The bloody sandbox: why are ultra-violent, non-liner video games so popular?

[Orang.Otang]

Non-linear video games embody the perfect pleasure: we can delve into our own world, play God, and then press the reset button if anything goes wrong or not to our liking. No guilt is to be felt when indulging in the actions, no matter now primeval they may be, as the spheres of real-life morals and in-game catastrophes are entirely separate. It is a symbol of the individuals? constant strive for freedom, choice but also to dominate: to warp and manipulate a fine world into something completely alien and to his own schematics. It is expressionism within the constraints of a chosen medium: a form of art.

Discuss.

 

[newguy77]

Because you're allowed to do whatever you want. People find them very liberating from their regular lives and they're a great stress reliever.

EDIT: Oh, wow. He did answer his own question.

 

[Sethzard]

Personally, i don't agree that their are no constraints, the constraints are where ever the developers choose for them to be. i also don't agree that is art, it is an individual expression, but not true art, it is a mockery of art if you want me to describe it, it is art in the same way that damien hearst's rubbish is art, not true art, just a pointless attempt at it, which is fine given as most people aren't trying to make art.

People like them not to make art, but to do what they can't in real life have liberating fun.

 

[Kriptonite]

In a sandbox, people have control. There is no 'boss' that will beat you back down. People really like control.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

Wait did you just answer your own question?

Well, that's a first.

 

[Orang.Otang]

That's my answer, yes. I wanted to see if any other Escapists had similar or conflicting opinions on the subject.

Because you're allowed to do whatever you want. People find them very liberating from their regular lives and they're a great stress reliever.

I agree. Video games hold morals in a truly unique way, totally different from film or theatre where the spectator is simply that, a spectator, and not a creative influence: they will not change the outcome of the predetermined script; but in these worlds players are given the opportunities to perform actions that they would never even consider in their waking-life, without suffering the consequences and ratifications that may surface from them. Gamers can steal cars, murder prostitutes, go on vehement rampages through shopping centres, all in the name of entertainment, then our alter-selves can be saved, stored and locked away on a computer hard-drive, having been released from us.

 

[Neo Kojiro]

Pretty much the freedom. Go places and do things you couldn't and wouldn't otherwise. I, however, probably wouldn't find it quite as fun if it wern't for the side missions and, although i doubt it matters to most, radio stations. Those are what made GTA 3 awesome (as well as doing it in a not-top-down view, i guess), and as such those are what kicked off pretty much every open-city game, be it the blatent rip-off of Saint's Row or just the free-roaming of the later Tony Hawk games.

 

[Sassafrass]

because 'tis fun to have control.

 

[YuheJi]

Wait did you just answer your own question?

I think he just wanted us to express what we think of his answer, as there are no doubt other answers out there.
As for me, I would agree. One of the things that made me love Fallout 3 was the fact that I could kill almost any NPC I wanted to. Not that I would want to, or ever need to, but the fact that the option was available to me just made the game feel like it granted so much more freedom.

 

[suhlEap]

well games like this are popular... because they're good. they're fun, as challenging as you want them to be and generally just good. simple as.

 

[Xerosch]

I like games with some kind of overarching storyline. Considered storydevelopment took a backseat some years ago there are little games that succeed in capturing my interest for a long time.
I've tried some sandbox games, and found some of them even enjoyable. But as far as I've experienced, almost every open world game tends to have a very inferior script. I myself mostly stick to games of the last and before generation, I simply feel there's more effort in balancing out every aspect a game is made of. Today it's only about multiplayer and graphics. Not to mention the always boring looking grey-brown-green worlds.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I think open world games are very popular cause it is very realistic(to a degree). Like you can excape the vault looking for your dad, but, honnestly, in RL nothing would be stopping you from just going crazy, exploring, or sticking with the plan

 

[Kollega]

Your point is correct - sandbox games are popular for that exact reason. There's a whole world for us,and we can do whatever we please,including destruction of everything in sight. Whole appeal of a sandbox is based on that there's no real superior to you - you ARE the boss of this world. You are free and in control. What can be better?

 

[Meemaimoh]

I think I must be the only person in the world who prefers linear games. Why? Two reasons:

a) Sandbox games tend to forsake plot in order to give more freedom. I don't mean sandbox games can't have great plots; I mean the stories they're trying to tell would benefit greatly from a tighter format in which the player can't get sidetracked, forget what's happening and lose all sense of tension.

b) Sandbox games don't actually provide anything more than an illusion of freedom. When it comes down to it, you're still restricted in what you can and cannot do, and the ultimate goal is still to get the game finished.

I have no idea why they're so popular these days. All they do is offer pointless (albiet sometimes fun) ways to get sidetracked. That works for things like GTA, but even in games like Assassin's Creed and Prototype it only served as a way to "run away", rather than something you actually want to go exploring in. For me, at least.

 

[headshotcatcher]

I think I must be the only person in the world who prefers linear games. Why? Two reasons:

a) Sandbox games tend to forsake plot in order to give more freedom. I don't mean sandbox games can't have great plots; I mean the stories they're trying to tell would benefit greatly from a tighter format in which the player can't get sidetracked, forget what's happening and lose all sense of tension.

b) Sandbox games don't actually provide anything more than an illusion of freedom. When it comes down to it, you're still restricted in what you can and cannot do, and the ultimate goal is still to get the game finished.

I have no idea why they're so popular these days. All they do is offer pointless (albiet sometimes fun) ways to get sidetracked. That works for things like GTA, but even in games like Assassin's Creed and Prototype it only served as a way to "run away", rather than something you actually want to go exploring in. For me, at least.

As for sandbox gaming FORSAKING plots, go check out Fallout 3 or GTA 4. Enough plot to be found.
As for your second point, games like the ones I just said have more than an illusion of freedom. Sure, Assassin's creed and Prototype didn't but they were not true sandbox games in my eyes.

The point I have with linear games is that they are often WAY too linear, for example Call of Duty. It forgoes player freedom to provide a movie like experience, but whenever there is a big fight and I want to get a vantage point so I can shoot the enemies safely I'm stopped by a wooden fence or a small bush... In games like Medal of Honor Airborne, you can just go kinda wherever you want. If only all shooter were like it. I think it provides a great combination of linearity and non-linearity.

 

[Meemaimoh]

As for sandbox gaming FORSAKING plots, go check out Fallout 3 or GTA 4. Enough plot to be found.
As for your second point, games like the ones I just said have more than an illusion of freedom. Sure, Assassin's creed and Prototype didn't but they were not true sandbox games in my eyes.

The point I have with linear games is that they are often WAY too linear, for example Call of Duty. It forgoes player freedom to provide a movie like experience, but whenever there is a big fight and I want to get a vantage point so I can shoot the enemies safely I'm stopped by a wooden fence or a small bush... In games like Medal of Honor Airborne, you can just go kinda wherever you want. If only all shooter were like it. I think it provides a great combination of linearity and non-linearity.

Like I said in my post, of course sandbox games can have great plots. I just believe that they're plots that could be better told in a more linear format. I don't mean totally linear, either. Just more linear.

Ah, but no matter how far you push the boundaries out, they're always going to be there, aren't they? Frankly, true limitless freedom would be impossible to create in a game. So why do so many sandbox games profess to offer it?

I agree that many games could be improved by adding a little non-linearity. Honestly, I think most games will eventually settle on a balance - such as you were describing with MoH - that will be near-perfect. I just think that sandbox games as we know them now are overrated and that people who feel totally free in such games are simply wrong (though of course, this speaks well of the game design, if it can create the illusion so effectively!).