Why are there no Japanese sandbox games?

[CATB320]

Because in Japan you don't get to choose anything.
You go where they want you to go, dammit.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Well, for the most part, Prototype is no more a sandbox than any of the earlier Final Fantasy games, which provide freedom of exploration but a linear story, just as Prototype does. I'd go as far to say the Persona games are MORE non-linear than most western games, as a large part of their mechanics is based around time management, but none of them are sandboxes.

A sandbox is a game like Garry's Mod.

So if we use the definition of sandbox you are using; then yes, the Japanese do make sandbox games, such as the Persona series. If we use the actual definition then why aren't Westerners making more sandbox games outside of mods as well? The answer is because they rarely sell. Something like Garry's Mod does sell because it has the popularity of the source engine backing it, but very few similar games are so fortunate.

There is no sandbox element to doing the same thing over and over like in the Persona games. "Lets run up this tower and just do the same damn thing over and over for 150 levels." I don't disagree with your other points, but just running around in a 3d environment does not make it sandbox.

 

[Yopaz]

Westerner: Here, heff game with 100% freedom in dynamic world!

Japanese: What do?

Westerner: Play?

Japanese: No story of angsty teens, what do?

OT: Or something.

I read this and wonder why Final Fantasy VII is considered the greatest game of all time by so many... The game that started the whole trend of main characters being emo.

OT: I don't know, it just seems like their formula is to wander through a linear game then give you lots of freedom throughout the end, yet this doesn't mean you get the ability to do anything you couldn't do before, just go places you couldn't go before or do new side quests and such. I've never really thought about it.

Every sandbox game I listed also has dicking around. Name one that does not.

Saints Row and Saints Row 2. No dicking around in either of those games. Except for every side quest, every minigame, every mission and every moment between missions.

 

[DracoSuave]

I see what you did thar

 

[AmaterasuGrim]

Depends on what we think sandbox is personally i see anything thing with huge open map/ or maps as a sandbox which japan & US have plenty sandbox titles, only difference is japan strays away from the part of sandbox westerners enjoy the kill everything that move's cause the story just got boring or that guy cut me off or that guy insulted me so i have to kill everyone on this block whilst japan sandbox usually never let you kill civilians or jack car & so on japan has the map size just not the same amount of freedom as western sandbox.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

you know thats a really strange question.

alot of research says western literature is goal driven while eastern luxuriates in laberynthine concepts (from the work: Understanding comics by Scott Mcloud)

i don't know when i think like this, i guess japenese games offer thought through enterpretation of a presented narrative rather than through a world like the sandbox. this is however a question that needs gratuitous study to answer i don't think you'll get answers any other way.

this question is definately going to occupy my mind for days now.

 

[ArchAngelKira]

Maybe they'll do it when they get Japanese to play shooters

 

[teisjm]

You could easily argue, that Zelda is a sandbox game, with the big open world, and sidequests.

While those describe sandbox games, those are not the defining characteristic.

It's the ability to just fuck around as a valid, and fun, aspect of gameplay. Zelda doesn't really have rewarding fucking around. You go, you sword some monsters... which you'd be doing anyways.

In a sandbox game, You're grabbing a car, driving up stairs, hitting pedestrians, setting things on fire by ramming into them with a flaming death machine, getting out, stomping a few hookers, and then grabbing an ambulance so you can blare your sirens while running over grannies.... and NONE of it has any point. You're not grinding 'XP' or making money or doing anything but pissing around for the sake of pissing around. And there's no punishment for it above maybe some cops chasing you down until the game either kills you in a spectacular explosion, or gives up cause you outran them or whatever. There's no narrative consequence, no in-game punishment... just going around and playing randomly and with impunity.

It's this emergent 'make your own fun' style game play that differentiates the sandbox from the standard action-adventure.

While i*m willing to accept that zelda is not as open as say GTA, it narrows down what qualifies as a sandbox game a lot.
GTA specificly values you for fucking aroudn killing civilians (i remember GTA mainly from GTA 2 the seem from above 2D one) where you get a bonus for running over the entire elvis look-alike gang, or the hare-krishnas, "elvis has left the building" sort of stuff.

But still, this sortof de-quialifies games like infamous and prototype, since theres no in-game acknowledgement of you killing civilians, neither good nor bad. It's something you can do, but the game has no reaction whatsoever to you doing so, okay infamous has the retarded moral-meter, but still apart from the tiny fractions it moves, it doesnøt affect the overall game.

Your definition of sandbox narrows it down to games almost requiring you to be a criminal, since it needs to have a reaction other than "game over" to going on a killing spree, which works terribly in games where you're the hero (most games if you think about it) since it otherwise doesn't make sense with the general plot.

Would you consider Baldurs gate (a game i love btw) a sandbox game, since you can attack and kill civilians, but with more dire consequenses than GTA, since it takes a more realistic approach to you going on a killing spree, by getting the guards and cowled wizards on your neck, most likely killing you? While the actions is possible, they'd most likely hurt you too much to be worth it.
So by that defenition, it leaves sandbox to include only games, where no-one truly cares about your actions. In GTA sure, you get cops on your tail, but they're lost in a matter of minutes, and then everything is back to normal, which isn't really deep (the specific mechanic, not the total sum of he games parts), compared to games where your actions will have a lasting implication on the rest of your playthrough.

My point beeing, sandbox isn't limited to games where you can kill everyone, with no major consequenses.

 

[DracoSuave]

My point beeing, sandbox isn't limited to games where you can kill everyone, with no major consequenses.

You're right, it isn't the 'be a criminal' aspect that makes things sandboxes. It's the ability to set aside any narrative, simply do whatever you want, and have that be an expected part of game play.

In Baldur's Gate, you could go around killing civilians, but that's not the gameplay, and the game generally discourages that. Even games like Ultima IV, while allowing total freedom, did eventually punish you for taking actions it deemed immoral, to the point of making it impossible to win.

The idea is having a giant playground of stuff to do with no purpose. It's not the lawlessness that defines them, it's the purposelessness and lack of consequence which is why Minecraft IS a sandbox game. You do whatever you want. There's no punishment or narrative reward. All you're doing is purposeless minecrafting.

There's lots of games that give you relative freedom. But it's not the freedom that makes it a sandbox. it's not the large area to explore. It's not even the exploration itself. It's the ability to simply do nothing important, and make your own fun doing whatever.

That's why it's called a sandbox. It's a big area to play in. They're named after the part of the playground that isn't about climbing, or swinging, or seeing how far you can jump... or any of that. It's the part of the playground where a kid sits, does whatever the hell he wants. One kid makes roads for his hotwheels. Another turns it into forts for his h i joes. A third digs moats for his imaginary castle hatred.

The word 'sandbox' is used because it's a metaphor for that purposeless freedom combined with endless possibilities, of emergent gameplay resounding from a childlike desire to simply play.

The best sandboxes don't just have a story... they also don't make the story hijack your fun. This may be one of the reasons why GTA4 isn't spoken of as highly... because the game kept trying to interrupt your dicking around with Roman wanting to see American Teetees. It kept reminding you that there's some story going on, like a parent telling you 'come back inside for dinner!'

 

[teisjm]

Spoiler

My point beeing, sandbox isn't limited to games where you can kill everyone, with no major consequenses.

You're right, it isn't the 'be a criminal' aspect that makes things sandboxes. It's the ability to set aside any narrative, simply do whatever you want, and have that be an expected part of game play.

In Baldur's Gate, you could go around killing civilians, but that's not the gameplay, and the game generally discourages that. Even games like Ultima IV, while allowing total freedom, did eventually punish you for taking actions it deemed immoral, to the point of making it impossible to win.

The idea is having a giant playground of stuff to do with no purpose. It's not the lawlessness that defines them, it's the purposelessness and lack of consequence which is why Minecraft IS a sandbox game. You do whatever you want. There's no punishment or narrative reward. All you're doing is purposeless minecrafting.

There's lots of games that give you relative freedom. But it's not the freedom that makes it a sandbox. it's not the large area to explore. It's not even the exploration itself. It's the ability to simply do nothing important, and make your own fun doing whatever.

That's why it's called a sandbox. It's a big area to play in. They're named after the part of the playground that isn't about climbing, or swinging, or seeing how far you can jump... or any of that. It's the part of the playground where a kid sits, does whatever the hell he wants. One kid makes roads for his hotwheels. Another turns it into forts for his h i joes. A third digs moats for his imaginary castle hatred.

The word 'sandbox' is used because it's a metaphor for that purposeless freedom combined with endless possibilities, of emergent gameplay resounding from a childlike desire to simply play.

The best sandboxes don't just have a story... they also don't make the story hijack your fun. This may be one of the reasons why GTA4 isn't spoken of as highly... because the game kept trying to interrupt your dicking around with Roman wanting to see American Teetees. It kept reminding you that there's some story going on, like a parent telling you 'come back inside for dinner!'

I can see your point, the only thing is, it leaves many of the games generally considered sandboxes as not beeing sandboxes.
Minecraft would be amongst the rare example that fit your criteria, EVE online as well.
Even GTA, any of them, has consequenses for your actions, the police just ain't as powerfull as in other games, like baldurs gate.

"It's the ability to simply do nothing important, and make your own fun doing whatever."
As for what you do with a game, most games that are not completely linear allows you to dick around doing whatever, i've spend many hours in mario 64 doing stuff that had little to nothing to do with the actual objectives. I've seen my friends jump around in Half life death-match with that energy gun thingy that pusped your in the opposite direction of where you fired (gauss gun?) SO that criteria really doesn't leave a lot of games out, since the biggest limit is what the user is capable of turning into his or her own fun.
Many MMO's have tons of people doing stuff not nececerily helping them towards the end-game, even less open-ended RPG's than EVE.