I like both. I like linear games if the story and gameplay are rewarding. I like sandbox games if they have a decent main quest to have a driving force behind what I do.
Poll: Do you prefer sandbox or linear games?
- Thread starter Imperioratorex Caprae
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like a certain balance of both. And I like quality, and having certain things given a bone to, in both areas.
I prefer an interesting linear game to a sandbox with nothing I want to interact with. Because if the linear game is interesting, then I enjoy what I'm essentially being forced to do, because they fit my tastes. But I'd prefer a sandbox full of a few things I want to do, than play a linear game full of things I don't want to do.
The optimal game, that has the most of what I want to do, would have a mixture of both, so it has the ability to balance and take the best of both worlds. And strong and gripping pace and feeling of moving forward. One that makes a person feel that their game is moving toward something. While giving frequent options to do other things and even get lost in them. You want to pull on the player a little bit. But if you pull too much they want an escape.
Tales of is a bit too linear. But is nonetheless my favourite RPG franchise. I think a great game would have everything I like about Tales of, but everything I like about a sandbox, as well. Also, the sad thing about "save the world" plots, is that they eventually leave you weary. When you want something epic, they're great. But over time, you just want to enjoy some slice of life character interaction, some to make you laugh or go "d'awwww, that's cute". Or even just a political conflict, something that doesn't say "impending doom of everything".
Or yet another way of putting it. You just want just enough tug and tension to keep you going and make you fascinated. A little bit of poison makes the heart grow fonder in terms of fictional realms. But too much poison, and you really need an antidote. An antidote other than not playing the game. That generally means lighter, light hearted, optional things. Things which aren't too stressful and don't leave the game feeling claustrophobic.
I prefer an interesting linear game to a sandbox with nothing I want to interact with. Because if the linear game is interesting, then I enjoy what I'm essentially being forced to do, because they fit my tastes. But I'd prefer a sandbox full of a few things I want to do, than play a linear game full of things I don't want to do.
The optimal game, that has the most of what I want to do, would have a mixture of both, so it has the ability to balance and take the best of both worlds. And strong and gripping pace and feeling of moving forward. One that makes a person feel that their game is moving toward something. While giving frequent options to do other things and even get lost in them. You want to pull on the player a little bit. But if you pull too much they want an escape.
Tales of is a bit too linear. But is nonetheless my favourite RPG franchise. I think a great game would have everything I like about Tales of, but everything I like about a sandbox, as well. Also, the sad thing about "save the world" plots, is that they eventually leave you weary. When you want something epic, they're great. But over time, you just want to enjoy some slice of life character interaction, some to make you laugh or go "d'awwww, that's cute". Or even just a political conflict, something that doesn't say "impending doom of everything".
Or yet another way of putting it. You just want just enough tug and tension to keep you going and make you fascinated. A little bit of poison makes the heart grow fonder in terms of fictional realms. But too much poison, and you really need an antidote. An antidote other than not playing the game. That generally means lighter, light hearted, optional things. Things which aren't too stressful and don't leave the game feeling claustrophobic.
I like a little of both, though I probably do lean a bit towards the linear side of things.
The best thing about a linear game is that it can have a strong narrative which gives the player motivation to continue. You want to see what happens next, and that seems to be one of the parts of games I enjoy the most. Still, I don't like to be overly constrained either; the approach where the only option is to go forward just doesn't really do much for me, I like to have the option to at least take a detour here and there.
Sandbox games do offer a lot of freedom, but the issue is that they can be rather aimless. While running around in circles is fun from time to time, but I find it gets boring very quickly once the novelty wears off. You can do anything you want.... but is there really anything worth doing? In most pure sandbox games, there isn't. I don't mind level editors however, but I don't think that's what most people mean by "sandbox game".
Some games do take an interesting middle-ground, often in the form of having a strong central narrative with plenty of chances to deviate from the main course. Sometimes they'll offer chances to affect the storyline in a significant fashion (Mass Effect & Dragon Age come to mind) and the option for which order you tackle the primary objectives, or at least the illusion of that choice. The Fable series presents a central narrative as well (not the best, but passable in most cases), which opens up more of the sandbox-like world as you progress through it.
The Legend of Zelda series and Metroidvanias are interesting mixes as well; they seldom offer any choice for them in regards to the storyline, but they have exploration as a strong element. Whether or not these games could be called sandboxes is debatable, but in many cases "linear" is almost certainly a misnomer; at most, there's an encouraged linear "route" which takes you through the majority of the game and the central plot... but quite often you have the option to look into the many detours in the game. Metroidvanias in particular allow for (if not outright encourage) sequence-breaking, which works out great for them. This mix has lead to these games being declared some of the best ever made, and consistently so.
---
It's a tough call, because the games I like the most are hybrids between linear & sandbox. In fact, restricting yourself to either is probably foolish. The best games embrace aspects of both, after all.
The best thing about a linear game is that it can have a strong narrative which gives the player motivation to continue. You want to see what happens next, and that seems to be one of the parts of games I enjoy the most. Still, I don't like to be overly constrained either; the approach where the only option is to go forward just doesn't really do much for me, I like to have the option to at least take a detour here and there.
Sandbox games do offer a lot of freedom, but the issue is that they can be rather aimless. While running around in circles is fun from time to time, but I find it gets boring very quickly once the novelty wears off. You can do anything you want.... but is there really anything worth doing? In most pure sandbox games, there isn't. I don't mind level editors however, but I don't think that's what most people mean by "sandbox game".
Some games do take an interesting middle-ground, often in the form of having a strong central narrative with plenty of chances to deviate from the main course. Sometimes they'll offer chances to affect the storyline in a significant fashion (Mass Effect & Dragon Age come to mind) and the option for which order you tackle the primary objectives, or at least the illusion of that choice. The Fable series presents a central narrative as well (not the best, but passable in most cases), which opens up more of the sandbox-like world as you progress through it.
The Legend of Zelda series and Metroidvanias are interesting mixes as well; they seldom offer any choice for them in regards to the storyline, but they have exploration as a strong element. Whether or not these games could be called sandboxes is debatable, but in many cases "linear" is almost certainly a misnomer; at most, there's an encouraged linear "route" which takes you through the majority of the game and the central plot... but quite often you have the option to look into the many detours in the game. Metroidvanias in particular allow for (if not outright encourage) sequence-breaking, which works out great for them. This mix has lead to these games being declared some of the best ever made, and consistently so.
---
It's a tough call, because the games I like the most are hybrids between linear & sandbox. In fact, restricting yourself to either is probably foolish. The best games embrace aspects of both, after all.
I prefer sandbox games because the offer a more unique experience than nothing else can offer. I can see the appeal of a more story oriented and focused game, but a totally story driven on rails experience can be offered by books and films. Having a more open ended, player driven game design makes good of the most unique and compelling aspects of video games in contrast to other mediums
Personally i mostly prefer sandbox games, but i did like quite a lot of linear games that at least allowed me to explore small other parts of the world. (mostly like zelda games, dungeons needed to be done in order but can always explore the world map for secrets.)
pure linear with no sidetracking feels to coerced for me..
pure linear with no sidetracking feels to coerced for me..