Sandboxes: How big is TOO big?

[SckizoBoy]

I've always felt that it depends on the game. I mean, can you imagine playing InFamous in a Prototype-sized world? If I had to slowly run from one side of that island to the other at Cole-speed, I'd have cried myself to sleep. Likewise, having Prototype-speed in InFamous would just be silly.

I'ma gonna go with this.

Hell even running as Alex on the ground from one end of the island to the other doesn't take that long...

The thing required for a good sandbox is sufficient variation from one end to the other. In JC2 it was just a cluster of tropical islands with a few mountains and no real visual difference as you drove/flew about. On the other hand, Morrowind wasn't that large, but it sure as hell felt like it because of the change in scenery, architecture and even climate! It has to feel large, not necessarily be large.

 

[Kevon Huggins]

Daggerfall
cry my self to sleep every night remembering the mega-seconds of wondering throught that that THAT ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF FUCKEN RUSSIA'S SIZE

time you wasted reading this part : approximately 3 sec

 

[Jandau]

They can't be too big, but they can be too empty or too boring. It's one of the main reasons I dislike Oblivion - You see everything in the game in the first few hours and then it's basically on repeat...

 

[Raioken18]

Well if you include fast travel, and unique and interesting areas and sub-storylines... then I don't think they could ever make it too big...

I do think that online co-op would add a lot to most sandbox games, but coordinating it would be difficult...

 

[Gibboniser]

I quote ... someone. "There is no such thing as too much sandbox,only too little sand.

 

[DanielBrown]

There's no perfect size for me, really, as long as they keep the world intresting. In huge games like Just Cause 2 and Oblivion there was tons of filler areas that didn't contain anything special, and in Prototype it felt like you ran up the same building over and over. It gets dull really quickly.

Replayed The Saboteur during the past couple of days and had a blast with the sandbox. Not only because Paris is a beautiful city, but because there was a great mix of countryside and inner city.

 

[JesterRaiin]

So, what in your opinion is the perfect size for a sandbox?

It's not about size but complexity.
Daggerfall's map size was pretty ok but all landmass was generic and repetitive.

 

[Hojou]

Just Cause 2 is a bit massive but a while in you do unlock a quick travel thing.
Also if traveling is boring then just steal a jet and crash it into your destination, jumping out at the last moment.

Exactly this. When I first started playing, I was like "OMG I can't even save my location, and I have to travel back from the same starting base everytime! THIS SUCKS! What a stupid game!"

But then I did a search about game save locations and travel, read a bit about the game, and saw a lot of people complaining about this same thing were answered with "don't worry, that all changes after a few missions..."

If you had played it for another few hours, and completed some missions, you would've unlocked the fast travel option. You can call in a chopper that will instantly take you anywhere on the map you've already visited. All you have to do is fly around in a jet discovering locations (which is pretty fun in itself) and you will quickly find getting anywhere on the map pretty quick and painless. The first places you'll want to discover are airports, so you can steal planes and get around local areas easily.

This is one of the best games I've played in a long time, simply because there is so much to see and do, and although the storyline is pretty light, it's pretty entertaining. And some of the stuff your character says sometimes is pretty hilarious...

anything that will get you lost is too big.

Getting lost is part of the fun, which makes a game feel like a world...

...find out what you were supposed to do.

Rather than following a linear storyline along, a walled in path, doing what you are "supposed" to do...

 

[LilithSlave]

I don't think it can be too big.

But priority should go to creating content, things to do with those areas, than just create more area. A tiny game where every object can be interacted with is better than a big game where few objects can be interacted with.

I'm not a huge sandbox person myself, though.

 

[Buizel91]

Far Cry 2 was the largest game I've played.

That wasn't a good thing. It was so big I felt like I was doing absolutely nothing to the world.

You should try Jut Cause 2, that world is absolutely huge! Biggest game world i have played.

 

[Mrmac23]

I'm not bothered if your sandbox is the size of Asia with a bit of Europe tagged on, just make sure the amount of content is equal to it. All that space is useless and boring if there's nothing in it to play with.

 

[Rblade]

I don't think it can be too large if there is the option of some kind of fast travel. Either the flight point way like WoW, or things like silt striders like Morrowind.

that means you can play a game the way you want. you can roam endlessly and never feel like your in the proverbial fishing bowl, but you can also zoom from one side of the map to the other if you want to complete missions without all that boring travel, and everything in between.

 

[Togs]

As has been said its more down to how fast you can get around it, to me it should never take you more then 3-4 minutes (not using fast travel) to get to your different objectives.
To me Prototype had the perfect balance of map size and speed of travel.

 

[Aurora219]

Games really do vary wildly, and it's not often to do with age or tech.

Take for example:

Spoiler: Game maps, large image

All of these pale compare to Daggerfall, yet all of them can be classed as having more "content". Barren fields, like Red Dead Redemption (though lots of random events helped mitigate this) or Oblivion's vast tracts of nothing much, are definitely not how to do it.

Personally, I absolutely love the limitless size of Minecraft, in that you can generate as much land as you want. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but hey!

 

[rohansoldier]

I agree that a sandbox needs to be filled with things to do with a bare minimum of empty space to travel through. That was my only real complaint with borderlands, the game was great and fun to play but there wasn't really a lot of places to explore outside of the missions. I am hoping the developers fix this for the sequel.

Also, ABadOmen said RDR. Another example of a game with too many open spaces but at least there was stuff to do in them.

Thank god for the vehicles and fast travel system in Borderlands and the campsite system in RDR. Both of those games would be much more tedious if you had to cross the whole landscape whenever you want to go somewhere.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Depends on how much there is to do. Red Dead Redemption was way too big because there was almost nothing to do in the huge expanses of land. On the other hand, games like Just Cause 2 and Fallout/Oblivion don't feel too big because there's always things to do.

 

[lobster1077]

F

As long as it's not like Red Dead Redemption's Wastleland, or Fallout 3's Fallout.... You see what I mean?

Not really; Red Dead and Fallout 3's sandboxes had oodles of detail and stuff to see.

 

[poleboy]

Well, it really depends on the kind of game you are making, doesn't it? Let's look at a few examples:

Morrowind: The right size, because it's set in a place known for having large areas of very sparsely populated wasteland. There is a rich contrast between the different outdoor areas in the game, avoiding the issues that Oblivion and Fallout has in this respect. Fast travel could have been more extensive, but I'm sure there are mods for that. And hey, you can levitate. With enough skooma and powergaming, you can almost make your own fast travel system.

Oblivion: Too big. This is mostly because of the scenery and the cut-and-paste dungeons. On the outskirts of Cyrodiil where it borders the other provinces, you typically get a change of scenery that matches said province, but more often than not it's grass, trees and more grass. Fast travel makes it easy to get around, but you'll still be greeted by that horde of generic grass and trees when you arrive.

Fallout 3: Too much rubble. What I mean by this is that the map is not huge, but it's incredibly frustrating to navigate. You are constantly blocked by giant ruins when you move around the former urban areas, forcing you to rely either on the metro system or fast travel. There is also no travel system whatsoever besides the arbitrary fast travel, making the game seem sometimes too big and sometimes too small. Too many locations in the game were also bland and generic IMO. Look at how much more fun the locations is New Vegas is. Giant dinosaur town? Anachronistic roman army camp? Fucking LAS VEGAS!?

GTA: San Andreas: Too big sometimes. This is a tricky one, because if the cities are too small, they don't feel like their real-life counterparts (not that I'd know, because I've never been to any of them). This is mostly a gameplay issue, since you can't save while on a mission, and some missions force you to travel long distances (and do it again if you fail). For free exploraion though, i think San Andreas is almost perfect. It really is huge and wonderful when you just travel around to see the sights.

 

[VeneratedWulfen93]

Stuff needs to be actually in the sandbox as I hate open fields of brown and grey with nothing going on. To echo everything else that has already been said once prototype got going and the full might of the U.S army was clashing with the infection AND mercer new york got a whole lot more interesting to run around in.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

People do missions in Just Cause 2? I thought it was just a game for blowing shit up.

the missions were actually like mini action movies (the good ones at least)
although i still dont get how they put a tank on the roof of a skyscraper :S

It's ok, I was kidding.