Problems With The Sandbox
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Personally, I think the best open world game was Mount and Blade: Warband, it fixed a lot of the problems of the first one, and since it doesn't have guns like the next game, bandits can't kill half your party late in the game. Sure, it might not have the up close detail of Skyrim or Sleeping Dogs, but it is so deep. You start off like any RPG, but you'll notice that some of your skills have to do with party management, but since on might be used to a game like Skyrim, you ignore them to make yourself skilled in combat. As the game goes on, with you mastering the complex yet intuitive combat system, gaining favour with the local lords and ladies and slowly amassing your party.
Then a major war will inevitably break out, and then you'll be tasked with taking a city. Its around this point that your realize that your small party is now an army and then the game turns into a really interesting blend of RTS and RPG. Sure, the RTS bit is optional, you can always just let your troops charge and wade in with them, but using it will get you the best result. And then you'll either slowly start amassing your land and becoming a vassal to the king (or suitable equal) or you can do, what else, take over the world.
Then a major war will inevitably break out, and then you'll be tasked with taking a city. Its around this point that your realize that your small party is now an army and then the game turns into a really interesting blend of RTS and RPG. Sure, the RTS bit is optional, you can always just let your troops charge and wade in with them, but using it will get you the best result. And then you'll either slowly start amassing your land and becoming a vassal to the king (or suitable equal) or you can do, what else, take over the world.
Great article. Totally agree about the problem with money, it just becomes redundant after a while. It was most noticeable in Assassin's Creed, where my banks fill up because I'm making too much money. I felt it was less of a problem in GTA IV because weapons were pretty expensive; that said, what were you supposed to do with the $250,000 that was your share of the bank robbery proceeds? It would have made more sense if you bought your safe houses with it. The idea of losing it all in the final act is a great one. I would really applaud a game which took such a bold step.
On the other side of things, I think Just Cause 2 messed things up. I got all these cool preorder bonuses such as signature guns, but to carry on using them would require me to keep on spending cash on ammo, so I stuck with the standard SMGs and rifles you find within the game world. And when you purchase something as DLC you don't expect to keep having to pay in game to use it. So it's a fine balance between giving the player enough money to have the things they want but not making it TOO easy.
On the other side of things, I think Just Cause 2 messed things up. I got all these cool preorder bonuses such as signature guns, but to carry on using them would require me to keep on spending cash on ammo, so I stuck with the standard SMGs and rifles you find within the game world. And when you purchase something as DLC you don't expect to keep having to pay in game to use it. So it's a fine balance between giving the player enough money to have the things they want but not making it TOO easy.
I've always felt the first Mafia did time-keeping well; partly because it does something as simple as putting the date up in the middle of a black screen (AC has all the Animus-construction stuff going on at the same time), and since it begins at the end you're very much aware of the years creeping forward.
Open world games just don't work that well with grander storylines, I'm pretty certain a trope exists for2 days till the end of the world I'll get to it in a week, FF7 rising multiple generations of Chocbo within the time it takes for the meteor to fall and I can't even till how many times I put off doing an urgent mission in Elder Scrolls, it's okay because enemies seem to just hang around outside the gate till you show up, it really seems to lessen the threat once you realize the villains work by your schedule or makes sidequests less fun because the constant reminder to do the main story feels like the game is yelling at you for not playing it right. Saints Row worked based for me story wise because I felt no rush or push to do the main story and the character are psychotic enough to just put off doing something so they could drive around shooting people.
Red Faction Guerilla did have the bad guys take something important away from you, but in a rather poorly executed way. In the middle of an important mission, the bad guys attack and destroy your safehouse in the Badlands. The Badlands are freakin' huge, so even if you didn't care about the rebels who got killed, you'll definitely feel it once you realize there's a hundred miles of desert between your new safehouse and anywhere else.
But you never get it back, and it's just a longer commute, so it rapidly stops being "Curse you, EDF!" and starts being "Curse you, game designers!"
But you never get it back, and it's just a longer commute, so it rapidly stops being "Curse you, EDF!" and starts being "Curse you, game designers!"
Wasn't Mafia 2 like that? Silly and trite as the story was, it kept a pretty good "see how time has passed" kind of thing after the arrest, and it even robs you of all of your fancy suits in the raid that causes you to flee to your buddy's house in your underpants, causing you to more or less start anew. They don't take your cars, if I remember right, which is kind of weird, but hey, close enough. It could really have used more to buy, however.
Didn't GTA: Vice City do almost exactly that? When you bought properties it unlocked additional missions and then at the end, they try to destroy all your property and the final mission is taking down the guy that tried to take your stuff away.
I've never played GTA IV, but Vice City has always been my favorite sandbox game from the PS2 era.
I've never played GTA IV, but Vice City has always been my favorite sandbox game from the PS2 era.
San Andreas did something similar to the trick described in the last paragraph. Around mid-game Tenpenny takes your character hostage and he robs you of your guns (not sure about the cash), essentially making you start from the beginning in a new, remote location. I remember reacting just like described ("My guuuuuuuuuuuns!") 
Open Sandbox games don't have to be incompatible with time limits. Star Control 2 and the origial Fallout are the best examples of this. Although SC 2 probably does it better because it's a soft time limit: you never get a "Time's Up-Game Over" message, but if you faff about too long the map becomes filled with extremely powerful enemies that inevitably exhaust your limited resources.
On the other hand, not every game needs to do this or will necessarily be better for it-part of the appeal of Skyrim is that you're free to do whatever you want and the impending apocalypse can go take a smoke break while I fart around.
On the other hand, not every game needs to do this or will necessarily be better for it-part of the appeal of Skyrim is that you're free to do whatever you want and the impending apocalypse can go take a smoke break while I fart around.
Yeah, it's like in Poacher! Once you've bought all the items in the shop, the gold coins dropped by enemies become entirely pointless!
I know this example is not even remotely in the same genre, but I was very impressed by the rings mechanic in the Sonic games. Not only were they the "currency" used to get extra lives, but also served as a buffer to prevent being killed instantly. It was pretty creative.
Demon's Souls might be a bit closer, with the Souls currency being used for... Well, everything. Leveling the character, upgrading the bonfires, buying items....
I know this example is not even remotely in the same genre, but I was very impressed by the rings mechanic in the Sonic games. Not only were they the "currency" used to get extra lives, but also served as a buffer to prevent being killed instantly. It was pretty creative.
Demon's Souls might be a bit closer, with the Souls currency being used for... Well, everything. Leveling the character, upgrading the bonfires, buying items....
GTA 2 made you pay for your saves. Quite a hefty whack too- on a new game, you actually had to play a fair few missions to be able to save. But then with each mission you complete, you get a multiplier- and the value of the missions goes up as well. Thus breaking the economy. Helpfully though it resets (I think) at each new area.
On which, you have to reach a target to get to the new area. So, trick out a car with a bunch of upgrades (that you'll lose when it blows up anyway), or go forward?
On which, you have to reach a target to get to the new area. So, trick out a car with a bunch of upgrades (that you'll lose when it blows up anyway), or go forward?
When it comes down to it, it's all about the rewards. Yea, money is meaningless if it doesn't do anything for you. Personally I think the whole achievement/trophy system is meaningless so a lot of the activities in open world games are pointless.
The problem with GTA4 was that I wasn't compelled to do the side missions because the only reward was some achievement trophy. I did everything in San Andreas because every side mission and activity gave you rewards you could use in the game.
Same thing with Fallout 3: you feel compelled to explore everything because you might find something cool to use in the game.
The problem with GTA4 was that I wasn't compelled to do the side missions because the only reward was some achievement trophy. I did everything in San Andreas because every side mission and activity gave you rewards you could use in the game.
Same thing with Fallout 3: you feel compelled to explore everything because you might find something cool to use in the game.
I think the problem with sandbox games is simply that they try and be too story based in what is supposed to be a freeform setting. Story missions are important, but they shouldn't be quite as dramatic or "apocolypse looming over your head" all the time to make going out and doing your own thing seem inappropriate under the circumstances.
Time limits don't appeal to me, because in games like "Dead Rising" they generally mean I can't do what I want to and explore how I want to, without losing the overall game. Arbitrarly losing all of your hard work is also a "no-no" IMO because it defeats the entire purpose of the game, and if I know that's coming, I'm not going to be motivated to put in the time and effort.
To be honest I think current game designers need to look back to what older game designers were able to do. For example in the old "Crusaders Of The Dark Savant" game a big part of the game revolved around trying to find a bunch of maps that when linked together allowed you to get to the Macguffin the game revolved around. The thing was that there were other factions looking for the same maps, and a timer of sorts in place, if you spent too long faffing about (as Yahtzee put it) one of the other factions would take it, and then you'd have to find the proper NPCs (which themselves moved around, searching) to get it back, which could involve killing them or buying it depending on what faction they were in relation to who you allied with (or you could just kill everyone if you were a complete sociopath, but desicians like that could impact the ending and how the sequel began if you saved and transferred your data).
I'll also say this entire "Jetpack" fixation is starting to annoy me. I understand why a lot of people want them, but all of those reasons are also a big part of why they aren't something likely to be implemented heavily. Simply put, being able to fly over the content tends to ruin a lot of it, in a sandbox game you no longer have to really worry about the police, traffic, etc... in Morrowwind being able to fly basically meant that you could ignore everything except the jillions of cliff racers if you were so inclined. Flying in a lot of games pretty much reduces a lot of the challenge to zero, and also admittedly cuts down on gameplay due to reduced travel times, and requires a lot more work to make sure everything looks smooth from above, where things can be more easily hidden from a ground based player. Unless your point is to trivialize a lot of the general world content (like in a lot of super hero games) and want to retain the challenge, it means having to design with three dimensions in mind. To say make a crime game as challenging if you jet pack from place to place, you'd pretty much have to put thugs with rocket launchers or whatever on every building, or greatly expand the number of air based enemies (police choppers, etc...). In some cases this could really ruin the vibe, especially if you plan to make your game seem at least partially serious.
Likewise, flying would kind of ruin a lot of those collection quests where half the point is to make people jump into awkward places. A good flight system that retains the player's abillity to act normally, kind of makes jumping and related puzzles and challenges irrelevent.
Opinions vary of course, personally I like being able to fly in games (so don't misunderstand this) but I understand why we don't see more of it, and I think a lot of gamers need to understand that, as well as why such abillities if they exist tend to be VERY late game OR limited to specific sections that are built around them.
Time limits don't appeal to me, because in games like "Dead Rising" they generally mean I can't do what I want to and explore how I want to, without losing the overall game. Arbitrarly losing all of your hard work is also a "no-no" IMO because it defeats the entire purpose of the game, and if I know that's coming, I'm not going to be motivated to put in the time and effort.
To be honest I think current game designers need to look back to what older game designers were able to do. For example in the old "Crusaders Of The Dark Savant" game a big part of the game revolved around trying to find a bunch of maps that when linked together allowed you to get to the Macguffin the game revolved around. The thing was that there were other factions looking for the same maps, and a timer of sorts in place, if you spent too long faffing about (as Yahtzee put it) one of the other factions would take it, and then you'd have to find the proper NPCs (which themselves moved around, searching) to get it back, which could involve killing them or buying it depending on what faction they were in relation to who you allied with (or you could just kill everyone if you were a complete sociopath, but desicians like that could impact the ending and how the sequel began if you saved and transferred your data).
I'll also say this entire "Jetpack" fixation is starting to annoy me. I understand why a lot of people want them, but all of those reasons are also a big part of why they aren't something likely to be implemented heavily. Simply put, being able to fly over the content tends to ruin a lot of it, in a sandbox game you no longer have to really worry about the police, traffic, etc... in Morrowwind being able to fly basically meant that you could ignore everything except the jillions of cliff racers if you were so inclined. Flying in a lot of games pretty much reduces a lot of the challenge to zero, and also admittedly cuts down on gameplay due to reduced travel times, and requires a lot more work to make sure everything looks smooth from above, where things can be more easily hidden from a ground based player. Unless your point is to trivialize a lot of the general world content (like in a lot of super hero games) and want to retain the challenge, it means having to design with three dimensions in mind. To say make a crime game as challenging if you jet pack from place to place, you'd pretty much have to put thugs with rocket launchers or whatever on every building, or greatly expand the number of air based enemies (police choppers, etc...). In some cases this could really ruin the vibe, especially if you plan to make your game seem at least partially serious.
Likewise, flying would kind of ruin a lot of those collection quests where half the point is to make people jump into awkward places. A good flight system that retains the player's abillity to act normally, kind of makes jumping and related puzzles and challenges irrelevent.
Opinions vary of course, personally I like being able to fly in games (so don't misunderstand this) but I understand why we don't see more of it, and I think a lot of gamers need to understand that, as well as why such abillities if they exist tend to be VERY late game OR limited to specific sections that are built around them.
Vice City sort of approached the whole "demand we buy a car so we can get into the next mission" thing. The "major" properties all had missions associated with them (from races to car-jacking to robbing a bank to... you get the idea). Hell, the final story mission (which, btw, is the bad guys *trying* to steal all the money you've worked so hard for) is only unlockable after you've completed certain of those jobs.
That being said - I enjoyed that aspect tremendously, and wish sandbox-type games would do that sort of thing more often.
Now you've got me thinking, though - what about a time-travel gimmick? I know they're overused, but... why not a sandbox version of Majora's Mask, where you can jump back and forth through a given time period with the "end of the world" coming down the line? Maybe combine that with the Fable 3 mechanic of "the more money you spend, the easier the final fight gets"...
Something worth thinking about, I guess.
That being said - I enjoyed that aspect tremendously, and wish sandbox-type games would do that sort of thing more often.
Now you've got me thinking, though - what about a time-travel gimmick? I know they're overused, but... why not a sandbox version of Majora's Mask, where you can jump back and forth through a given time period with the "end of the world" coming down the line? Maybe combine that with the Fable 3 mechanic of "the more money you spend, the easier the final fight gets"...
Something worth thinking about, I guess.
Mankind is Yet to Recognize My Genius, would have the rival villain take 1 million dollars (just as much cash the protagonist villain would get from doing all the required story missions right before the final act) right before the final act. Also, jetpacks.
Jetpacks just like in Just Cause 2 (as in costing the same as a new gun/ammo refill).
Speaking of disappointing sandbox games (Sleeping Dogs, not Just Cause), Saints Row the Third really failed by making the hacker dude immediately trash your money account before you would use any money. It would work if you could at least buy one thing, and then Matt's ugly face would show up on a television screen and yell, "CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT, SAINTS' BOSS!"
Jetpacks just like in Just Cause 2 (as in costing the same as a new gun/ammo refill).
Speaking of disappointing sandbox games (Sleeping Dogs, not Just Cause), Saints Row the Third really failed by making the hacker dude immediately trash your money account before you would use any money. It would work if you could at least buy one thing, and then Matt's ugly face would show up on a television screen and yell, "CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT, SAINTS' BOSS!"
My biggest problem with the way many sandbox games are constructed, and I think it's mainly the fault of GTA, is how arbitrarily restrictive the missions often are. There's a mission early in Assassin's Creed 2 where you have to escort your family out of Florence. So, OK, you can't just do your free-running shenanigans because your dragging a couple of family members around, which is fine, that makes sense, but then there's also checkpoints that you have to walk through for no reason other than the designers don't want you to wander off their plan for the quest. What's the point of making a big open city with lots of paths if the story missions are going to render them irrelevant? Actually, no, I've got that the wrong way around; what's the point of the story missions if they render the big open city irrelevant?
My main problem with open world games is the 1st point Yatzhee mentions. In fact, I didn't like GTA 4 because of the dissonance between story mode Belic and shenanigans Belic.
Story mode Belic is not amoral, which pulls me off the game. I am sorry, but I can't take seriously his dark and angsty past, where you may have killed or lost someone one moment, and then travel to the next mission in a road paved with dead pedestrians...
The time dissonance is a symptom of the same issue. Its hard to take any time sensitive threat seriously when you can loose yourself in sidequests. A recent example of this is Arkham City, where you can
or just go spend several hours trying to get some collectibles or solving puzzles.
Story mode Belic is not amoral, which pulls me off the game. I am sorry, but I can't take seriously his dark and angsty past, where you may have killed or lost someone one moment, and then travel to the next mission in a road paved with dead pedestrians...
The time dissonance is a symptom of the same issue. Its hard to take any time sensitive threat seriously when you can loose yourself in sidequests. A recent example of this is Arkham City, where you can
go chase a rogue ninja, stop an assault, prevent helicopters to blow up half a city, save your girlfriend
