An end to the Sandbox plague.

[Rangaman]

You seem to have missed the point. I was arguing in favor of games that shirk a sandbox when it is unnecessary. Imagine if HL2 had an open world. Also, "boring". I would definitely argue that Half Life 2 is still a lot more engaging than modern shooters like Black Ops 2 and Battlefield 4, partially because it required actual intelligence from the player.

BTW, I don't think the modern market would burn Half-Life 2 for being too linear. DOOM seems to be doing pretty well, after all.

If Half Life 2 had an open world, it'd just be a bit like Borderlands 2. Which I regard as a much better game, because it feels actually fun to me.
Granted, mileage may vary, but HL2 is being stuck in a tube and only moving forward for the most of the game. No exploration, no backtracking, nothing. Also those rooms where you need to solve a puzzle while endlessly respawning monsters shoot at you. UGH! That's just bad design.
If you want to compare HL2 to something modern and linear, Bioshock Infinite is your best shot. Feels as boring.

Someone else pointed out that it would actually be closer to Homefront: The Revolution. Or as I prefer, Backyard: The Renovation (god bless you Yatzhee).

Regardless, Rooftop: The Restoration had the problems I'm talking about. A pointless sandbox that added nothing of value to the game and only functioned as a setting for linear missions. Half Life 2 works as a linear story-driven game. If they added a sandbox, it wouldn't enhance the game in any way.

On a side note, I've never played Bioshock: Infinite, but it looks ridiculously fun. Perhaps you're just weird. Or is it me?

 

[Xprimentyl]

The problem with sandboxes games today is that many also attempt a coherent, linear narrative; an open world only ever serves as a distraction from said linear narrative. Devs think sandbox = players? freedom = what players want, but when the sandbox is filled with nonsense side quests, mini games and bullshit collectibles, all dev?s have done is allowed the player to slow the pacing of the whole point of the game. It?s like trying to sit a room full of caffeinated 2-year-olds down for story time while actively encouraging them to run around and play; ever so often, they?ll begrudgingly drag themselves to listen, but something about eschewing the freedom to do what they want goes against their very nature.

The best game that?s every done ?sandbox? in my opinion would have to be Morrowind. The main quest is very implicit, but it is but one of a slew of questlines scattered throughout the world populated with true adventures. Yes, you could b-line it to become the prophesized ?Nereverine,? but you can also fight your way to the top of three Guilds or one of three major Houses. That nondescript wooden you almost missed because it?s hidden behind a hill and a bush? Yeah, there?s a legendary weapon at the bottom of that Daedric tomb filled with high-level badasses. The sandbox was vast, but it was all interconnected; there?s something to be found everywhere so aimless adventuring become the point, truly doing as you please and having it amount to something more that staving off the end credits for 20 hours killing hookers, collecting audio logs and flags.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Open world is how I dream games to be. But the way open world games are now? Not a fan. It's always tedious mission structures segmented by bad cutscenes, and empty terrains or cities with lame grid plans.

Better than only playing games like this:


And this also includes games that have the same formula and does not have Military concept.

2 wrong never make one right

today open world games are boring, repteteive, travelling from point A to B, boring side quest etc

Best type of games are semi open world games or linear games with open ended level design like Deus Ex.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

You didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world, you bought it to bring out yours hatred of people with un-stabbed necks.

I bought Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world actually.

Running around Italian cities is amazing and there's no cooler feeling than going to Florence or Venice on vacation and then finding your exact hotel room in the game because the historical town centers of those cities haven't changed in hundreds of years.

There's nothing wrong with open world games, it's not like you have to play all of them.

So did I. And I continue to do so.
Sandbox games are not a "plague" ...they are a design choice. Chosen to allow players a sense of more freedom. Sometimes it is done well, sometimes not. But expecting them to end is childish, even by my animalistic standards.
They will continue to be made because the market is there and many people still enjoy them, including my peasant self. There is nothing you can do to change that unless you get into game development yourself and show them how to do games better.

Meanwhile...hehehehahahahamwahahaha!!

Nobody can stop the laughing owls... Nobody!!! Teeheeetowoohoo!

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Open world is how I dream games to be. But the way open world games are now? Not a fan. It's always tedious mission structures segmented by bad cutscenes, and empty terrains or cities with lame grid plans.

Better than only playing games like this:


And this also includes games that have the same formula and does not have Military concept.

I tried playing the Battlefield 4 campaign a few weeks ago and was pretty annoyed with how linear, scripted and restrictive it was. I don't know how I played so many of those shitty military shooters in the past.

I agree with Xprimentyl up there. It doesn't make sense to tell those linear stories with all the cutscenes and talking in an open world game that provides so much freedom. I want more minimalist, visual stories, like Limbo and Inside. Also, I want objectives that aren't so linear. Give me more freedom in how to surmount those objectives and give me options for where to go if I'm not feeling like exploring a particular area yet. Open world games are so unimaginative and tedious.

Don't mention games like Limbo and thier minimalistic pretentiousness to me please

Open World games are not unimaginative I mean what the fuck games have you been playing that made you feel this way?

Do I have to show you Morrowind? And Ultima 7?

Oh and the STALKER games especially with the Lost Alpha version.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Open world is how I dream games to be. But the way open world games are now? Not a fan. It's always tedious mission structures segmented by bad cutscenes, and empty terrains or cities with lame grid plans.

Better than only playing games like this:


And this also includes games that have the same formula and does not have Military concept.

2 wrong never make one right

today open world games are boring, repteteive, travelling from point A to B, boring side quest etc

Best type of games are semi open world games or linear games with open ended level design like Deus Ex.

I rather play a repetitive open world game for the immersion value than have a semi open world where everthing is instanced.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Open world is how I dream games to be. But the way open world games are now? Not a fan. It's always tedious mission structures segmented by bad cutscenes, and empty terrains or cities with lame grid plans.

Better than only playing games like this:


And this also includes games that have the same formula and does not have Military concept.

I tried playing the Battlefield 4 campaign a few weeks ago and was pretty annoyed with how linear, scripted and restrictive it was. I don't know how I played so many of those shitty military shooters in the past.

I agree with Xprimentyl up there. It doesn't make sense to tell those linear stories with all the cutscenes and talking in an open world game that provides so much freedom. I want more minimalist, visual stories, like Limbo and Inside. Also, I want objectives that aren't so linear. Give me more freedom in how to surmount those objectives and give me options for where to go if I'm not feeling like exploring a particular area yet. Open world games are so unimaginative and tedious.

Don't mention games like Limbo and thier minimalistic pretentiousness to me please

Open World games are not unimaginative I mean what the fuck games have you been playing that made you feel this way?

Do I have to show you Morrowind? And Ultima 7?

Oh and the STALKER games especially with the Lost Alpha version.

I didn't say all open world games. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite games ever.

I don't like Bethesda. They're probably to blame for a lot of the problems with open world games.

Morrowind is was the last Bethesda game that did not suffer too much from Todd Howard's touch

But I also recommend trying out the STALKER games.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Open world is how I dream games to be. But the way open world games are now? Not a fan. It's always tedious mission structures segmented by bad cutscenes, and empty terrains or cities with lame grid plans.

Better than only playing games like this:


And this also includes games that have the same formula and does not have Military concept.

I tried playing the Battlefield 4 campaign a few weeks ago and was pretty annoyed with how linear, scripted and restrictive it was. I don't know how I played so many of those shitty military shooters in the past.

I agree with Xprimentyl up there. It doesn't make sense to tell those linear stories with all the cutscenes and talking in an open world game that provides so much freedom. I want more minimalist, visual stories, like Limbo and Inside. Also, I want objectives that aren't so linear. Give me more freedom in how to surmount those objectives and give me options for where to go if I'm not feeling like exploring a particular area yet. Open world games are so unimaginative and tedious.

Don't mention games like Limbo and thier minimalistic pretentiousness to me please

Open World games are not unimaginative I mean what the fuck games have you been playing that made you feel this way?

Do I have to show you Morrowind? And Ultima 7?

Oh and the STALKER games especially with the Lost Alpha version.

I didn't say all open world games. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite games ever.

I don't like Bethesda. They're probably to blame for a lot of the problems with open world games.

Morrowind is was the last Bethesda game that did not suffer too much from Todd Howard's touch

But I also recommend trying out the STALKER games.

This smart guy named TucoBenedicto told me when I said that westerners don't make level designs like Dark Souls that they did until the likes of Bethesda started the open world craze and made everything about quests in huge empty lands. I don't know old PC games well, but I do see some of Elder Scrolls in a lot of other games now. I wouldn't like Morrowind. Everything about Skyrim was mediocre. The combat, controls, voice acting, animations, art, inventory, copy and paste quests and caves, everything. There's no way the old games are free of all that.

I think your mistaking Skyrim with Dragon Age 2.

Anyway I hate Skyrim because it felt so dumbed down compared to past games like Morrowind.

Also In Morrowind you can kill NPC that gives Quests. Even the main quest ones and they stay dead yes in Morrowind you can litarally break the game by going as far as killing every single NPC.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I noticed the upsurge in making games `sandbox` for no reason started after GTA3 was released. I dont mind a game being open world but like everything it must suit the game.

For me if a game says it is open world or sandbox that makes me seriously consider if I want it or not (in a bad way) as I find that for every few that provide a nice experience with a well realised world or one that fully embraces the sandbox nature of its design at its core there are far to many that just have open worlds that lack in any interaction and serve no purpose other than to waste time.

Back in the day I had all the time in the world to play games so doing menial tasks such as collecting some stupid collectable in an open world to try and give it some reason to exist was not so much of a problem but now my time is much more limited and I despise this filler content. Usually I find sandbox games are more filler than killer as they say, I would much prefer 5 hours of quality content than 100 hours of mediocre content when I game which is probably why I buy so few games now.

I think as is usually the case though its just a new fad that suits try and shoehorn into as many games as possible because the chart says it sells with little thought as to what would be best for the games structure. Will have to wait until someone manages to break the mould and the business sheep badly implement a new trend into their games.

 

[CaitSeith]

Plague? Hahahahaha!
It isn't even near half as bad than when the market was saturated of COD-clones!

 

[Rangaman]

You didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world, you bought it to bring out your hatred of people with un-stabbed necks.

I bought Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world actually.

Running around Italian cities is amazing and there's no cooler feeling than going to Florence or Venice on vacation and then finding your exact hotel room in the game because the historical town centers of those cities haven't changed in hundreds of years.

There's nothing wrong with open world games, it's not like you have to play all of them.

Isn't there a lot of annoying marker-driven gopher questing in AC though? I tried the first, and initially thought it was interesting and immersive, but then it started to feel like it ran out of steam, and I was playing the first hour or so over and over again. This seems to be the problem with a lot of Ubisoft games: big on ideas, but shallow on execution.

 

[Xprimentyl]

You didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world, you bought it to bring out your hatred of people with un-stabbed necks.

I bought Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world actually.

Running around Italian cities is amazing and there's no cooler feeling than going to Florence or Venice on vacation and then finding your exact hotel room in the game because the historical town centers of those cities haven't changed in hundreds of years.

There's nothing wrong with open world games, it's not like you have to play all of them.

Isn't there a lot of annoying marker-driven gopher questing in AC though? I tried the first, and initially thought it was interesting and immersive, but then it started to feel like it ran out of steam, and I was playing the first hour or so over and over again. This seems to be the problem with a lot of Ubisoft games: big on ideas, but shallow on execution.

Yeah, while they are pretty to look at, once you strip back the window dressing, Assassin's Creeds and Far Cries are little more than empty spaces filled with collectibles.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Sandbox and open world are not the same thing. A game can be open world without being a sandbox. The OP uses the Witcher 3 as an example, but I definitely wouldn't call it a sandbox. These types of games have very few limitations placed on the player, essentially giving them some play tools and saying "go nuts".

For example, Mount and Blade is a sandbox game. You can play the game however you want, and you have no real obligation to do much of anything.

No Man's Sky is a sandbox game (albeit while the sandbox is huge, you're given very few tools to actually use in it).

In the Witcher 3, you play as Geralt and your overarching focus is to do the main quest. Yes you can go and do a ton of great sidequests, but you're never not Geralt. Not saying this is bad by the way (it's one of my top 3 games), I'm just saying that despite having an open world, it's not a sandbox.

There's a pile of shitty survival games out now that like to tack sandbox onto their sales pitch, and while I suppose the term is accurate, most aren't using the genre to its potential.

 

[Strazdas]

I dont agree. Open-World is a selling point for me. I like being able to adopt my playstyle, my approach, my way of playing and open-world games are the ones that allow me to do that the most. They also have a sense of scale. For example to get from one mission to another i need to travel across an island, full of emergent gameplay, instead of being magically teleported, or worse - see a cutscene.

Oh and as far as Assassins Creed goes, Open-worldness is one of the best things about it. You get to see cool historical cities you can go around and explore.

Isn't there a lot of annoying marker-driven gopher questing in AC though? I tried the first, and initially thought it was interesting and immersive, but then it started to feel like it ran out of steam, and I was playing the first hour or so over and over again. This seems to be the problem with a lot of Ubisoft games: big on ideas, but shallow on execution.

Thats the first AC for you. different cities but same exact missions. It gets better in later games.

Ubisoft always seem to be more about pushing the technological envelope than the gameplay one. and im totally fine with that.

 

[Soul of Cinder]

(I realise I?m also talking Open world and not sandbox here but oh well)

I wish games that are supposed to be story driven would remember that they are supposed to build a universe by atmosphere and narrative. I think a very good example of that is Dragon Age Inquisition- it feels like it has too little story to actually maintain some sort of relation to all the open world quests you are supposed to do. In what way is gathering 10 toilet paper and 5 WC Ducks related to the fact that you are the most powerful organization in two countries - don?t I have errand boys who can do that for the Inquisitor? It felt like the Devs were just forced to make X world maps but ran out of ideas after half of them, then decided to scatter the content over large vertical distance. However, something that DA:I does and Skyrim failed at, is to suppot the narrative of the main story visually. In Thedas, you will always find tracks of rebels, rogue templars, elves or dragons. If the dialogue in Skyrim hadnt mentioned the war- I wouldn?t even have noticed. Skyrim has very pretty places, but somehow it fails to bring across the whole conflict. Dragons destroying the world? No signs except of one burned village. A war? - Small groups of prisoners, some camps, but no battlefields or sieges.

Overall I think The Witcher 3 did a great job at making Open World - and I mean its huge - feel organic and meaningful. I was sceptical before I bought it, but was pleasently surprised that sidequests were diverse and well designed, just as the environment that wonderfully ells a story of its own.
My absolute favourite way of structuring a games world is the seamless approach Dark Souls and Bloodborne use. It?s challenging and fun to explore, because the levels have been carefully crafted and every corner holds another surprise. Finding a shortcut is rewarding, and since most levels connect the world feels huge while also being carefully designed and full of things to do.

After being let down by games that offer a "do whatever you please, here take the car key and have fun" approach I decided to not buy Fallout or the newest AC games either. Sandbox often feels like a lazy excuse for not having to come up with good mechanics or quests. After all, if Im going to pay 60$ for a product I expect that someones been putting effort into coming up with a way to keep me interested and entertained - otherwise I could just go and buy some Legos just as well.