my behavior, but I haven't done anything wrong, I haven't been "sneaky" (considering the ease with which people can see the history), and I haven't "deleted" an entire article without AFD. The information about freelancer was incorporated into the article here: "Other games where players may ignore the game objectives and explore the world as a sandbox include Freelancer". I'd appreciate an assumption of good faith. You may disagree with the merge and that's your right. But any assertion that I was trying to do something other than merge is completely non-productive. Randomran (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make an additional point regarding the information being removed "without a trace". First of all, I consider an article's history log to be meta-information and not part of the article's content. I don't think it can be expected of readers that they read an article's history as part of their normal reading routine. If this were the case then readers would be bewildered and it could be possibly abused. Secondly, deletions are reversible as well. While deletions can't be reversed by normal users, the separation between admin and user is in many ways analagous, I believe, to the sepreation between user and reader. Each require special familiarity with Wikipedia's inner workings and often the material itself. The fact that a redirect page may have its own history with content that differs from the article it links to may not be an obvious fact to the average reader. SharkD (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open_world/Sandbox_(video_games)&oldid=1137059580"