Sandbox Game Question

[Something Amyss]

I didn't know how to succinctly ask this in the title.

For years, a friend of mine has expressed her desire to have a truly huge-scale map, like we're getting with modern sandbox games, but with a focus more on a smaller chunk of territory. The idea being that you have a large and diverse area that represents more a large town or small city or something to that effect.

It always strikes me as weird to think that towns in GTA V are sometimes only a few streets, and the Alamo Sea is smaller than lakes I grew up near. Or that it seems like a Los Angeles analogue is populated by maybe a few thousand people. To me, the end result is that the small towns I grew up in and around feel bigger than San Andreas.

But I'm wondering if people would buy such a thing. Most games focus around big cities like LA or New York or Chicago or New York or New York analogues or New York, or...did I mention New York yet?

Anyway, it's probably done for good reason, and I can't help but think that part of that is popular appeal and sort of identification. You don't need to even be American to have some sort of generic sense of New York City, much like London or...those other large places I'm sure exist but aren't important to most Americans.

I kid the rest of the world. Especially since we've had games that involve Paris and Rome in the last few years. But again, if Rome is that size, it's tiny.

So rather than the usual "which other cities" thread, *coughboston*, I thought it might be interesting to see if people would really be interested in a smaller, more detailed setting. Or, alternatively, if this struck people as a horrible idea. I think it's really cool, but...I grew up in small American towns. I am teh bias.

Alternatively, has something like this been done? The closest I can think of is something akin to some RE games, or Dead Rising: Case Zero, neither of which strike me as really what I'm looking at.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Alen wake is set in a small town and was originally going to be an open world game before it wasn't. Off hand I can't think of any open world small spaces games except maybe gone home, but it is something I would like to see.

It would be different though. One of the reasons that GTA works is that your actions are basically meaningless in the end. The city is large enough that no matter how many people you kill your not going to make a dent in the local census. Now if you did a small town, every action is a lot more meaningful because your going to see a lot of the same people over and over.

 

[Elfgore]

I'd be a game for that. Just needs to find the right genre to make it play well.

 

[RJ 17]

This was actually done and done pretty effectively (if memory serves correctly) with True Crime: Streets of LA back in the PS2 era. The map was literally a street-by-street recreation of LA and the surrounding areas.

I think the real problem is the speed at which the map can be traversed in most sandbox games. When you're flying through GTA 5 in your tricked-out Cheetah at over 100mph and disobeying every traffic law in existence, it makes the city seem smaller. I'd imagine that if you actually were to play GTA5 while obeying all traffic laws, stopping for all traffic lights, waiting for pedestrians to cross, etc, then the city would feel a lot larger because it'd take you a lot longer to get to your destination.

 

[Mr Fixit]

State of Decay was pretty good at this. The map wasn't huge, but even in a "fast" car it took some time to get from one corner of the map to the other. Seemed like everything was scaled well. The towns were small and fairly spread out, but it felt about right for what is basically driving across a small rural county.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It would be very interesting to have a smaller/more accurately sized open world with the appropriate level of detail, but I could see a few problems with this already;

1) The appeal of an open world/sandbox is generally exploration. A smaller area would mean less landmarks to discover.

2) How would you naturally keep players inside the map without invisible walls becoming too apparent? Worlds like Los Santos have a shoreline that's wide enough around for, what is essentially an island, to not feel like one.

It would have to be a building of some sort, or... an island, but a small one. Like a Cast Away type game.

 

[HardkorSB]

1) The appeal of an open world/sandbox is generally exploration. A smaller area would mean less landmarks to discover.

What if you could go inside buildings as well?
That's my biggest problem with sandbox games, buildings are just big things you pass as you explore the map (except the select few buildings which you can visit once or twice during a story mission).

2) How would you naturally keep players inside the map without invisible walls becoming too apparent? Worlds like Los Santos have a shoreline that's wide enough around for, what is essentially an island, to not feel like one.

Mountains, lakes, road construction etc.
Small towns usually don't have airports so you wouldn't be able to fly over all of that.

 

[FalloutJack]

Uhh, quick question. Does Silent Hill count? And if not, why not?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The best sandbox is arguably the one in Just Cause 2, it's a massive sandbox map, but it's not really packed with city, making it mostly a collection of rural places. It's just fantastic, it even takes a while to get from one end to another by ultra fast fighter jet. Also you can hijack everything from attack helicopters to jet fighters, tanks to sports cars, buses to limos, barges to speed boats, and sport bikes to tuk tuks. You can steal tuk tuks in Just Cause 2 what is not awesome about that?!

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

My initial thought here was STALKER. While STALKER is technically several maps and not one huge sandbox, all three games really gave you a sense of scale due to how large each map was and the fact that you had to traverse all of it on foot. Call of Pripyat in particular stands out due to its' sandbox nature and the fact that it only included a small part of Pripyat but included it in what seemed like 1:1 scale.

I am personally a big fan of the idea to have a smaller but more "dense" setting for a sandbox game. A town of fifty houses or so can feel really big if all those houses can be entered and explored fully, especially if there is some variation in surroundings (such as a residential area, the woods etc.).

 

[WolfThomas]

State of Decay was pretty good at this. The map wasn't huge, but even in a "fast" car it took some time to get from one corner of the map to the other. Seemed like everything was scaled well. The towns were small and fairly spread out, but it felt about right for what is basically driving across a small rural county.

I love State of Decay and this is certainly true. But it still suffers from what the OP was saying.

I think someone counted and there was 83 or something houses people could live in. Which means a population definitely smaller than 500 (likely closer to 250), but they have three petrol stations, 3 gun stores (and two unofficial!), 4 fast food restaurants etc. Way more than a population that big would need. That said it does appear to be a popular tourist area and has some trucking industry, so people might live more packed up towards Danforth (the city in the distance).

That said Danforth appeared huge in Lifeline, given you couldn't go more than 30metres in without being swamped by zeds.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

This always becomes apparent to me in Elder Scrolls games. It may be cool that you can talk to every single person you meet, but it is disheartening to think that the big "cities" in those games house only a few dozen people.
Though a bigger problem for me is having the inside of buildings separate form the outside. Loading screens are annoying, plus it makes every house seem creepy when you can't see out of any windows.

 

[Something Amyss]

The city is large enough that no matter how many people you kill your not going to make a dent in the local census. Now if you did a small town, every action is a lot more meaningful because your going to see a lot of the same people over and over.

I don't see why. A city in the GTA sense rarely seems to crack the population of my home town. Towns like Grapeseed may have as many people in the whole town at a given time as I might see walking down the street in a single snapshot.

You could have the same population density as now, but confine it to something more akin to what an actual town looks like. Worst case scenario, people magically respawn, but in games where dying is usually a monetary penalty, is this a suspension of disbelief breaker?

This was actually done and done pretty effectively (if memory serves correctly) with True Crime: Streets of LA back in the PS2 era. The map was literally a street-by-street recreation of LA and the surrounding areas.

How lively was the city?

I think the real problem is the speed at which the map can be traversed in most sandbox games. When you're flying through GTA 5 in your tricked-out Cheetah at over 100mph and disobeying every traffic law in existence, it makes the city seem smaller. I'd imagine that if you actually were to play GTA5 while obeying all traffic laws, stopping for all traffic lights, waiting for pedestrians to cross, etc, then the city would feel a lot larger because it'd take you a lot longer to get to your destination.

Part of the problem comes from distortion of scale. Time and space work differently in games. You are traveling at close to real-world speeds in GTA, but every hour is two real-world minutes or something like that. Still, IIRC, even the speeds of cars are clocked roughly to that tune. This means that it only operates that way because everything is distorted. Which is fine, but it means the city will seem smaller by default.

There's an additional problem in terms of scale because things need to be larger for you to navigate properly.

Still, even driving a stock Baller, the world doesn't seem that large. At walking speed, perhaps.

State of Decay was pretty good at this. The map wasn't huge, but even in a "fast" car it took some time to get from one corner of the map to the other. Seemed like everything was scaled well. The towns were small and fairly spread out, but it felt about right for what is basically driving across a small rural county.

Oh, Jesus, thanks for reminding me I picked that up in a Steam sale and never tried it. I've played the demo (which is why I bought it), but not enough to really get an overall scope I don't think.

Uhh, quick question. Does Silent Hill count? And if not, why not?

I don't generally think of it as a sandbox game. Do you?

Serious question, BTW, in case that reads as flippant.

 

[RJ 17]

How lively was the city?

Unfortunately I can't quite remember, it's just been way too long since I've played that game. I do recall it being pretty fun, though, and it was lively enough that as a side-mission you could just walk up and down the sidewalk frisking random people for drugs to earn some extra cash between story missions. As for traffic, I'd say it was about average for your "big city sandbox" traffic.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

The city is large enough that no matter how many people you kill your not going to make a dent in the local census. Now if you did a small town, every action is a lot more meaningful because your going to see a lot of the same people over and over.

I don't see why. A city in the GTA sense rarely seems to crack the population of my home town. Towns like Grapeseed may have as many people in the whole town at a given time as I might see walking down the street in a single snapshot.

You could have the same population density as now, but confine it to something more akin to what an actual town looks like. Worst case scenario, people magically respawn, but in games where dying is usually a monetary penalty, is this a suspension of disbelief breaker?

It might just be the difference in feel. In a small town you expect to meet people you know, but in a city you expect to meet/not meet strangers. Your not expecting to be able to divine anything about anyone, they might as well be random NPCs for anything you know about them, but in a small town your more likely to feel like you know someone.

Then again, this depends on how small we are talking.

I recall an idea I once had for a open world detective game, with the idea being that it's set in a small town in order to make things more manageable.

 

[Something Amyss]

1) The appeal of an open world/sandbox is generally exploration. A smaller area would mean less landmarks to discover.

I disagree that this would be the case. Saints Row 2 had more stuff to explore than 3 not because of map size, but because of the open environments available. You had caves and building interiors and even an underground mall. If Steelport had had more of that, it probably wouldn't have felt like a smaller experience than Stilwater.

2) How would you naturally keep players inside the map without invisible walls becoming too apparent? Worlds like Los Santos have a shoreline that's wide enough around for, what is essentially an island, to not feel like one.

Similarly, I don't think this is necessarily a problem. GTA kills your engine if you go out too far. Saints Row literally turns your vehicle around. Some games kill you if you go into the water or otherwise "out of bounds." I think we already accept some of these limitations in open world games without killing the feeling.

Mountains, lakes, road construction etc.

Also, those, if you really need a premise.

But I don't like the "every game takes place on an island" feel anyway. I think I'd rather have invisible walls.

The best sandbox is arguably the one in Just Cause 2, it's a massive sandbox map, but it's not really packed with city, making it mostly a collection of rural places. It's just fantastic, it even takes a while to get from one end to another by ultra fast fighter jet. Also you can hijack everything from attack helicopters to jet fighters, tanks to sports cars, buses to limos, barges to speed boats, and sport bikes to tuk tuks. You can steal tuk tuks in Just Cause 2 what is not awesome about that?!

See, JC 2 made me think the opposite. Yes, there's a lot of real estate, but you spend a lot of time basically bypassing it to get somewhere. It's a lot like GTA V in that respect, except you can blow more things up, and you have a grappling hook. More games need a grappling hook. It made the world seem more empty, rather than larger.

I love State of Decay and this is certainly true. But it still suffers from what the OP was saying.

I think someone counted and there was 83 or something houses people could live in. Which means a population definitely smaller than 500 (likely closer to 250), but they have three petrol stations, 3 gun stores (and two unofficial!), 4 fast food restaurants etc. Way more than a population that big would need. That said it does appear to be a popular tourist area and has some trucking industry, so people might live more packed up towards Danforth (the city in the distance).

That said Danforth appeared huge in Lifeline, given you couldn't go more than 30metres in without being swamped by zeds.

Whilke I could certainly suspend some disbelief about population size (Since we're talking game resources and what's necessary for gameplay vs what's "realistic") yeah, that still sounds like quite a sway.

My initial thought here was STALKER. While STALKER is technically several maps and not one huge sandbox, all three games really gave you a sense of scale due to how large each map was and the fact that you had to traverse all of it on foot. Call of Pripyat in particular stands out due to its' sandbox nature and the fact that it only included a small part of Pripyat but included it in what seemed like 1:1 scale.

I am personally a big fan of the idea to have a smaller but more "dense" setting for a sandbox game. A town of fifty houses or so can feel really big if all those houses can be entered and explored fully, especially if there is some variation in surroundings (such as a residential area, the woods etc.).

i may have to look up STALKER on YouTube or something. Variety is another thing that I've really found wanting in open world games. Even when there's spacious areas, there's not a lot of diversity of landscape. Granted, there is a limit to what you can do with one continuous piece of real estate....

 

[Casual Shinji]

2) How would you naturally keep players inside the map without invisible walls becoming too apparent? Worlds like Los Santos have a shoreline that's wide enough around for, what is essentially an island, to not feel like one.

Similarly, I don't think this is necessarily a problem. GTA kills your engine if you go out too far. Saints Row literally turns your vehicle around. Some games kill you if you go into the water or otherwise "out of bounds." I think we already accept some of these limitations in open world games without killing the feeling.

It's something we've come to tolerate, but whenever it happens it still makes you go 'Oh, great...' Los Santos for example is surrounded by water, and I'll bet it still gives you quite a bit of area before it turns you around. And most people won't find traveling the water interesting or fun enough to try and reach the edge of the map, so it obscures the boundries well enough like that.

But beyond that I can't think of any open-world games apart from inFAMOUS 1 and 2 where the walling off made perfect sense, as well as it being a valid explation as for why your character can't swim.

I think it's gotten a bit too easy for developers to just to expect from us that we'll simply accept that we can't go there because we can't go there. Try and have it fit into the lore, the story, or the character somehow. Like in Silent Hill (while not an open-world game), where sections of the road just wouldn't be there because that's the town fucking with you. It's kind of like how in games that allow you to open doors you'll inevitably have hundreds of doors you can't open and that are just part of the scenery. And the excuse will be that the lock is broken or you won't even get any hightlight at all. I liked how in The Last of Us a lot of these scenery doors would have quarantine locks on them which tied in perfectly with the lore.

 

[Something Amyss]

Unfortunately I can't quite remember, it's just been way too long since I've played that game. I do recall it being pretty fun, though, and it was lively enough that as a side-mission you could just walk up and down the sidewalk frisking random people for drugs to earn some extra cash between story missions. As for traffic, I'd say it was about average for your "big city sandbox" traffic.

Gotta admit, there has to be a balance there, too. I'm a klutz, and even I'm an elite ninja compared to the way game characters move. Too dense a population makes things hard for the average gamer to navigate. So I don't expect actual parity, but it'd be nice to have a better population density than what you normally see.

It might just be the difference in feel. In a small town you expect to meet people you know, but in a city you expect to meet/not meet strangers. Your not expecting to be able to divine anything about anyone, they might as well be random NPCs for anything you know about them, but in a small town your more likely to feel like you know someone.

Then again, this depends on how small we are talking.

I recall an idea I once had for a open world detective game, with the idea being that it's set in a small town in order to make things more manageable.

I don't know. In a small ton, I expect people to be curt and taciturn, but then, I live in New England. >.>

At the same time, in GTA, I'll run into the same characters, even ones I killed, over and over again. Or close enough as to make no difference.

A friend of mine and I did the Fleeca Heist, which requires us to drive out to a "remote" bank. He ran over a woman on the way there. He ran over an identical, or nearly so, character model on the way back. Aside from the amusement factor, I don't think anyone would have cared.

Worse, you hear the same dialogue (what's going on, my doooood?) and the like.

It's something we've come to tolerate, but whenever it happens it still makes you go 'Oh, great...' Los Santos for example is surrounded by water, and I'll bet it still gives you quite a bit of area before it turns you around. And most people won't find traveling the water interesting or fun enough to try and reach the edge of the map, so it obscures the boundries well enough like that.

But beyond that I can't think of any open-world games apart from inFAMOUS 1 and 2 where the walling off made perfect sense, as well as it being a valid explation as for why your character can't swim.

I think it's gotten a bit too easy for developers to just to expect from us that we'll simply accept that we can't go there because we can't go there. Try and have it fit into the lore, the story, or the character somehow. Like in Silent Hill (while not an open-world game), where sections of the road just wouldn't be there because that's the town fucking with you. It's kind of like how in games that allow you to open doors you'll inevitably have hundreds of doors you can't open and that are just part of the scenery. And the excuse will be that the lock is broken or you won't even get any hightlight at all. I liked how in The Last of Us a lot of these scenery doors would have quarantine locks on them which tied in perfectly with the lore.

Unfortunately, not every game can rationalise destroyed bridges and not every town is magical. But it shouldn't have to, because we already understand practical limitations on games and hardware.

 

[FPLOON]

This thread made me think of a video game version of Fargo for some reason... Anyway, when it comes to me and the word "sandbox", the only two games I think about are The Simspons: Hit & Run and Jak 2... I would have said three game and mentioned Jak 3, but that game could have gone full Mad Max if it wanted to[footnote]Even though story-wise, it wouldn't "make sense" from Jak's overall perspective...[/footnote]...

Other than that, now I want a Fargo-based sandbox video game... eh?

 

[FalloutJack]

I don't generally think of it as a sandbox game. Do you?

Serious question, BTW, in case that reads as flippant.

I honestly don't know, and I am taking you seriously on this. Silent Hill is a whole town you wander around, but it's also hardcore horror genre. Does it bleed over? I'm not sure. Lemme think on the original question for a moment and see if I have something better. The thing about Silent Hill is that it's a fictional town and you could say and do whatever you wanted with it in terms of size, because it's a fictional haunted town. So is Racoon City, which is relevent since you mention Resident Evil. The large-scale example of fiction towns they're gone along with has to be Saint's Row games, possibly some of the best sandbox around. It's not based on any real place, so they don't have to scale up or down. And why not? Dead Rising is a essentially a reporter going through a Dawn of the Dead location, which in of itself used a real mall location. Alternatively, we could make the argument that Evil Dead: Fistful of Boomstick is suppose to be just a slice of Dearborn, Michigan, because he's at the center of activity to try and solve it, he's only one guy, and goddammit this equipment he's carrying is heavy.

A good use of a small town could be interesting, in the right setting. For instance, if you gave me a walled-off town like in The Walking Dead or Land of the Dead to deal with the constant problem of zombies (They're like small pieces of towns gicen adequate protection.), with zombie zones that I have to go out and deal with or we all starve? And sometimes we get invaded and have to destroy the attackers? Or someone is going out of their minds and we have to put him down? Real sandbox-y missions? That might work.