We need less sandbox games

[CrysisMcGee]

Essentially, there are two types of sandbox games. GTA series/Prototype Sandbox. And Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout 1,2, and 3 sandbox. (Haven't played mass effect yet)Also Adventure game sandbox, but these are close to RPG sandbox.

I love Sandbox games, but I love Linear games as well. It seems that ever since Morrowind and GTA 3 came out, everybody tries to be just like them.

Adventure and RPG games are the original Sandbox games, and they have done it the best. Now we have shooter sandbox, with no RPG elements. These are fine games as well. Somewhat.

But the popularity of these has had a predictable result. And sometimes games suffer trying to give the public what developers think they want.

To this, I say one thing. Have RTS games changed that much since the 90's? And yet the genre accounts for 25% of all PC game sales.

So What I'm saying is don't sacrifice quality trying to be something you're not. I know that you are trying to stand out, but falling short isn't going to get you good sales.

EDIT: Okay, so I do agree with Yahtzee. But this is a position I've been in ever since GTA 3 was released. If you can do it right, like Fallout 3, then I say go for it. But if you're gonna fall short (Prototype) then it's just another GTA clone. Although I did have a lot of fun with Prototype. Killing hordes of people has never been more fun.

So we need more Quality Sandbox games, and not ones that throw it in just because it's a craze.

 

[Maze1125]

Adventure and RPG games are the original Sandbox games,

Actually, the majority of the original sandbox games were management games, like Roller-coaster Tycoon or Transport Tycoon.

 

[Flishiz]

It all depends on whether it can be done well. I loved Midnight Club 2 (hated the rest for different reasons), but hated Burnout Paradise, because it didn't do it properly. If a game can implement a sandbox well, I'll accelpt it. Personally I prefer them to the claustrophobic walls of linear games.

 

[gRiM_rEaPeRsco]

yes less sandbox games, how about hl2 ep3, where the hell is that?

 

[hebdomad]

'Open world gaming' is the new 'dual wielding'... It will die down soon enough.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Yeah, we need less games claiming to be sandbox games. In all fairness, they're all doing it, just to add another selling point to the game.

 

[Poomanchu745]

I like the way that borderlands did sandbox. It was the completely open world that was Fallout 3 but a sandbox with borders. The levels are essentially mapped out by taking place in mountains so there valleys and stuff that keep up on track essentially. But there there is also the chance to explore a little. But when you are on a quest you are usually going down a relatively narrow pass that ushers you in the right direction. So the open world is a little more sandbox-ish while the dungeons are very linear. Pretty interesting mix of the two that works well.

 

[CrysisMcGee]

Adventure and RPG games are the original Sandbox games,

Actually, the majority of the original sandbox games were management games, like Roller-coaster Tycoon or Transport Tycoon.

Yes, the sandbox management games. Still around, and these were the first to use the term sandbox. However, it seems nowadays the term is applied to other genres.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

RTS games have changed a lot. There used to be a lot more variety but that has mostly been whittled down to one sub genre that excludes a lot of players and has a dwindling audience. Genres do over specialize and stagnate. That is just an unfortunate side effect of some games being popular.

Saying that sandbox games are good but they need to stick within certain parameters set by big hit games and not cross pollinate with other genres is reactionary and not good for the future of games.

 

[Sneaklemming]

Approved - it is very difficult to do a sandbox game- theres the Bethesa games, the GTA games and EVE online... all the rest are just so poorly implemented.

Far Cry 2 stands out as being hurt by the *need* to e a sandbox

 

[Skarvey]

We don't need less sandbox games, we need sandbox games with a reason to explore them. If I go off the beaten path in a game, there had better be a great reason for me to do so because in doing so, I'm risking my own neck, probably stumbling across enemies or dangers that will challenge me as a player, so the reward should be proportionate to the amount of effort you're putting into it.

The problem is that many open world games offer little or no incentive to hop off the trail and explore and whats more these reasons need to advance the player in a meaningful way. The problem Yahtzee was addressing was that in Brutal Legend, driving around in your hotrod was fun in a way, but there was no reason to unless you're a completionist and wanted to raise all the relics simply for the sake of it. The problem was that for the large part of the game, you didn't need to do any of this. You could horde your fire tributes and pretty much pick up everything in the motorforge when new stuff was available. The was really no need to go searching around for those things.

What developers need to do is start parcelling out these reasons to check out side quests or just free roam into the game world, rather than scattering money about and putting all the upgrades at the omnipotent "MERCHANT" that just so happens to be in almost every open world game. If I go off the beaten path, I want an awesome upgrade, a cool gun, some information that will help me, or at the very least a good side story with some loot.

 

[LeonLethality]

they will keep making fps' and sandbox games as lon as we keep buying its how it goes...

 

[Zac_Dai]

Nothing wrong with Sandbox games. Just a lot of devs fail at the implementation.

 

[Wicky_42]

We don't need less sandbox games, we need sandbox games with a reason to explore them. If I go off the beaten path in a game, there had better be a great reason for me to do so because in doing so, I'm risking my own neck, probably stumbling across enemies or dangers that will challenge me as a player, so the reward should be proportionate to the amount of effort you're putting into it.

The problem is that many open world games offer little or no incentive to hop off the trail and explore and whats more these reasons need to advance the player in a meaningful way. The problem Yahtzee was addressing was that in Brutal Legend, driving around in your hotrod was fun in a way, but there was no reason to unless you're a completionist and wanted to raise all the relics simply for the sake of it. The problem was that for the large part of the game, you didn't need to do any of this. You could horde your fire tributes and pretty much pick up everything in the motorforge when new stuff was available. The was really no need to go searching around for those things.

What developers need to do is start parcelling out these reasons to check out side quests or just free roam into the game world, rather than scattering money about and putting all the upgrades at the omnipotent "MERCHANT" that just so happens to be in almost every open world game. If I go off the beaten path, I want an awesome upgrade, a cool gun, some information that will help me, or at the very least a good side story with some loot.

This. Basically, if a dev wants to do open world, do it for a reason and do it well. Half-hearted attempts at delineating linear gameplay fail hard, as do large empty worlds that just draw out the game.

Crysis, for all it's linear aspects, was a demonstration of beautifully designed sand-box set pieces. Sure, you couldn't climb the mountain in the first level, but they gave you so much freedom in each conflict to take whatever approach you wanted - must have replayed some of those battles 20 times or so.

Prototype is great for just venting, running around the city butchering soldiers and mutants until the response team shows up, then hijacking a chopper and going on a rampage, blow up a base, steal a tank... I just love going on random rampages ^_^

GTA was good fun as well, but being less omnipotent in combat and movement limited the amount of time I could doss for - although Vice City had more features and districts than Prototype's Manhattan, so there were more interesting places to explore.

 

[CrysisMcGee]

We don't need less sandbox games, we need sandbox games with a reason to explore them. If I go off the beaten path in a game, there had better be a great reason for me to do so because in doing so, I'm risking my own neck, probably stumbling across enemies or dangers that will challenge me as a player, so the reward should be proportionate to the amount of effort you're putting into it.

The problem is that many open world games offer little or no incentive to hop off the trail and explore and whats more these reasons need to advance the player in a meaningful way. The problem Yahtzee was addressing was that in Brutal Legend, driving around in your hotrod was fun in a way, but there was no reason to unless you're a completionist and wanted to raise all the relics simply for the sake of it. The problem was that for the large part of the game, you didn't need to do any of this. You could horde your fire tributes and pretty much pick up everything in the motorforge when new stuff was available. The was really no need to go searching around for those things.

What developers need to do is start parcelling out these reasons to check out side quests or just free roam into the game world, rather than scattering money about and putting all the upgrades at the omnipotent "MERCHANT" that just so happens to be in almost every open world game. If I go off the beaten path, I want an awesome upgrade, a cool gun, some information that will help me, or at the very least a good side story with some loot.

Yes, that is a common complaint in sandbox games. I did the sudequests in Planescape: Torment, just for the story.
And XP. But seriously, I did all the sidequests in that game because they were interesting.

So give me a reason to do sidequests, even if it's just fun to do. Like on the hint that there is treasure, or weapons. Or for the sake of booty.

 

[Doctor_Insano]

sandbox games, i often wonder if the game devellopers ever play their games and think: hmmm this game isn't good. ive played enough sandboxed linear games to see that some devellopers need to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that they need to, perhaps, maybe look up the concept of a sandboxed game, and act accordingly. spending 4 hours wandering through a pointless scenic world, looking for items i will need later on, only after discovering this, hours later, swearing, and restarting because it's just easier then remembering which field i forgot to rape and search like i was a crackhead looking for... well crack... in a shag carpet i forgot to search, somehow becomes less enjoyable than brushing my teeth with an old wool sock.
linear games can be fun, sandbox games, from what ive heard can be fun.
If i want non linear gameplay: i will load up WOW and sneak around murdering and camping 12 year olds.
guys: stop making everything a sandbox game until you get past the "this game doesnt suck at all" part of develpoment, unles you like your pets laughing at you.

 

[MercurySteam]

Adventure and RPG games are the original Sandbox games, and they have done it the best. Now we have shooter sandbox, with no RPG elements. These are fine games as well. Somewhat.

Borderlands is basically a first person, adventure, RPG, shooter. And its VERY popular.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I feel a lot of games' storylines suffer because they try to be just sandbox enough to be cool, and fail badly.

 

[Mirroga]

In my opinion, we don't need less sandbox games.

We need less games which have "sandbox elements"
Actual sandbox games have exploration as their core element and not just some added bonus for creating a larger game environment to explore upon.

What I deem are good sandbox games are Fallout 3, and Borderlands.

Great sandbox games use exploration as their main gameplay, thus finding worthwhile places or things a much more wonderful experience.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Nothing wrong with Sandbox games. Just a lot of devs fail at the implementation.

Actually, that is exactly what is wrong with sandbox games. Because it is so difficult to develop a good sandbox game, it should be no be attempted unless the developer can truly deliver a good experience. If GTA IV is any inclination, that can be a very difficult task.