Poll of the Day > Do you like "sandbox" games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Games like GTA or Dead Island etc.

Ya bro

Depends on the game. If the setting is cool and the sandbox has plenty of fun things to do, then I can enjoy it well enough. But if the sandbox is mostly boring and there's nothing else there to offset it, then it probably sucks.

Not really but I love litter box games

yes, hitman

They have their place, but they can't hit the highs that a game with a good storyline can. They usually get repetitive quickly.

Sometimes, completely depends on the game

Usually, yes

I like Minecraft. I mean I kind of like sandbox games I guess but I think I actually prefer to be pointed in a direction, given a goal to accomplish rather than make my own goals.

IDK when I got really into Minecraft last year, I seriously had to look up how to do everything. Like how to get to The End. How would I have ever figured out that I need specific drops from specific mobs, combine them together, throw the thing they make and follow where it leads, hope it doesn't break along the way, then navigate a dungeon until I find a portal frame and fill the frame with the items I had to craft to find the frame.

I do, but I have a lot of trouble staying focused on the main goal. To the point that I'm still maybe halfway through GTA V and I've only ever finished one GTA game before.

Yes, I do, but since I tend to be a completionist, I can't play them back to back. So exhausted by the time they're fully complete.

depends on the game
I've never been abled to get into the GTAs but enjoyed others (like Saints' Row except for the first one)

Really depends. Too many devs use open world/sandbox as an excuse for not coming up with enough things and just hoping the player either makes their own fun or that the player will find it similar enough to "Better Open World Game" that they'll stick with it.

papercup posted...

I like Minecraft. but I think I actually prefer to be pointed in a direction, given a goal to accomplish rather than make my own goals.

For me, I can never just start up Minecraft and start playing. I always sort of need to go in with a goal in mind to work towards. Sure, it's me setting a goal for myself, but I need some goal or the game becomes boring as shit incredibly quickly.

It doesn't help that the actual "official" arc of Minecraft (gear up, prep, and defeat the Ender Dragon) doesn't really do much for me. Minecraft combat is kind of crap, so I don't really enjoy playing for that aspect at all (99% of the time, I play on Peaceful to outright avoid it). So the game does nothing to motivate me. It's basically a box of infinite digital legos, but -I'm- the one who has to come up with an idea of what to do with them.

When I've got ideas I can drop hundreds of hours in the game (doubly so since I never play on Creative, and thus always have to mine or acquire all my building materials the hard way), but I always have to bring that initial idea to the table myself.

If I played with modpacks that have tech trees for development and building (as opposed to combat) I'd probably be more into following the game's goals rather than my own, but I don't play on PC so I never use mods.



papercup posted...

IDK when I got really into Minecraft last year, I seriously had to look up how to do everything.

At this point, I think almost everyone who plays Minecraft does the same. Either using the wiki for literally everything until they start learning how stuff works and what to do on their own, or playing with other people who basically take on the role of a tutor and teach them everything. Or just watching YouTube Minecraft Let's Plays to see what other people are doing.

I don't think there's all that many people who just start Minecraft out of nowhere and then learn everything on their own through trial and error without a single outside source. No one has the patience for that sort of thing these days.

Yes, one of my favourite genres. However they have been a bit oversaturated lately, not every game needs to be a Sandbox. Although some devs seem to think otherwise....

Is "open-world" a genre? I'd consider it more of an unspecified setting. Never considered it a genre itself.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Is "open-world" a genre? I'd consider it more of an unspecified setting. Never considered it a genre itself.

It's about as unclear as "RPG" is, anymore. Easier to kinda clump games together on loose terms so people will take the time to see what it's about.

Yeah for the most part.

Jasna88 posted...

yes, hitman

GanglyKhan posted...

It's about as unclear as "RPG" is, anymore. Easier to kinda clump games together on loose terms so people will take the time to see what it's about.

I suppose. It doesn't feel right thinking of "open-world" as a genre but it's not something I'm hung up on, either. I could accept it.

wpot posted...

They have their place, but they can't hit the highs that a game with a good storyline can. They usually get repetitive quickly.

Agree, I find them to often to be tedious. I think the new pokemon works with the open world style, and Spiderman was great. But most of the time I find them really repetitive and tiresome. I'd prefer if zelda went back to the old style, even if botw is less repetitive than most

yes

I've been playing a lot of Kenshi lately. Its a lot like Fallout 1/2 though there's less focus on story and a lot more focused on building an outpost and surviving the wasteland

BADoglick posted...

Agree, I find them to often to be tedious. I think the new pokemon works with the open world style, and Spiderman was great. But most of the time I find them really repetitive and tiresome. I'd prefer if zelda went back to the old style, even if botw is less repetitive than most

Dragon Quest 8 was somewhat open world, but it wasn't a full "sandbox": the open world was offered in reasonable chunks with a continuous storyline. That worked. BotW was better than most sandboxes as you said - the gameplay/puzzles/locales were nicely balanced - but, like I said before, I can't view it as anything close to "greatest ever" with the storyline being that incredibly thin. Skyrim...eh. I played it for a good long while, but it was more of a time-filler than something that truly captured my imagination. I haven't picked it up since finishing the one playthrough I did 15 years ago. Elden Ring/etc I haven't played and I'm not sure that I'm interested.

wpot posted...

Dragon Quest 8 was somewhat open world, but it wasn't a full "sandbox": the open world was offered in reasonable chunks with a continuous storyline. That worked. BotW was better than most sandboxes as you said - the gameplay/puzzles/locales were nicely balanced - but, like I said before, I can't view it as anything close to "greatest ever" with the storyline being that incredibly thin. Skyrim...eh. I played it for a good long while, but it was more of a time-filler than something that truly captured my imagination. I haven't picked it up since finishing the one playthrough I did 15 years ago. Elden Ring/etc I haven't played and I'm not sure that I'm interested.

Skyrim, wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle is the best quote I ever read about it. Yeah yeah I know there's mods... the game should be good on it's own. I loved morrowind too but skyrim and oblivion I got tired of fast. Damn oblivion gates and dragons happened so often that one day I just said why and quit.

Generally yes. I prefer them to non-sandbox games, for the most part.

BADoglick posted...

Skyrim, wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle is the best quote I ever read about it.

Yep. It was a little like the first Avatar in the sense that you played it and said "wow, this is a noteworthy experience and technologically interesting"...then put it down and more or less forgot about it because there wasn't really much substance underneath. (I liked/stilll like Avatar, but that criticism is fair)

I don't because I am very indecisive.

Yes.

Getting pretty sick of open world games. Instead of making a massive world with nothing particularly interesting in it, they should spend that time designing interesting levels and making the game longer with actual content instead of superficial padding. Collecting some contrived bullshit scattered throughout a boring lifeless map is not interesting. Walking/driving for 10 minutes across a boring lifeless map just to get to the next good part is not interesting.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Is "open-world" a genre? I'd consider it more of an unspecified setting. Never considered it a genre itself.

I think "open world" is the official advertising term, but most people just call it sandbox (if it defines a major part of the gameplay).

Whargarble posted...

Getting pretty sick of open world games. Instead of making a massive world with nothing particularly interesting in it, they should spend that time designing interesting levels and making the game longer with actual content instead of superficial padding. Collecting some contrived bullshit scattered throughout a boring lifeless map is not interesting. Walking/driving for 10 minutes across a boring lifeless map just to get to the next good part is not interesting.

But bro did you see me ramp that chicken ????

Whargarble posted...

Getting pretty sick of open world games. Instead of making a massive world with nothing particularly interesting in it, they should spend that time designing interesting levels and making the game longer with actual content instead of superficial padding. Collecting some contrived bullshit scattered throughout a boring lifeless map is not interesting. Walking/driving for 10 minutes across a boring lifeless map just to get to the next good part is not interesting.

I mean, everything you're describing is an example of open world done badly. You can't judge something only on its flaws.

BigOlePappy posted...

I think "open world" is the official advertising term, but most people just call it sandbox (if it defines a major part of the gameplay).

I think there's a bit more to it than that. For me a "sandbox" is a game in which they give me an entire (in theory interesting) big world and I can do whatever I want with it. There might be a thin overall plot, but the true point of the game is to wander around and make your own adventure. An open world is one where I there are no hallways and I can GO wherever I want whenever I want, but the wandering may or may not be the true focus. Sandbox games are a more extreme subset of open world games.

The difference is whether there's an active plot/etc going on. Dragon Quest 8 wasn't a sandbox - there was a plot going on - but I'd probably say it had an open world (even though yes, it was gated). Same with, say, the original Final Fantasy. BotW and especially Skyrim are what I would call sandboxes. FF15 tried to be all things to all people and was messily halfway inbetween.

keyblader1985 posted...

I mean, everything you're describing is an example of open world done badly. You can't judge something only on its flaws.

Can you recommend some open world games you think did it well?

I haven't played many AAA games at all lately, and I can't think of any open world games besides GTA. But as I said I enjoy those.

wpot posted...

Yep. It was a little like the first Avatar in the sense that you played it and said "wow, this is a noteworthy experience and technologically interesting"...then put it down and more or less forgot about it because there wasn't really much substance underneath. (I liked/stilll like Avatar, but that criticism is fair)

Except for the absurdly thick world where you constantly stumbled on new things and massive amounts of just random lore and stories in various locations.

Count_Drachma posted...

Except for the absurdly thick world where you constantly stumbled on new things and massive amounts of just random lore and stories in various locations.

I get that take, but the mostly-disconnected randomness isn't the substance I want. It's again like the world: there are a ton of things to see/read...but where do they take us, really?

Nothing against anyone who likes that style game, it just doesn't scratch my storyline itch.