Sandboxes: How big is TOO big?

[Pedro The Hutt]

I... don't see how the world of Just Cause 2 is too big as there's a dozen ways to get around in it, you get yourself a vehicle on water, on the ground or in the air (including stealing helicopters and planes in mid-air), use your parachute and grappling hook in creative ways, or you just call the Black Market guy and get airlifted/instatravelled straight to where you need to be. So if traversing fifteen kilometres by any form of transportation feels like too much effort you could just have gotten yourself a lift.

Same if you find the Fallout world to be too big, there's always instant travel if the hike is too big for your liking. I myself enjoy the on foot travel and the explorations, but hey, not everyone can enjoy having a massive world at their disposal.

 

[WanderingFool]

I like the sandbox game to be as big as possible without sacrificing other gameplay mechanics to accomplish this feat. Of course, I also want a simple fast-travel system, for as you said, I dont want to have to spend 15-20 minutes getting from one destination to another.

 

[Harbinger_]

There is no too big as long as you have enough content.

 

[debossman21]

JC2. when it becomes a chore to move from one end of the map to the next when you have a MF hookshot youre world is too big

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

People do missions in Just Cause 2? I thought it was just a game for blowing shit up.

 

[babinro]

As soon as traveling from Point A to Point B because tedious or feels like a chore...your sandbox game is too big.

I suppose I have less traveling patience than most because I've yet to play a GTA game that didn't feel too large. Mafia 2 was a little too big but acceptable.

inFamous 1&2 contain a bit too much backtracking for my liking but made traveling on the map extremely fun. They are the ultimate sandbox games if you ask me.

 

[William Ossiss]

minecraft. ho-boy! ive been walking in one direction for weeks. not a single border to be found...

 

[superdelux]

As long as there's things to do and places fun to explore it doesn't matter to me.

 

[Codeknight]

It's not the size, it the design. just cause 2 was just made poorly, you can't have a big world and nothing in it and no way to travel quickly. otherwise it's just a waste of time.

 

[RandV80]

There can be no such thing as a perfect sand box as it's entirely dependent on the preference of the player. Some people in here for example had a problem walking around Fallout 3. Personally I thought it was a little small. Bethesda designed Oblivion with the former crowd more in mind and I found it a little too overcrowded with anytime fast travel, where as my own taste liked the density level of Morrowind and I actually prefer walking. I always tend to want more though so I'd want an even larger Morrowind, the bigger the better.

Or perhaps there could be a perfect size, but it would rely on a scalable system where you can set your preferred land mass size and 'stuff' density and have your world dynamically altered.

 

[Squilookle]

I'd also say that San Andreas is just about the perfect size, but it does all depend on the content in it. I think Just Cause 2 can be a bit daunting, but if you ever played the first Just Cause, you'd see how much JC2 improved the amount of content in absolute leaps and bounds- plus the instant travel feature takes out unwanted travel time, which in itself is very atmospheric.

 

[GraveeKing]

dont do the missions in JC2. theyre shit. just blow shit up.

OT: bigger than GTA4, smaller than JC2 (yeah it is a bit too massives. i spent most of my time on the roads.)

Sir your avatar is amazing and I do approve of it.

Anyway I do agree with what this gentleman here says, although really what you need in a big game is a quick but form of transport - or just something instant, that way you can explore without feeling obliged to travel everywhere.

 

[rob_simple]

It's less about size and more about content.

Dead Island was huge but absolutely nothing was worth exploring. JC2 had plenty of shit to destroy if you ignored the actual missions.

 

[willsham45]

Size is not everything, but content is the deciding factor.

I liked GTA vice city, by the end of it you had see all of it, you knew where and what everything was and you could probally start navigating around the city without use of the map. Essentally you knew your sand box, now it is time to check out the side missions and stuff.

Later games also had the content but it seemed more spread out you missed things that could have had potential for cool missions and the like. I cannot say I ever knew san andreas or gta4's liberty other than the main places you go on each of the 3 island and I cannot remember much of the third island.

Just cause 2 is huge, everywhere feels different, you will only ever know a few small key spots but you will never be able to get around without the map. But the content there is also huge and the funist thing to do is to simply blow stuff up.

Essentally it does not matter how big the map is it is what you can do in it. A prime example of a bad sandbox is probally no more heros nothing happens in the hub world. Not as bad but far cry 2 seamed to have a simular problem. There was not all that much to do other than go from misson to misson other than kill anyone who shoots at you which seemed to be everyone. Although I could be wrong I have not played that one in ages.

 

[emeraldrafael]

i dont know really. as long as there's enough stuff to do (that varies) in the parameters and the theres ways to get around it efficiently, nothings too big.

 

[pearcinator]

As long as there are fast-travel methods or transport that makes travel less tedious then they can be as big as they like...However, there needs to be a LOT of stuff to do/find to encourage exploration. If it is mostly empty wide-open map then it's boring but if there are hidden secrets/dungeons/collectables then the map can be as big as it bloody well wants!

I don't play that many sandbox games though...I prefer games with a smaller (but still considered 'large') maps to explore every nook and cranny. The Zelda games are an example of a world map that's not ridiculously huge but not considered 'small' either.

My favourite open-world sandbox game is probably Oblivion but only for the achievements...I wouldn't do half of the stuff if there weren't achievements for doing them. San Andreas was a good sandbox game but there wasn't much incentive for me to explore...

 

[The Random One]

No such thing.

Minecraft = 8 times as large as Earth = most loved game ever.

Also I don't like Minecraft, just in case you think I'm some sort of fanboy. I played the free trial during the Humble Bundle thing and didn't like it that much. But my point is, people obviously do.

 

[Sinathor]

The size itself is irrelevant. What matters is what the sandbox is filled with.

A good sandbox is filled with unique locations, landscape is beautifully hand-crafted, there are dangerous areas and less dangerous areas, and so forth. It doesn't matter whether or not there's fast traveling, a good designer can design a huge world without the player ever having the need to fast travel.

And a bad designer... Well... There are sandboxes that are just filled with random crap and copy-pasted locations.