An end to the Sandbox plague.

[Maximum Bert]

I noticed the upsurge in making games `sandbox` for no reason started after GTA3 was released. I dont mind a game being open world but like everything it must suit the game.

For me if a game says it is open world or sandbox that makes me seriously consider if I want it or not (in a bad way) as I find that for every few that provide a nice experience with a well realised world or one that fully embraces the sandbox nature of its design at its core there are far to many that just have open worlds that lack in any interaction and serve no purpose other than to waste time.

Back in the day I had all the time in the world to play games so doing menial tasks such as collecting some stupid collectable in an open world to try and give it some reason to exist was not so much of a problem but now my time is much more limited and I despise this filler content. Usually I find sandbox games are more filler than killer as they say, I would much prefer 5 hours of quality content than 100 hours of mediocre content when I game which is probably why I buy so few games now.

I think as is usually the case though its just a new fad that suits try and shoehorn into as many games as possible because the chart says it sells with little thought as to what would be best for the games structure. Will have to wait until someone manages to break the mould and the business sheep badly implement a new trend into their games.

 

[CaitSeith]

Plague? Hahahahaha!
It isn't even near half as bad than when the market was saturated of COD-clones!

 

[Rangaman]

You didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world, you bought it to bring out your hatred of people with un-stabbed necks.

I bought Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world actually.

Running around Italian cities is amazing and there's no cooler feeling than going to Florence or Venice on vacation and then finding your exact hotel room in the game because the historical town centers of those cities haven't changed in hundreds of years.

There's nothing wrong with open world games, it's not like you have to play all of them.

Isn't there a lot of annoying marker-driven gopher questing in AC though? I tried the first, and initially thought it was interesting and immersive, but then it started to feel like it ran out of steam, and I was playing the first hour or so over and over again. This seems to be the problem with a lot of Ubisoft games: big on ideas, but shallow on execution.

 

[Xprimentyl]

You didn't buy Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world, you bought it to bring out your hatred of people with un-stabbed necks.

I bought Assassin's Creed 2 for the open world actually.

Running around Italian cities is amazing and there's no cooler feeling than going to Florence or Venice on vacation and then finding your exact hotel room in the game because the historical town centers of those cities haven't changed in hundreds of years.

There's nothing wrong with open world games, it's not like you have to play all of them.

Isn't there a lot of annoying marker-driven gopher questing in AC though? I tried the first, and initially thought it was interesting and immersive, but then it started to feel like it ran out of steam, and I was playing the first hour or so over and over again. This seems to be the problem with a lot of Ubisoft games: big on ideas, but shallow on execution.

Yeah, while they are pretty to look at, once you strip back the window dressing, Assassin's Creeds and Far Cries are little more than empty spaces filled with collectibles.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Sandbox and open world are not the same thing. A game can be open world without being a sandbox. The OP uses the Witcher 3 as an example, but I definitely wouldn't call it a sandbox. These types of games have very few limitations placed on the player, essentially giving them some play tools and saying "go nuts".

For example, Mount and Blade is a sandbox game. You can play the game however you want, and you have no real obligation to do much of anything.

No Man's Sky is a sandbox game (albeit while the sandbox is huge, you're given very few tools to actually use in it).

In the Witcher 3, you play as Geralt and your overarching focus is to do the main quest. Yes you can go and do a ton of great sidequests, but you're never not Geralt. Not saying this is bad by the way (it's one of my top 3 games), I'm just saying that despite having an open world, it's not a sandbox.

There's a pile of shitty survival games out now that like to tack sandbox onto their sales pitch, and while I suppose the term is accurate, most aren't using the genre to its potential.

 

[Strazdas]

I dont agree. Open-World is a selling point for me. I like being able to adopt my playstyle, my approach, my way of playing and open-world games are the ones that allow me to do that the most. They also have a sense of scale. For example to get from one mission to another i need to travel across an island, full of emergent gameplay, instead of being magically teleported, or worse - see a cutscene.

Oh and as far as Assassins Creed goes, Open-worldness is one of the best things about it. You get to see cool historical cities you can go around and explore.

Isn't there a lot of annoying marker-driven gopher questing in AC though? I tried the first, and initially thought it was interesting and immersive, but then it started to feel like it ran out of steam, and I was playing the first hour or so over and over again. This seems to be the problem with a lot of Ubisoft games: big on ideas, but shallow on execution.

Thats the first AC for you. different cities but same exact missions. It gets better in later games.

Ubisoft always seem to be more about pushing the technological envelope than the gameplay one. and im totally fine with that.

 

[Soul of Cinder]

(I realise I?m also talking Open world and not sandbox here but oh well)

I wish games that are supposed to be story driven would remember that they are supposed to build a universe by atmosphere and narrative. I think a very good example of that is Dragon Age Inquisition- it feels like it has too little story to actually maintain some sort of relation to all the open world quests you are supposed to do. In what way is gathering 10 toilet paper and 5 WC Ducks related to the fact that you are the most powerful organization in two countries - don?t I have errand boys who can do that for the Inquisitor? It felt like the Devs were just forced to make X world maps but ran out of ideas after half of them, then decided to scatter the content over large vertical distance. However, something that DA:I does and Skyrim failed at, is to suppot the narrative of the main story visually. In Thedas, you will always find tracks of rebels, rogue templars, elves or dragons. If the dialogue in Skyrim hadnt mentioned the war- I wouldn?t even have noticed. Skyrim has very pretty places, but somehow it fails to bring across the whole conflict. Dragons destroying the world? No signs except of one burned village. A war? - Small groups of prisoners, some camps, but no battlefields or sieges.

Overall I think The Witcher 3 did a great job at making Open World - and I mean its huge - feel organic and meaningful. I was sceptical before I bought it, but was pleasently surprised that sidequests were diverse and well designed, just as the environment that wonderfully ells a story of its own.
My absolute favourite way of structuring a games world is the seamless approach Dark Souls and Bloodborne use. It?s challenging and fun to explore, because the levels have been carefully crafted and every corner holds another surprise. Finding a shortcut is rewarding, and since most levels connect the world feels huge while also being carefully designed and full of things to do.

After being let down by games that offer a "do whatever you please, here take the car key and have fun" approach I decided to not buy Fallout or the newest AC games either. Sandbox often feels like a lazy excuse for not having to come up with good mechanics or quests. After all, if Im going to pay 60$ for a product I expect that someones been putting effort into coming up with a way to keep me interested and entertained - otherwise I could just go and buy some Legos just as well.

 

[Rangaman]

Sandbox and open world are not the same thing. A game can be open world without being a sandbox. The OP uses the Witcher 3 as an example, but I definitely wouldn't call it a sandbox. These types of games have very few limitations placed on the player, essentially giving them some play tools and saying "go nuts".

For example, Mount and Blade is a sandbox game. You can play the game however you want, and you have no real obligation to do much of anything.

No Man's Sky is a sandbox game (albeit while the sandbox is huge, you're given very few tools to actually use in it).

In the Witcher 3, you play as Geralt and your overarching focus is to do the main quest. Yes you can go and do a ton of great sidequests, but you're never not Geralt. Not saying this is bad by the way (it's one of my top 3 games), I'm just saying that despite having an open world, it's not a sandbox.

There's a pile of shitty survival games out now that like to tack sandbox onto their sales pitch, and while I suppose the term is accurate, most aren't using the genre to its potential.

A sandbox is a feature, not a genre in itself. Sandbox and open world are interchangeable terms.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Well, if your memories were more recent, you'd probably remeber that HL1 and HL2 do linearity in different ways and HL2 is not "as linear" as HL1. Because HL1 features quite a bit of exploration and backtracking, which was common to games of that time. HL2 got rid of all this and is just always forward. You're always on rails and never visit the same location twice. Which is a boring approach and it feels very tired nowadays.
HL1 has some retro appeal. HL2 is just an old modern game without much replay value.

Let me illustrate the truth of this statement by directing you to the first level and the Blast Pit level in Half-Life. The first level prior to the experiment has you go through a reception and recreation area and a few test areas before you get to the experiment. After the experiments turns into a disaster, you have to backtrack through the labs and reception area to reach the exit. Not only does it re-use areas, it is also some great environmental storytelling to see how much destruction the alien invasions causes.

In Blast Pit You have to activate a bunch of fuel lines so that you can burn away the monster sitting in the middle of the blast pit. To get to them you have to get into the blast pit and access tree separate areas before heading back to the top of the pit to activate the test engine. A brief time later you get to the On Rails section, in which you have to navigate a maze of train tracks to find the exit.

Half-Life was certainly linear, but it also subscribed to the late-90's school of level design, which emphasized backtracking, intricate, multi level maps and plenty of "side rooms" that offered pick ups, but also served to flesh out the environment. Half-Life 2 , in contrast, was one of the first games to use the mid-00's form of level design, which focused much more on linear maps and scripted events to drive the player forward. Half-Life 2 got away with it at the time because its' scripted scenes were groundbreaking, but it aged much more badly then its' predecessor due to it.

 

[Skatalite]

Remember Half-Life 2?

The problem is that a good portion of the fickle market would slam a game like Half Life 2 if it were released today for being "too linear".

It is. Most people that "remember Half Life 2" haven't played it in a long long while and forgot how linear and boring it is.

Right, I'm sure all those HL2 fans only forgot they agree with your opinion. Except I played it last year and enjoyed it just as much.
I'd take linear games like it over all those recent quantity over quality open world games any day.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Sandbox and open world are not the same thing. A game can be open world without being a sandbox. The OP uses the Witcher 3 as an example, but I definitely wouldn't call it a sandbox. These types of games have very few limitations placed on the player, essentially giving them some play tools and saying "go nuts".

For example, Mount and Blade is a sandbox game. You can play the game however you want, and you have no real obligation to do much of anything.

No Man's Sky is a sandbox game (albeit while the sandbox is huge, you're given very few tools to actually use in it).

In the Witcher 3, you play as Geralt and your overarching focus is to do the main quest. Yes you can go and do a ton of great sidequests, but you're never not Geralt. Not saying this is bad by the way (it's one of my top 3 games), I'm just saying that despite having an open world, it's not a sandbox.

There's a pile of shitty survival games out now that like to tack sandbox onto their sales pitch, and while I suppose the term is accurate, most aren't using the genre to its potential.

A sandbox is a feature, not a genre in itself. Sandbox and open world are interchangeable terms.

Upon further investigation, you're right. I always thought they were different since both are tags for Steam games and not all games that use one use the other. Maybe it started as something different and companies just used it as the new hot word to throw on the box, so it lost any individual meaning.

 

[Kerg3927]

OP, I agree however it's the trend in gaming right now just like how FPSs were the thing back in the 90s/2000s. It's really WOWs fault for the current direction most games have gone.

That's my theory, too. WoW indoctrinated an entire generation of casual gamers who think that the pinnacle of gaming is to log on and wander around aimlessly doing random fetch quests and dailies for hours, with no focused story and no challenge. Busy work. A time waster. Skyrim tapped into that market with great success. And now everyone is copying it.

It's obviously a selling point, because people are buying it. The only way to stop it is to vote with your pocketbook.

I'm absolutely dreading the release of Mass Effect Andromeda. As a HUGE fan of the first Mass Effect trilogy - I have an N7 bumper sticker on my car! - I think it's going to be DAI in space, a totally unnecessarily massive open world epic disaster. It's going to ruin the franchise for those who loved the focused, hard-edged story of the prior games. Just like it ruined the Dragon Age series.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yeah, while they are pretty to look at, once you strip back the window dressing, Assassin's Creeds and Far Cries are little more than empty spaces filled with collectibles.

Hey! I don't know about AssCreed, but Far Cry is usually filled to the brim with very useful unstabbed backs!

Yeah, but WHY were you stabbing those backs?

Don?t get me wrong, I enjoy Far Cries? cathartic illusion of freedom when I just want to relax and shoot some shit, but on the whole, I can?t really say it?s a great overall franchise because a lot of the effort of development goes into fleshing out largely inconsequential busy space! I would love if instead of making me upgrade my weapons and skills by doing the same looting actions over and over again to find materials, they had put in some friendly NPCs to send me on meaningful quests or something more substantive than trekking through the forest to hunt down 8 more ?badger dicks? to craft bulletproof ass-less chaps. Or let me earn upgrades after battling my way through unique enemy strongholds with unique mini-bosses instead of the copy-paste affairs they always do. It?s always the same: climb the tower to reveal copy-pasted locations on the map, then go to those places and do the same shit you just did a half-dozen times already again.

 

[Zombie Proof]

I don't get the OP's point. Neither do I get these kind of "we need less X and more Y" threads. I was under the impression that there has never been more variety in gaming than what exists today. You might be under the impression that there's an overabundance of bland open world sandbox titles and less linear quality ones if you're basing what's available off of the deluge of AAA marketing. A modicum of critical thought and a little research would reveal that it simply isn't the case.

There is no sandbox plague. The controlling idea of this thread is false.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Right, I'm sure all those HL2 fans only forgot they agree with your opinion.

Yeah, but WHY were you stabbing those backs?

Ooh! Ooh! I can explain!
First you crouch. Then you leap. And then you stab and there's this little fountain of blood and you feel fun. And then you drag it into the bushes so that no one can see the corpse. And then you eat it to become stronger! Oops, wrong game.
But wait, there's more! You then stab more, and more, and more yet, and after a while you realize, that all this time the game hath stayed obediently silent and did not try to educate you on some bullshit you don't care about. And then it becomes really fun. Because you're free to do whatever following your most favorite head-canon, and no one prevents you from doing so. And no one calls you every 15 seconds like a clingy girlfriend to tell you that you should pick up the wrench and hit those stones when there's nothing else to pick up but that wrench and there's nothing to do but smash those stones. And that feeling is amazing. Being off the leash. Thinking for yourself. Ignoring all of the useless shit and just stabbing backs because it feels fun.
That's why I stab those backs. Because no one tells me to. And because I like doing it.

A very cogent argument... or at least I'm sure you thought so.

 

[RaikuFA]

This reminds me of the "stop making JRPGs" topic back when MMS were at the height of their popularity.