So I've been thinking about open world sandbox games, and considering what it is to cut a player off when they're finished with the story.
It just doesn't sit right, does it?
I know that a few 'open world' games have done it; Saints Row, Fallout 3 - though I heard Broken Steel changes this, haven't completed the base game yet myself to find out for sure - and the upcoming Fallout: New Vegas won't allow you to continue once you're done with the story. However, I believe they said the game will auto-save before the last mission allowing you to go back and do whatever you missed, if I'm not mistaken.
But even that doesn't feel right.
What's the point in giving the player this massive area to explore and so many things to do if you're going to take it away from them when you're done? If you're playing a level-based game, you expect to not be able to keep exploring, because of the way the game and the mission structure is set up. But when it's an open world game, one can tend to feel a little bit cheated out of it.
Even with all the time given leading up to the end of the story, some players want to get the story out of the way so they can have that extra sandbox fun without feeling like they're obliged to get somewhere and do something for someone eventually.
It can tend to be a nagging feeling. Packie wants your help with that job, Niko, stop crashing your motorbike into fences at high speeds just to see how far you can slingshot yourself.
I don't know, maybe I've been spoiled by Rockstar Games...
Anyway, I hand this over to you, posters, what's your opinion on open-world games that in the end, really, aren't that open?
It just doesn't sit right, does it?
I know that a few 'open world' games have done it; Saints Row, Fallout 3 - though I heard Broken Steel changes this, haven't completed the base game yet myself to find out for sure - and the upcoming Fallout: New Vegas won't allow you to continue once you're done with the story. However, I believe they said the game will auto-save before the last mission allowing you to go back and do whatever you missed, if I'm not mistaken.
But even that doesn't feel right.
What's the point in giving the player this massive area to explore and so many things to do if you're going to take it away from them when you're done? If you're playing a level-based game, you expect to not be able to keep exploring, because of the way the game and the mission structure is set up. But when it's an open world game, one can tend to feel a little bit cheated out of it.
Even with all the time given leading up to the end of the story, some players want to get the story out of the way so they can have that extra sandbox fun without feeling like they're obliged to get somewhere and do something for someone eventually.
It can tend to be a nagging feeling. Packie wants your help with that job, Niko, stop crashing your motorbike into fences at high speeds just to see how far you can slingshot yourself.
I don't know, maybe I've been spoiled by Rockstar Games...
Anyway, I hand this over to you, posters, what's your opinion on open-world games that in the end, really, aren't that open?
