#1 Posted by Inverno (13292 posts) - - Show Bio

Everyone has a taste in games and my favorite ones are usually the open world ones like Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed, the Elder Scrolls and Saints Row games, usually because they have provide a great freedom to the player, allowing to do things at their own pace and explore the world in-game, basically do what they want, whenever they want. But it seems a lot of gamers find these genre particularly boring to play, with a few exceptions like GTA for plenty of different reasons. Why some gamers dislike these kind of non-linear freedom?

#2 Posted by Loki9876 (3043 posts) - - Show Bio

I have no idea, I like sandbox games too.

#3 Posted by ReVamp (22798 posts) - - Show Bio

Because at many times the mechanics aren't as tight.

#4 Posted by longbowhunter (7753 posts) - - Show Bio

All the cat poop!

#5 Posted by The_Lunact_And_Manic (3286 posts) - - Show Bio

I like sandboxes.

(But, I can't see games like DMC or God Of War turning in sandboxes, also.)

#6 Posted by RobocopSlayerT800 (2341 posts) - - Show Bio

Never heard of this.

#7 Posted by YoungJustice (6919 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends, like Lunatic said, games like DmC and God of War wouldn't really work as sandboxes.

#8 Posted by Squalleon (5004 posts) - - Show Bio

WHO DOESN"T LIKE SANDBOXES?

Online
#9 Posted by Decoy Elite (29923 posts) - - Show Bio

A sandbox is quite frankly easier to screw up, not to mention in order to really enjoy a sandbox game there either has to be a lot of content or you have to be able to enjoy yourself messing around. 
Honestly while I like the screwing around aspect of a sandbox, I do find it annoying that when I do want to actually play out story missions I still have to usually go through the entire map half the time because the developers wanted to extend the gameplay.  

#10 Posted by Aiden Cross (15526 posts) - - Show Bio

There's sometimes no clear direction of what to do. Sometimes I like just going around doing whatever i want to do in a videogame, and other times i want to follow a strict story line with paths written out for me. =)

#11 Posted by Inverno (13292 posts) - - Show Bio

@RobocopSlayerT800 said:

Never heard of this.

You probably did, just by a different name. I mean am sure you heard of GTA at some point :P

#12 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

Why do people hate Fable is my question?

#13 Edited by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

Because as weird as it sounds, they don't want the freedom, or maybe can't handle it. They want to be told what to do in a game and when to do it, you give them so many options and they struggle with the choices. Typically in these types of games there's more than one objective, whereas in say fighting games the objective is to beat the crap out of your opponent.

#14 Posted by TheCannon (19477 posts) - - Show Bio

What's a sandbox?

#15 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (35175 posts) - - Show Bio

I love sandboxes but this is the answer \/

@Xanni15 said:

Because as weird as it sounds, they don't want the freedom, or maybe can't handle it. They want to be told what to do in a game and when to do it, you give them so many options and they struggle with the choices. Typically in these types of games there's more than one objective, whereas in say fighting games the objective is to be the crap out of your opponent.

@TheCannon: A game like Skrim or GTA where there is an open world map that's free to roam

#16 Posted by TheCannon (19477 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@TheCannon: A game like Skrim or GTA where there is an open world map that's free to roam

Ah. I'm used to people just calling them open world. Thanks.

#17 Posted by Decoy Elite (29923 posts) - - Show Bio
@laflux said:

Why do people hate Fable is my question?

People hate Fable 3 because it's nowhere as good as Fable 2 and the decisions towards the end feel like a pointless add on rather than the great kingdom ruling mode that fans were promised. 
Not that I'm bitter or anything. >.>
#18 Posted by ReVamp (22798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Decoy Elite said:

@laflux said:

Why do people hate Fable is my question?

People hate Fable 3 because it's nowhere as good as Fable 2 and the decisions towards the end feel like a pointless add on rather than the great kingdom ruling mode that fans were promised. Not that I'm bitter or anything. >.>

I was about to say... <.<

Never played 2 though, but one is famazing.

#19 Posted by Decoy Elite (29923 posts) - - Show Bio
@ReVamp: 2 is pretty good. It got rid of that bull crap where you got good points for killing monsters and made it a tad bit easier to be evil early on. 
Although it did make things a bit more simple from an RPG perspective which peeved off a lot of Fable 1 fans. Personally I didn't do a full playthrough of 1 so I can't say which is better.
#20 Posted by ReVamp (22798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Decoy Elite: I didn't do a full playthrough of one.

BUT.

Its one of those games that I must have had like 15+ save files, each with hours upon hours into it <.<

I'm weird like that, lol.

#21 Posted by joshmightbe (24773 posts) - - Show Bio

My attitude toward them totally depends on the game, In Incredible Hulk Ultimate Destruction or Spider-man games because of how the main characters move around and you can't really get a feel for something like how Spider-Man swings through the city without the sandbox but some games don't need it and it can be kind of distracting when its unnecessary.

#22 Posted by Inverno (13292 posts) - - Show Bio

BUMP anyone?

#23 Posted by Agent9149 (2868 posts) - - Show Bio

Sometimes the main content/story/plot is weak and melodramatic.

#24 Posted by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

Sounds more like a sandbox game is more or less a 3rd person view game. Personally, I'm not into games where you have to run around doing mission to mission...however I have made exceptions.

Game called Psi-Ops which was GREAT, you not only had to do missions third person view but it was the first game to introduce that unique engine on behalf of havok and was actually the predecessor gameplay engine wise to SW: Force Unleashed(but imo better since you had more powers not just force/TK)

Another game I loved but more so because of my inner fanboy was MK's Konquest modes in Deception and MKA. I liked the freedom to go wherever you wanted. Had an important role to the storyline and was fun. The first fighting game to have a third person game/konquest mode built within the game's storymode. Which I loved!

I tried AC, AC single player bores me personally but I do like the Assassination mode that's online. I only wish it was 4 player offline multiplayer.

GTA never appealed to me, to me it was very boring, dull. The freedom of it is great however, I just get bored fast from that kind of game.

Typically speaking I like games that offer "constant action and competitiveness" while at the same time challenging such as a fighting game, racing game, puzzle game and platformers like Mario and DKC.

However, I also enjoy some sports titles such as baseball, pool, bowling being a sports fan.

Well, I guess that's it lol.

#25 Posted by ImmortalOne (3539 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCannon said:

What's a sandbox?

#26 Posted by mikethekiller (8493 posts) - - Show Bio

Sandbox games are the sh**.

#27 Posted by MysteriousUsername (1210 posts) - - Show Bio
@Vaeternus: The Konquest mode in MKA was not a sandbox mode.  
It was far too linear for that, although it was quite fun. 
#28 Edited by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

@MysteriousUsername said:

@Vaeternus: The Konquest mode in MKA was not a sandbox mode. It was far too linear for that, although it was quite fun.

Never said it was a sandbox mode per-se ;), but it was definitely more free roam and similar. MKA's had more action, attacks etc since Deception's was fun but dull at times being as how you could only talk to people and not directly kill people around you like you could in MKA's Konquest mode.

#29 Posted by JLDoom (2310 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vaeternus said:

Another game I loved but more so because of my inner fanboy was MK's Konquest modes in Deception and MKA. I liked the freedom to go wherever you wanted. Had an important role to the storyline and was fun. The first fighting game to have a third person game/konquest mode built within the game's storymode. Which I loved!

Really? I thought it was pretty terrible. The graphics were very bad, the voice acting just horrible and the controls (in the free-roam sections) were really annoying. It tried to sell itself as an RPG but it had no elements from one whatsoever, it was just a game were you talked to someone then to someone else and then entered a fight. I also heard there were some continuity errors but I didnt care for those because I'm not that big of an MK fan, just a casual player of the series

Sorry for the long rant but I was really disappointed by konquest (especially in deception) because I really wanted to see a free-roam RPG Mortal Kombat game were you could personalize your own character, make your own choices (like joining the Lin kuei or not), actually interact with the MK characters instead of just talking to them and personalize your fighting moves

#30 Posted by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

@JLDoom said:

@Vaeternus said:

Another game I loved but more so because of my inner fanboy was MK's Konquest modes in Deception and MKA. I liked the freedom to go wherever you wanted. Had an important role to the storyline and was fun. The first fighting game to have a third person game/konquest mode built within the game's storymode. Which I loved!

Really? I thought it was pretty terrible. The graphics were very bad, the voice acting just horrible and the controls (in the free-roam sections) were really annoying. It tried to sell itself as an RPG but it had no elements from one whatsoever, it was just a game were you talked to someone then to someone else and then entered a fight. I also heard there were some continuity errors but I didnt care for those because I'm not that big of an MK fan, just a casual player of the series

Sorry for the long rant but I was really disappointed by konquest (especially in deception) because I really wanted to see a free-roam RPG Mortal Kombat game were you could personalize your own character, make your own choices (like joining the Lin kuei or not), actually interact with the MK characters instead of just talking to them and personalize your fighting moves

Deception's voice acting was bad, MKA's was better but good in MKDC and MK9.

But the graphics were last gen, but still better looking then the GTA games which look very choppy. It was more a free roam storyline based on the games story mode surrounding the main character shujinko and in MKA Taven. It was better in MKA's then MKD's. I did like how you can pass time though and go to different realms.

#31 Posted by Matchstick (565 posts) - - Show Bio

The reason I don't like sandbox games is I don't have enough time for them.  I have 2 kids, a wife, and a home business to take care of so when I finally get some time to myself to enjoy some video games I just want to get straight into the good stuff. I'd much rather play a game with a tight linear story line than waste all my gaming time roaming around huge map.

#32 Posted by SoA (5259 posts) - - Show Bio

i play saints row 2 to death and i love sand box games never ever heard of people not liking them

#33 Posted by JediXMan (31332 posts) - - Show Bio

I like sandbox games. I'm a fan of inFamous (the freeroaming attractes it to me to it) and I play Minecraft (can't get more sandnox than that).

Moderator
#34 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

There's a time and a place, as it were.

As one who has looked at games from an academic perspective, I can tell you that there are two main camps of games researchers (and, likely, of gamers): those who view games as primarily interactive experiences, and those who view them as story-telling devices. As player agency (freedom to do as you please) is pretty much directly opposed to structured, authored narrative, different games cater to one or the other extreme (and a few good ones manage to walk the line). Racing and fighting games are notoriously gameplay-driven experiences. Though they sometimes have cutscenes or "story" modes, those additions tend to suck, and even if done competently they are never the reason people play those games. They play because they want to enter complicated combos in a competitive environment, or move quickly around tough-to-navigate courses. On the flip-side, you have linear, "guided tour" style games, where you are basically playing to advance the story, to earn the next long cutscene, etc. A lot of popular RPGs suffer from a gameplay overload, where you are conscious that the gameplay itself is time-consuming and obnoxious, but suffer through because you care about what happens next.

Some people really like playing games because they really care about story. If they could, they'd skip all the fight scenes and combat and just solve a few puzzles and watch a lot of videos/character interactions. For them, something as un-directed and indifferent to narrative as a pure sandbox game is simply the opposite of what they are looking for. They like knowing where they're supposed to be. And they're annoyed by games that pretend the next mission is urgent (hurry, so-and-so's in danger, this bad thing is happening) but gives them the opportunity to go do side quests for four hours before actually tackling that mission.

Of course, like the games themselves, truly "well-rounded" gamers will probably play all sorts of games, because what they're in the mood for will change from week to week and month to month. But gamers with strong preferences are just as likely to love sandbox games as to hate them; it all depends on whether you're a ludologist or a narratologist at heart.

Personally, I lead more toward story-driven solo play and socially-driven multiplayer, but I acknowledge the value in more open-world experiences and find myself enjoying them at times. I loved Arkham City, which had plenty of sandbox stuff to it, but provided plenty of direction at the same time. I think that game's ability to hedge its bets is what made it so popular: whether you like fighting or mystery-solving, action or exposition, that game really nails just about everything.

#35 Posted by JLDoom (2310 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vaeternus: The graphics were bad, very bad. Compare them to the main game and it looks like they bundled a mediocre N64 game with MK Deception

MKA's konquest was better, no doubt about that, but that's mainly because they didnt try to make some half-assed RPG and did a straight action-adventure game. I liked this new konquest, even if I didnt like Taven at all

I dont see any reason to explore the different realms, really. The side-missions are generic and boring, and there's nothing to do other than talk to random npc's and collect some coins and other extra content

#36 Edited by spetsnaz_gru (235 posts) - - Show Bio

Because some people such as I, prefer the narrative of the not-too-free world. Sometimes, if the game gives too much freedom, the script gets stretched too much to be preferred.

I do like Red Dead though. Because it has a great script and good storytelling despite the massive playworld. Same goes with Sleeping Dogs. But games like Shenmue, All Elder Scrolls games, Fallout, etc. They sucked balls in terms of storytelling in my taste.

#37 Posted by Crom-Cruach (8869 posts) - - Show Bio

Because I like a tightly nit, well woven story with a beginning middle and end. Open sandboxes are not bad, but by having a linear story can make for amazing games.

#38 Posted by turoksonofstone (12901 posts) - - Show Bio

sandbox is good mmmmmmkay.

#39 Posted by TheSheepHerder (11944 posts) - - Show Bio

I actually like sandbox type games, but more often than not the problem is that the devs poorly execute the mechanics and it mars the experience. A game that comes to mind is L.A. Noire, which had really superb visuals, a well written plot, good actors and so much research put into it, yet the gunplay was ridiculous and Los Angeles felt so dull and lifeless at times that driving to the crime scene became a chore.

It's a shame because the cases were really engaging and fun to do, but the world was just so boring and the mechanics were so poorly executed.

#40 Posted by _Zombie_ (10448 posts) - - Show Bio
@laflux

Why do people hate Fable is my question?

Probably because II and III sucked.
#41 Posted by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

@JLDoom said:

@Vaeternus: The graphics were bad, very bad. Compare them to the main game and it looks like they bundled a mediocre N64 game with MK Deception

MKA's konquest was better, no doubt about that, but that's mainly because they didnt try to make some half-assed RPG and did a straight action-adventure game. I liked this new konquest, even if I didnt like Taven at all

I dont see any reason to explore the different realms, really. The side-missions are generic and boring, and there's nothing to do other than talk to random npc's and collect some coins and other extra content

Yeah, they were better in MKA over MKD no doubt as was the voice acting, actual gameplay etc plus I thought MKD's Konquest was a tad too long personally. But if you're an MK fan of the mythology you'll like it. But yeah, they admitted the 3D MK's were too "cartoony" for their tastes, but still kept the darker vibe going on thankfully. MK9 looks 100x better and easily on par if not better then any other fighter graphically and gameplay wise.

Injustice also looks great I must say, very detailed. When you have money you can do more you know? Thank goodness MK team stayed American and WB bought them!

The realm thing well as I said, pretty much if you're a fan of the series you'll like it and let's face it out of every fighter MK by far has the best storyline and a storyline for that matter. Which made it fun, the sidemodes were good too though like MK racing, puzzle kombat and chess. A lot of fans liked that. MK9 they got more serious and ditched the side games outside of the test your might(which is a classic) and tag team modes which are fun as hell.

#42 Posted by JLDoom (2310 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vaeternus: Well, can't disagree with those points!

#43 Posted by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

@JLDoom said:

@Vaeternus: Well, can't disagree with those points!

Thanks! :) So I take it in Injustice you'll pick Flash? lol

#44 Posted by JLDoom (2310 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vaeternus said:

@JLDoom said:

@Vaeternus: Well, can't disagree with those points!

Thanks! :) So I take it in Injustice you'll pick Flash? lol

Ha ha, you know it! Do you already have a character youll try out first or are you waiting for someone to be confirmed?

#45 Posted by Setherial (213 posts) - - Show Bio

Most sandbox games are fun to screw around with, but they cannot hold my attention for very long. Games that are too open-ended do not offer much in terms of goals and challenges.

#46 Posted by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

@JLDoom said:

@Vaeternus said:

@JLDoom said:

@Vaeternus: Well, can't disagree with those points!

Thanks! :) So I take it in Injustice you'll pick Flash? lol

Ha ha, you know it! Do you already have a character youll try out first or are you waiting for someone to be confirmed?

Doomsday, Green Arrow, Superman & MMH(has to be in the game at some point)

I'm not going to use Batman or Flash(but may play around with them for fun) mainly because I think everyone and their mother will be using them. Even Superman too I bet lol

#47 Posted by Nefarious (22948 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't like sandboxes because my clothes get sandy.