[General Discussion] Sandbox Games - Too Much Freedom?

With the coming of GTA3, the sandbox game really made a name for itself. Now, there's a "Do anything, anywhere" game every 10 seconds. Personally, I enjoy all the freedom these games grant, but there are those who would say they prefer a more linear experience.

What are your thoughts about sandbox games and which ones do you think have done the best job providing your own preferred balance?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I’m not too familiar with the term, “sandbox game” for these Grand-Theft-Auto like games, but I think it’s a nice descriptive niche term. As much as it’s fun to explore an “alterative” reality and do as you please, I find it gets boring after a while since I prefer to have a motivator or a reason to the game. I guess this is why I spend a majority of my time playing the missions rather than going exploring on my own. I do explore around, mind you, as I like to appreciate all the details which are placed around the world even though they are not part of the main attraction.

I’m not too familiar with other games which follow this “sandbox” formula, but so far I’ve found GTA3 and San Andreas to provide a well executed “roam-on-your-own” experience, I’ve never played Vice City, but I’ll assume it’s pretty much akin to these other GTA games. Could you please provide more examples of these “do anything, anywhere” type games? I guess I’m restricting myself to the GTA series.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Spatula

Could you please provide more examples of these “do anything, anywhere” type games? I guess I’m restricting myself to the GTA series.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sandbox-videogames

Personally, I love the GTA series for its openendedness. GTA is VERY good though in my opinion, so I throughly enjoy doing everything in the game, because it's just real fun to me. But I do like linear gameplay sometimes. The good thing about GTA is you can play it linear if you want, and ONLY do the main story missions, or you just do whatever you want.

Spiderman 2 is an example of a game that shouldn't have been a sandbox game, because all it has for sidequest type stuff are very repetitive boring stuff, and you HAD to do those missions to get though the game because you need "hero points" to move on in the story. I found that kind of lame.

Openended gameplay works if its fun, and not too repetitive.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Well really my first encounter with open-ended Gameplay was "Shenmue". Technically it was in the same approach becuase if you didn't want to do the current goal ahead you could go off get a drink, Play some Arcade games, Go talk to people browse around areas. The game felt very interactive but also felt very confined.

Titles like the GTA series in my opinion simply refined this idea and made it better by adding the overall 'Its your world' state of thinking (more so in GTA 3). You could destroy things, Go anywere, And control anything. But GTA 3 still felt very confined, Then the arrival of GTA SA basically refined this whole concept by adding tons more to do. And personally even though Shenmue added that style of gameplay GTA really is the series that refined it. Currently GTA is probably the best example of "Sand-Box" games.

Spider Man 2, Felt to linear in my opinion to be a Sand Box game, After you do a few side missions and save a few people it feels old and stale, Although you can still fight bad guys which proves to be fun. I loved the whole idea of going around a big City, I just wish there was more to do in such a big city. Sadly Ultimate Spiderman never built on that...

Animal Crossing is another example of Sand Box gameplay, While geared and approached to most as a kiddy title I loved the concept of this game, Basically this is the 'core' of Sand Box games, Simply becuase there isn't two games your playing. What I mean is it doesn't have you in an actual story line but more so you just do whatever you want and participate in current events .

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

'Sandbox' is just a media name for imaginative gaming. Full steam ahead/about bloody time.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I love games with 'sandbox' modes! Yeah, it's nice to have a goal in games, but I find that sandbox games usually have high replay value since the game doesn't end. You're free to do whatever you want, and some of these games let you customize/decorate your area to make it more personal. Some examples of my fave games are sandboxes, like The Sims and SimCity 3000. Harvest Moon: FoMT is fun too.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Enter User Name

http://www.answers.com/topic/sandbox-videogames

It mentioned Mercenaries as a sandbox type game. I'm wanting to give this game a try sometime as the military tone to it along with free roaming seems pretty neat.

Most amazing jew boots

Hmm.... it all depends on the game. Sandbox games can be very intitutive at times, while at others it deters level designs and stuff. GTA works perfectly as a sandbox, while the direction they took with Spider-Man 2 was very annoying, especially since I loved the first game.

The fact that there are more and more of them, and that some series have actually changed their format to sandbox (most notably Spider Man 2 which has been mentioned by others) worries me. I actually prefer linearity and ORGANIZATION in games, as it opens up more possibilities in level design to be more interesting. It all depends on the game.

Most amazing jew boots

I like playing them every now and then. Linear games tend to get dull after awhile. It's always interesting to just explore a game and see all the possible places to go or things to do.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think what games (namely console games) need more instead free-roaming gameplay are map editors.

It sure as hell made Far Cry: Instincts more entertaining by being able to create maps.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

"Sandbox" modes in Sim games are stupid. For example in The Sims I would much rather have my Sims earn their own money for buying furniture, food and what-have-you, compared to my Sims never working purely because they don't have to.

Also say with Sim Golf, starting out with unlimited money is stupid, you can build all 18 holes before even opening your course, what's there left to do? Play it countless times. That's all. I would rather earn money by tournaments, shoot-outs and memberships so I can make more holes compared to not having any incentive to do those things because I don't need the money.

EDIT: I just noted that the two exapmles I wrote are exactly the same, I just sorta swapped words. :doh:

Most amazing jew boots

I enjoy both linear/sandbox games. I enjoy sandbox games a little bit more though, since really the only limits that are in place are my limits. Usually involving my lack of creativity. Sometimes it's nice to be guided, or even force fed. Other times it's nice just to do whatever your imagination can come up with.

On the downside, sandbox games make me feel stupid.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Some of my favorite games have sandbox style gameplay. Most notably is Fallout/Fallout 2. It was very fun being able to do pretty much whatever you want whereever you want without the game restricting you. Want to kill that NPC and steal his items rather than doing a quest for him? Go ahead! Don't want to find the key for a door? Lockpick it! And you're free to make your character however you want as well. Not EVERY game hero has to have a gun-toting shoot-first-ask-questions-later personality. Sometimes it's fun to be a smooth talker, or a hacker, or a thief. The recently released Oblivion is also a good example of how sandbox gameplay can be done well.

For other game types, I think most games should at least give the player a little bit of freedom, unless the game requires a very linear, strict path. Not every game needs to give you the option of breaking the storyline of course, but at least let the player see that there's a world outside of the typical hallways you end up running through for most of the game. Maybe a branching path or a few blocks of the city you can run through. Not a full blown sandbox game, but at least a bit of flexability rather than having every player end up playing the game the exact same way.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Ah, I saw this thread a couple days ago. "Sandbox" games eh...

I definitely enjoy the GTA games, but I also very much enjoy that mode in simulation games, namely SimCity and, even more, Rollercoaster Tycoon. I remember playing that game for days on end. So, I suppose it's a trend for me. There's just periods of gaming for me where I just feel like doing something mindless.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I've always wanted a driving game where I could drive around a city doing stunts, hitting other cars, destroying stuff, etc, without a time limit. There was a mode in an old N64 Cruisn' game or something where you could do this, and my friends and I spent HOURS in it.

I guess you can kind of do that in GTA? :/

But nooooooo all the kids want racing sims. Meh.

FELIPE NO

I find sandbox games fun for about an hour, then I go back to games like Zelda, Metroid, Sonic, etc.
But if someone made a fun sandbox game, one with actually good controls, fun missions, and a worthwhile gaming experience (ie, not GTA3, Vice City, or San Andreas), I might find a sandbox game more compelling.

I ultimately prefer linear games, though. I also think they require more skill to make.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Sandbox games are fun because it's always nice to have the freedom to just screw around in between the actual game bits. The key is making sure there's enough meat to the game for the player to actually have something to DO in sandbox mode.

Spider-man 2 is an example of how NOT to do it, because there's very little you can really do independent of the main game. You just swing around and stop random crimes, and that's about it. GTA3, in contrast, has tons of stuff you can do, from wanton destruction, orchestrating complicated police chases, or even running the R3 service vehicle missions for a lark. Heck, I amused myself for hours in San Andreas just causing traffic accidents on the freeway.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So long as the game does have a linear story to go back into, then sure sandbox stuff is fun. However, if a game were to be almost entirely open-ended, I think even I would get bored of it eventually.

I think the best example of a perfect combination is Fable. It's not too open-ended that you forget where you started from in the first place, but to the same token the story isn't so restricting that you're not allowed to even stray off the path.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Sandbox games: yes please. Sometimes it's just fun to play a game and not think about where you're progressing. MGS3, for example, started throwing gun duels and spelunking and hour-long sniper battles at me just when I began to enjoy sneaking around the jungle and breaking into small bases to steal stuff. Variety is good, but a little pointless fun never hurts either.

Most of these open-ended free-roaming games are pretty empty, though. Like Monkey King said, the meat is the key.

The gameplay just has to be as flexible as the game's open-endedness. I actually enjoy Daggerfall more than Morrowind because the latter's missions are a bit too directed for my taste. Every guild in Daggerfall is an endless source of random crap missions to do, and ridiculous as it may sound, a quickie mission like killing a couple of bears who broke into a private home is as complex as I want to get sometimes.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.