We need less sandbox games
- Thread starter CrysisMcGee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find it rather ironic.
People were saying last year that they didn't enjoy the fact that most major headlining games aren't larger and more imaginative, regarding Sandbox-ness.
Now you're complaining that there are too many non-sandbox games.
As hebdomad said "It'll die out soon"
People were saying last year that they didn't enjoy the fact that most major headlining games aren't larger and more imaginative, regarding Sandbox-ness.
Now you're complaining that there are too many non-sandbox games.
As hebdomad said "It'll die out soon"
I knew this would happen. As soon as Yattzzee opens his mouth soon his flock of sheep will start to think the same. Idoits.
*repeatedly hits head against invisible wall*
No. I think I'll take mixed-genre, open-worlds populated by autonomous (inter-)reactive AIs and dynamical systems (i.e. weather and mass transit systems) over some half-assed pre-determined narrative that limits my choices in order to ensure that I can only head towards the next quasi-dramatic event, rather than let the whole thing be an interactive simulation from which genuinely dramatic gameplay emerges.
No. I think I'll take mixed-genre, open-worlds populated by autonomous (inter-)reactive AIs and dynamical systems (i.e. weather and mass transit systems) over some half-assed pre-determined narrative that limits my choices in order to ensure that I can only head towards the next quasi-dramatic event, rather than let the whole thing be an interactive simulation from which genuinely dramatic gameplay emerges.
Isn't that a bit harsh? I agree with what a lot of people have said, and I also disagree with Yahtzee on plenty of subjects. For example, I enjoy turn-based combat and can really get into a good JRPG. Is it outside the realm of possibility that some people (not all, I know there are plenty who will praise him as a god and treat his every word as sacred) agree with his opinions because, well, they agree with his opinions?S-Unleashed said:
I think this is a perfect assesment of that problem. A sandbox game will have an open world and non-linear progression; a good sandbox game will have those things as well as reasons to explore them. Three examples, arranged by how well they (in my opinion) manage to be a sandbox:Skarvey said:
The good: Fallout 3
Huge world, but punctuated by quests, sub-areas ripe for exploration, things to kill, little secrets to find, random encounters. These give chances to acquire new weapons and armours, gain other quests, pick up bits of story that aren't strictly relevant to the main plot but are fun nonetheless. Best of all, exploring carries an XP reward so that finding new areas never causes the player to stagnate at their level, and is always kept moving up. Exploring, discovering, and trying to find everything make the sandbox aspects more fun for me than the main quest line. I've spent about 80 hours on my main character, most of which has been snooping around, checking out areas and seeing what I can scavenge. The game captured the lonely, barren atmosphere of the wasteland perfectly, and gave plenty of opportunities to be distracted from the story.
The average: Saints Row 2
Mainly I'm talking about the Activities, here. Fun (and funny) little distractions and mini-games, which not only allow you to advance the plot - though after a certain point you gain infinite respect and don't need to do any more for that reason - they grant upgrades for completion. Guns, increased health regeneration, the ability to sprint for longer and eventually continuously. I spent hours doing Activities before I even started the missions, though they had problems - some were stupidly hard, like the helicopter ones, mainly due to flying the chopper being like trying to ride a drunk horse. Another one, one of the first I did, rewarded me with some badass laser-sighted pistols and infinite ammo. This was a couple of hours into the game, and made me ridiculously powerful for such an early point. And after a while, they get dull, and I started to leave them alone in favour of story missions. A good attempt, but not good enough to stay interesting and relevant all the way through the game.
The bad: GTA IV
All GTA had was an open world. While it offered many distractions (taxi, races, delivering drugs, etc) there was no in-character reason to do them. For the most part they were repetitive, and felt as if the developers had only thrown them into the game for old times sake. Exploring offered no real rewards, due to the scarcity of weapon spawn locations (compared to older games), no graffiti or similar to do, just no reason to do anything non-mission based except to earn money. Which is one of my biggest problems with the game; why the hell do I need to keep earning money? There is absolutely nothing you need to buy, once you have a set of clothes you like. Ammo is cheap, and can be bought cheaper by making friends with Jacob. If they'd kept in the San Andreas system of buying up businesses and eventually taking over the city, I'd have spent a hell of a lot more time playing the game and earning money, but they didn't. The game was pretty much linear progression with the (pointless) option to do other things when you felt like it.
Wow, that came out a lot longer than intended!
if your gonna make a sandbox game fair enough, but make the world be interesting and interactive. Back in the days of ps2s sandbox could get away with looking pretty but with the current generation that should be a given. And most are, which makes them less spectacular because of the numbers of them. Waht im tryin to say is game worlds need to keep improving or else theyll will just be one of the crowd, need to stand out, need to be really interactive.
A game should have reason to make you explore a world, really interesting landmarks, hidden weapons/cars/hideouts. If the whole world looks similar your not gonna want to explore it (cough* Oblivion).
Seems to me that soon every game will be a sandbox game in some way and linear games will be no more until some one decides to make one and it becomes the new craze, getting rid of sandbox games and pretty soon a thread like this will start up complaing about that
A game should have reason to make you explore a world, really interesting landmarks, hidden weapons/cars/hideouts. If the whole world looks similar your not gonna want to explore it (cough* Oblivion).
Seems to me that soon every game will be a sandbox game in some way and linear games will be no more until some one decides to make one and it becomes the new craze, getting rid of sandbox games and pretty soon a thread like this will start up complaing about that
What's this thing sticking up your backside?
It seems to be Yahtzee's hand [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1044-Brutal-Legend]!
Gross.
Anywho, throw me in the pile of people who said, "sandboxes can be good, it's less what the thing is and more how well it was made.
It seems to be Yahtzee's hand [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1044-Brutal-Legend]!
Gross.
Anywho, throw me in the pile of people who said, "sandboxes can be good, it's less what the thing is and more how well it was made.
You know the money part was interesting in that, the point where you didn't need to care about money and you started to use taxi's to teleport to next missions, is the point where it was boring and felt like a chore not a game, which is actually pretty sad.SonicWaffle said:
Sandbox implies you can do anything you want regardless of the restrictions of the world.
A better term for all of those games should be Open-world, as you're only allowed to interact with what was predetermined to interact with.
GTA, Saints Row, and the occasional oddball and that should be it.
I am still waiting for a Zelda open-world, that would kick ass.
A better term for all of those games should be Open-world, as you're only allowed to interact with what was predetermined to interact with.
GTA, Saints Row, and the occasional oddball and that should be it.
I am still waiting for a Zelda open-world, that would kick ass.
I still have yet to see a sandbox game with a fully interactive world, like you run down to the docks and you can go swiming for valuables or fishing, mug innnocent bystanders (properly), hold up stores and sell the stuff you get to other criminals, etc.
A sandbox full of toys is a fun sandbox.
A sandbox full of toys is a fun sandbox.
Aye, I agree. Fallout 3 is an excellent game. But it would be nice to see what you are asking for.Booze Zombie said:
Sorry to cut off your wall of text but that says it perfectly right there.Skarvey said:
I actually like most of the sandbox games I've played but the ones that fail tend to fail horribly.
I thought many of the sandboxes from this year were quite good like Prototype & Infamous. Those games gave you entertaining things to do while running around.
It's a bad choice when they shoehorn it into a game that doesn't need a sandbox like Burnout Paradise and No More Heroes. In Burnout P all the sandbox did was make the race events (which were the most common) frustrating for anyone who didn't memorize the entire map. In No More Heroes the sandbox was just completely unnecessary it was just there to force you to waste time with boring minigames so the boss battles/levels seemed more interesting.
I don't think it's time to write them off just yet. This generation has come up with a couple of the most compelling sandbox games ever like Saints Row 2 and Fallout 3.
Yes, I agree. For me though the first Sandbox game was Fallout. Fallout 2 was quite excellent as well, and later on I played GTA 3.GonzoGamer said:
So I do love sandbox games, we just need less ones that try to tack it on without trying.
I really enjoyed Saints Row 2.
I think the problem with sandbox games is you have to make the landscape interesting and inviting. Something that it seems game designers struggle with. A good example would be Oblivion, a great game, but really the landscape was boring as hell, beautiful yes, but not the least bit memorable or captivating. This is something that needs to work. Theres no point having a huge world just for the sake of having a huge world.
