Too many Sandbox games?

[Jumplion]

Now, i like some Sandbox games, San Andreas comes to mind and so does Oblivion but lately i've been noticing a trend in these "Open-ended" games wether it's as open as GTA4 or just saying "You can choose to do your mission this way or that!" bullcrap i hear alot from developers.

Just out of the top of my head i think of:

Fallout 3 - oblivion esque game (from same developers as Oblivion)
Fable 2
Infamous
Mercinaries 2
Mass Effect 2
Bionic Commando
Mirrors Edge - as in "You can choose to go this way or that, think fast!"

and then when I check my most recent magazine:

MGS4 - the "This way or that" method
Alpha Protocol (if any of you even remember that)
Saints Row 2
and some other ones that i know were in there but i left it at a friends house.

you can agree or disagree on the definition of Sandbox game here, some of the games listed might not be a real sandbox game to you, and the list might not seem like alot of games to you.

I'm not saying that Sandbox games are bad, i love a good sandbox game (though probably as much as i want to like them) but it seems that there's a trend in games going from slightly linear to more "Open-world"-ish theme going on, especially with the whole "Make a descision, it will impact the rest of the game for you!" type of open-world games. Sometimes i just want a simple, linear plot to follow and not be bombardad with choices and wonder of what could have been.

Well? What are your thoughts on this?

(please, no angry responses like in the whole PC gaming is dieing and other crap like that)

 

[Easykill]

Man, I like choice. Story is great, and games have the unique ability to put youin the story, make you more than an observer. But if the game just flows past you and you don't really have an effect on anything, the effect isn't as pronounced. Instead of being the guy on the screen, you're simply observing him. I'm happy with choice becoming more available in games.

 

[BBLIZZARD]

i love sandbox style games but they did seem to increase after oblivion and crackdown were released. if they can do it right, then it's a good game, like mass effect which is one of my favorite games because they did the "pick your path" correctly. if one game does something odd but they do it right, there's gonna be a whole slew of copies and knockoffs, Army of Two ripping off Gears of War is a perfect example.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I guess the thing that bugs me about sandbox games is they're kinda running before they can walk, so I don't see why people think they're this grand solution.

Oblivion always gets brought up as an example because the NPC's are so repetitive and sterile. But it's not just Oblivion. When I play GTA I feel like I've been dropped into this massive level full of awesome activities and places for me to explore. But the people who live there...leave something to be desired.

I have no idea what I'd tell a developer to do to get around that. Write 1000's of different dialog trees and NPC's? Bioware employs an army of writers and even they can only do so much. I like the idea of a game where I can do whatever I want...but after a couple of hours of screwing around I just end up going back to the linear plot (or with just a few strict choices) anyways.

 

[Lystic7]

well out of the games you mention, all of them except maybe Bionic Commando and Alpha Portocal ( i know nothing abut those 2) all those games are pretty good or look to be very good games. I hate walking down a hallway in a linear game with a rocket launcher and being surronded by office doors i can't get in. It takes some effort so me to ignore things like that.

In a sandbox game, sure i can't go in every building, but it easier to over look since I can go about another 500 places at any given time. CrackDown and Assassin's Creed where also good games you missed on the list, i think these games are fun because u can turn them on and do alot of things, just messing around in the world, it's much more interactive.

But if you think about how many sandbox games that are out and compare them to the linear games, its like a 100 to 1 ratio. I think more AAA titles are becoming sandbox games which is what makes the trend so obvious. But i would think, as a developer, on your first game, make a big city, and add to it over sequals and you would save time on making level after level, plus in the end you would have a incredably deep sandbox game. I think that's the future for alot of games, since production cost are going up, they need ways to cut corner, but not screw gamers, and i think thats one of them.

To wrap it up, in a Movie like star wars, the story follows a linear path, but as you watch, you always wounder what is around the other corner, or the other choice and thats where games beat movies everytime. Like the new Borne game is ok, but its like watching a movie and hitting some buttons sometimes to keep the movie going, fo all that, just give me a cgi movie for 20 bucks.

In games, i like the idea of as much as possible, although games like scarface and true crime are horrible ways to make a sandbox game, you are always going o get some bad apples.

(Oh, and Midnight Club, and Burnout Paradise are some other sandbox games just to metnion them)

 

[fix-the-spade]

Sand Box gaming fits multplayer extremely well.

you only have to look at Battlefield and Halo 3 to see how customisation/choice can make for huge lifespans in game (I defy you all to get bored with GrifBall and Rocket baseball).

In single player games I'm less convinced by it. GTA and Mercenaries do it really well, but there only needs to be one or two game like that for each genre. Otherwise the market just fills up with me too clones.

Games with some Sand box elements, but an essentially linear path (like MGS4) seem to work quite well. You keep the strict progression, once you get from point A to B, you have to go to C rather than turn around and have a mooch around A, but you gain multiple approches.
It's better than most games from the last few years, where you play through once and every play through after that will be totally identical.

 

[Jumplion]

@Lystic 7 (sectioned off in your paragraphs)

2. I meant to list future Open-world games with the exception of MGS4.

1.Linear games can have some variety, different ways to over come a situation like CoD4 so you could enter a few other door ways.

3. Yeah, most of the AAA titles are becoming Open world titles, which is probably why it's more noticable trend.

I was going to say something else but i forgot what it was. Oh well.

 

[Lystic7]

L.B. Jeefeirs has some good points, but see, you excpect so much of a sandbox game becaus its much closer to a simulated reality. Think about a great game like Golden Eye 64. There 100s of faceless, unintresting bad guys to kill, and you would never care. But in a game like GTA, you see this world and expect everyone there to be life like and important.

I think GTA and Oblivon do a great job at creating a illusion of a living city, but ofcourse, if you look too close at the illusion, you will see the paper thing story writing and reapeted vocie and charecter.

But over time this will get better, in oblivon, all the people have names, and a programed daily routing, which is a step up from Morrowind.

In Gta, all the pedestians have diffrent cloths on, which is a step up from san andreas where you see alot of the same charecter modle repeated. over time they will make programs that just spawn more and more random and intresing NPCs. making the game closer to life, liner games will never create that kind of illusion

 

[the monopoly guy]

as long as we don't have crap like true crimes shoved down our throat I'm more then happy. damn why'd I buy that game

 

[Shadow Tyrant]

As I learned as a child, your sandbox can never be too big, and no amount of sand is too much.


Megaman Zero/ZX handled the concept nicely. The world is open, and you can choose which levels you want to do, and you can explore them any time you want. But the storyline is essentially set in stone.

 

[Squarewave]

I think sandbox games are the best single player games when done right. By that I mean they still have a storyline that you can follow if you don't care for just messing around.

What makes them better in my mind is that after you do the main story you can still go back and play in the sandbox without having to replay a plot that you know what will happen.

Its like with half life 2, and bioshock even tho they are great games that I had fun playing I haven't been able to get myself to replay them sence I know what happens. Now in Oblivion and GTA4 I play all the time and don't have to deal with the main story do to the amount of extra content

 

[Erana]

Its the next step in video gaming depth.

...Or at least that's what the dev's think.

 

[Isaac Dodgson]

There aren't too many sandbox games, no.

There are however too many games masquerading around as sandbox games giving the illusion of choice. Personally, I like games with multiple endings and story paths one could take and where choices you make in the game really will affect the rest of the game. However games that pretend to do that. (Bioshock, Mass Effect, GTA IV, etc...) whilst only having one plot line that might split once for two different endings, but normally doesn't change despite your actions throughout is very common place these days.

However, the term "Sandbox" has little to do with given choices and more on the freedom to do what you wish. This sounds the same on the surface but is fundamentally different. Games like San Andreas (and other GTA games), or Crackdown, or Saint's Row, or even your MMO's like WoW and City of Heroes/Villains can be termed "Sandbox" because of their nature. They don't force the player to follow the main plot, and instead allow them to do pretty much anything except complete part of the plot before you decide to progress on. Bioshock gave you little choice in anything other than when it came to the little sisters, Mass Effect could distract you with other small side missions that seemed so tedious that you would end up going back to the main plot, Assassin's Creed gave you three beautifully rendered cities, vast and detailed but with absolutely nothing to do but repetitive tasks that helped with the main story, and even GTA IV with the newly designed Liberty City has burned out a number of gamers because after the main story is done, there's nothing entirely interesting to do aside from loading an old save to get the other ending, or multilayer, and that's just not for everyone.

Making a game with multiple endings is hard to do though, as they have to write not one story, but several, all with the same character's and basic plot, but with those subtle differences that could confuse anyone. Making a sandbox game is no easy task either as a good sandbox game should give the player no shortage of things to do. Combining these two is damn near impossible to do really well, but it has been done. So no, there aren't too many sandbox games out there, and there aren't too many games that allow the player to make moral choices that will affect game play. They're are however too many games out there that try to do this and come up short.

 

[Jumplion]

There aren't too many sandbox games, no.

There are however too many games masquerading around as sandbox games giving the illusion of choice. Personally, I like games with multiple endings and story paths one could take and where choices you make in the game really will affect the rest of the game. However games that pretend to do that. (Bioshock, Mass Effect, GTA IV, etc...) whilst only having one plot line that might split once for two different endings, but normally doesn't change despite your actions throughout is very common place these days.

That might be what i'm getting pissy about. Games that claim they are sandboxed or actually have meaning and depth into them when it really comes down to Teresa Good or Devil Damned.

For example,

Spoiler

if you kill ONE little sister in Bioshock, you get the bad ending. that's not really (for lack of a better term) choice, that's just claiming it has morality parts.

 

[TheIceface]

I thought sandbox games were games where the user was allowed to create things. Games like Spore, Second Life, and Garrysmod come to mind.

Open world games is what I imagine the term is. I think the concept of an open world is great, but it only fits some games, other games are better off without it. When you are supposed to explore and search for things, open worlds can be fun, but if its a strictly linear game, they're kind of pointless some times.

 

[djapp]

I think Sandbox gaming is a glimpse into the future. Similar to when YouTube or social networking first started coming out. Obviously, there are a lot of bad games out there that fake the whole "choice" game dynamic (or worse, fake "moral" gameplay), but I don't see it as something we will ever get away from.

The philosophy will evolve to incorporate even more free will and consistently take up more and more market share until some random tipping point in the distant future when casual gamers revolt (which doesn't really make sense, as they are "casually" passionate by definition) and demand a straightforward platformer.

 

[Earthbound Engineer]

I love sandbox games. I could play those damn things all day if i didn't have a life. gta, mass effect, the elder scrolls, the sims, the movies, black and white, mercenaries, crackdown, fable, civilization, ice wind dale, lost odessy, fallout, blue draggon, two worlds, the darkness, skate, tony hawk, assasins creed,eternal sonata, beutiful katamari, overlord, ect, ect, ect, ect ,ect

 

[Isaac Dodgson]

I love sandbox games. I could play those damn things all day if i didn't have a life. gta, mass effect, the elder scrolls, the sims, the movies, black and white, mercenaries, crackdown, fable, civilization, ice wind dale, lost odessy, fallout, blue draggon, two worlds, the darkness, skate, tony hawk, assasins creed,eternal sonata, beutiful katamari, overlord, ect, ect, ect, ect ,ect

I'd love to sit you down and FORCE you to play these games all day long...your opinion will certainly change...

 

[Auron555]

Sandbox games can be fun, hell, I enjoyed running around San Andreas shooting things, but let me make an analogy: Surfing. Sure, one wave is totally ****ing sweet, but too many and you'll get crushed and drown. I fear that game devs swarm all over fads, exploiting every possibility until there's nothing left, then move on to the next victim.
One 'sandbox' game I liked was Jak II, and also 3, that had a linear progression that took place in a city that was great fodder for simply running around while you were bored.
So, sandboxes are fun if used well in small amounts, but don't overdo it or you'll end up wet and unhappy.

 

[runtheplacered]

However games that pretend to do that. (Bioshock, Mass Effect, GTA IV, etc...) whilst only having one plot line that might split once for two different endings

I've never heard anyone try to pretend Bioshock and Mass Effect are sandbox games. I would say they most certainly are not. (both very fun games, though)