Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gatleos]

And here I was naïvely thinking that this would be a thread on the topic of games and how to balance fun and sandboxiness...

I'm just going to ignore the obvious bias that's sure to crop up considering what forum this is and ask: what do you think of The Sandbox? What do you consider a sandbox? What do you consider too much? Do you think that a game with elements of open-ended sandbox play needs to sacrifice short-term fun to do so?

Personally, I think that with most design patterns that sandboxes follow you do need to sacrifice short-term fun. It's just that that's not necessarily a bad thing. A sandbox style game is a powerful thing; it can take a game's story from something you participate in to something you really create! ...To various degrees, depending on the nature of the world (static or procedural, etc.) But on the other hand most sandboxes fall into the trap of failing to produce a cohesive experience to the player. On the other other hand, what is a cohesive experience when you're talking about a sandbox? Some players want to have their cake and eat it too; they would complain whether the game railroaded them through the "open-ended" world or just let them go wherever. It's a constant tightrope walk between boxing the player in and letting them wander off into a boring roller coaster-like difficulty and content curve.

[10ebbor10]

Honestly, I quite like sandbox games. But in general, there appear to be 3 kinds of them.

1) Here's a world to explore, Have fun.
2) Here's a storyline to follow, but take your time and explore the surroundings.
3) Our game was 40 hours too short, so here's some scenery to drive through.

The latter is indeed most annoying, when the sandbox aspect is little more than going from one part of the detailed, but annoyingly big map to the other.

[nenjin]

Enjoyment of the sandbox is primarily a feature of players, IMO. Some people enjoy experimentation, and a lack of direction. Some people enjoy straight forward challenges, clear objectives to complete and a road map. Some people use their creativity to fill in details or connect them together to create a narrative and they enjoy that. Some people are far more literal, and do not derive as much enjoyment from immersing themselves in this shared narrative between themselves and the game.

What do you consider a sandbox?

I'm going to skip a clinical definition and just go straight to what I think makes a good sandbox. And that's interactions. You can call GTA games a sandbox, and on a lot of levels they are. There's seemingly a lot of interactions. With vehicle physics and AI behavior, meta systems like gang warfare and what not. But in truth the range of interactions are narrower than a game like DF, where some interactions spawn more interactions which spawn yet more interactions.

What do you consider too much?

It's more what I consider not enough. Again, a good sandbox to me has lots of interactions and details, which when combined together help the player create or reinforce an interesting narrative. What's not enough in a sandbox environment to me is that simply exists. Now, think about this. The term sandbox originally refers to a pile of sand with some edges to say where it stops, and that's it. As kids, with scoops and water and probably pee, we managed to create something out of nothing and invest it with our imaginations, making those tiny sand drifts into giant rolling dunes in our minds, that wad of sand formed by our sippy cup into a grand castle bastion.

So at its core, yeah, a sandbox in theory just needs to be a defined space with stuff for you to manipulate (interactions) so you can exercise your imagination on it. But a lot of us are young adults or adults now. As we grow older, our capacity for imagination and inventiveness diminishes to some extent. And so we need more than a blank slate to invest our imaginations into. Otherwise, we'd all be artists and game markers instead of media consumers. So what a sandbox also needs is some form of context. Some trait that contextualize what this micro reality is. Such as a star field (space!), an ocean (deep sea shenanigans!) a medieval world filled with monsters (DF!)

To put it plainly, sandboxes that are nothing but matter (sand, blocks, sims) and white space aren't enough. I don't personally play video games to fill in all the details myself, I play them to absorb all the hardwork the developers have done and synthesize it with my own efforts and imagination to arrive at the final product: my game experience. So in that sense, there is no "too much." There are just things I've yet to see and experience or experiment with.

Do you think that a game with elements of open-ended sandbox play needs to sacrifice short-term fun to do so?

Again, I say it mostly comes down to the players. I'll again take DF as an example (since we all know it and it can be fairly polarizing amongst its playerbase about what the real fun is.) I've heard some people say of DF "I hate how it takes a million hours of prep work to make something cool happen." For these players, it's about the destination and not necessarily the journey. (I say that in a non-pejorative sense.)

For others, it's about the narrative that is created along the path. Short-term fun, for them, is as much watching the development of a peasant into the Sheriff as it is about having that badass, impregnable, self-sustaining fortress.

So I guess my answer to the question is no, it doesn't. With the right amount of details and interaction, micro goals appear along the way to serve as short term fun.

The latter is indeed most annoying, when the sandbox aspect is little more than going from one part of the detailed, but annoyingly big map to the other.

So are you like, including Skyrim in this group?

[MoLAoS]

You probably have to have a lot of grinding like gameplay in multiplayer sandboxes. Not so much in singleplayer, depending on your goals. Sacrifice short term fun? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I mean, a lot of times the grind gives meaning to the result. If everyone can fly Titans in EVE in a few weeks, its not at all an interesting thing to do. Big battles in multiplayer sandboxes are impressive because of what they represent. That's why no amount of "RvRvR" battles can compare to a nullsec tidi s/lagfest. Everyone can dive into "RvRvR" and it has no real consequences. Although sometimes it has fake ones.

[Gatleos]

Honestly, I quite like sandbox games. But in general, there appear to be 3 kinds of them.

1) Here's a world to explore, Have fun.
2) Here's a storyline to follow, but take your time and explore the surroundings.
3) Our game was 40 hours too short, so here's some scenery to drive through.

The latter is indeed most annoying, when the sandbox aspect is little more than going from one part of the detailed, but annoyingly big map to the other.

It really depends on the player I guess. Some would consider a large empty map between them and their goals to be padding, others thrive on the immersion of it. After a certain point, filling absolutely every nook and side passage in your open world with things important to the game can feel a little too "gamey". It's hard to know where to draw the line.

Enjoyment of the sandbox is primarily a feature of players, IMO. Some people enjoy experimentation, and a lack of direction. Some people enjoy straight forward challenges, clear objectives to complete and a road map. Some people use their creativity to fill in details or connect them together to create a narrative and they enjoy that. Some people are far more literal, and do not derive as much enjoyment from immersing themselves in this shared narrative between themselves and the game.

I very much agree. I'm one of those people that likes to see a story happen in front of me as an emergent property of the game's systems, but it's perfectly valid also to want a more concrete story to hold on to. My favorite aspect of tabletop roleplaying games is that they (with a good GM at least) can get the best of both types of storytelling; in a regular story, you know with near absolute certainty that the heroes are going to win every time. But when you're playing a video game, you/the protagonist could really lose at any time. A good sandbox game or GM can combine this thrilling uncertainty with a story that the player really becomes part of.

Wow okay that kind of turned into a tangent.

Do you think that a game with elements of open-ended sandbox play needs to sacrifice short-term fun to do so?

Again, I say it mostly comes down to the players. I'll again take DF as an example (since we all know it and it can be fairly polarizing amongst its playerbase about what the real fun is.) I've heard some people say of DF "I hate how it takes a million hours of prep work to make something cool happen." For these players, it's about the destination and not necessarily the journey. (I say that in a non-pejorative sense.)

For others, it's about the narrative that is created along the path. Short-term fun, for them, is as much watching the development of a peasant into the Sheriff as it is about having that badass, impregnable, self-sustaining fortress.

So I guess my answer to the question is no, it doesn't. With the right amount of details and interaction, micro goals appear along the way to serve as short term fun.

By short-term fun I meant something more like the joy of racking up a combo of goomba stomps or running from an advancing wall of doom while dodging enemies or something. The alternative can be something that sandbox games offer, but other types of game can as well. Watching that magma cistern fill up due to your exquisitely-designed pump stack and power system, seeing your character grow over time and squishing monsters that formerly caused you big problems like bugs, finally getting the raw materials to make a nice chimney for your minecraft house... These are all fun, but in a more long-term, intellectual way. You had to build up to the fun, and in some cases, absence made the payoff more potent (MoLAoS gave a good example of that).

The things I listed before, on the other hand, are more instant and visceral kinds of fun. Neither is inherently better I think, but long-term rewards are harder to create for the player.

[Glowcat]

You probably have to have a lot of grinding like gameplay in multiplayer sandboxes. Not so much in singleplayer, depending on your goals. Sacrifice short term fun? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I mean, a lot of times the grind gives meaning to the result. If everyone can fly Titans in EVE in a few weeks, its not at all an interesting thing to do. Big battles in multiplayer sandboxes are impressive because of what they represent. That's why no amount of "RvRvR" battles can compare to a nullsec tidi s/lagfest. Everyone can dive into "RvRvR" and it has no real consequences. Although sometimes it has fake ones.

I feel this is very essential to what I consider a good sandbox game, particularly MMOs. Without any element of gain/loss associated with battles they become... how to describe it... Arcade vs. Simulation? Where partaking in a simulation makes every victory/loss feel more fulfilling or devastating and you can ride that emotional high for an overall better experience imo. It's not an isolated preference as I also prefer my fantasy settings/stories to be a grounded in a complete world as possible with long term player-driven goals, whereas goofy one shot games or predetermined storylines don't appeal to my tastes which lean strongly towards exploration and personalizing aspects. A RvRvR arena is there, and it can be fun for a while, but I feel like the game experience drives me more than I drive it.

[Neonivek]

Honestly, I quite like sandbox games. But in general, there appear to be 3 kinds of them.

1) Here's a world to explore, Have fun.
2) Here's a storyline to follow, but take your time and explore the surroundings.
3) Our game was 40 hours too short, so here's some scenery to drive through.

The latter is indeed most annoying, when the sandbox aspect is little more than going from one part of the detailed, but annoyingly big map to the other.

Ahh I see you played Twilight Princess

[Shadowgandor]

To me, a great example of a sandbox game type that I like is mount & blade. You grow more powerful overtime while always influencing and being influenced by the dynamic world around you.

[Tawa]

Honestly, I quite like sandbox games. But in general, there appear to be 3 kinds of them.

1) Here's a world to explore, Have fun.
2) Here's a storyline to follow, but take your time and explore the surroundings.
3) Our game was 40 hours too short, so here's some scenery to drive through.

The latter is indeed most annoying, when the sandbox aspect is little more than going from one part of the detailed, but annoyingly big map to the other.

Ahh I see you played Twilight Princess

>:|

I see you haven't played Wind Waker.

[WealthyRadish]

For me it heavily depends on the genre. If it's a genre that's based around the player creating their experience (things like DF, some strategy games, even things like minecraft), then expanding the world or possibilities is almost always a good thing. For a standard generic RPG, making it open world is an alright way of shoving more content in, which works if the mechanics and world are well-implemented.

But when it comes to open world first person or third person shooters (I would probably consider FPS my favorite 'genre', though I usually dislike third person games), I can't enjoy them. I've tried... ones I can remember are Just Cause 1/2, various GTAs, the first Red Faction, and others that always fell flat after a couple hours. It's weird, but I actually very much prefer either linear or multiplayer FPS, so long as it doesn't take any cues from CoD. For reference, by linear I basically just mean 'not open world'. There are good and bad ways of doing it, with a good linear game providing multiple approaches, pathways, etc to get past an obstacle. So something like Deus Ex (the original). I think someone mentioned non-linear sandboxes favoring player creativity, but for FPS, at least in my experience, it's the opposite. A well-designed level gives the player room to explore for secrets, alternate routes, or bypass things altogether, whereas most open world shooters make up for poor design with quantity. Even if you may technically have more possible approaches for a given objective in an open world game, it still usually devolves to either crashing a plane into it or just driving up to the area anyway for some more generic shooting. It's a genre where I'd rather experience consistent quality than quantity, and the usual zaniness of doing random dumb stuff gets old for me fast.

[Mindmaker]

I loved the Premise of Evochron Mercenary. It's probably one of the best space adventure sandbox games, since it really has some interesting ideas and has the constrictions of most other space game sandboxes removed.
However it ends up as a too realistic depiction of space: giant, empty and bland for the most part.

I really prefer the X-Series to it, despite not being in quite the same sub-sub genere. It has a more "fragmentet" sandbox (sectors), that it puts together meaningfully (the connections between them).

[Graknorke]

the first Red Faction

Red Faction was a linear FPS though. I mean, you could technically backtrack, but there was no reason to and nothing to do if you did.

[WealthyRadish]

Oh, sorry, I meant Red Faction: Guerrilla. I don't know much about the franchise, not sure why I assumed it was the first. It stuck to the same formula of territory control, generic missions, and installation raiding of so many other open world games.

[nenjin]

In general, there are different kinds of fun. Almost no game delivers just one kind of fun, and excludes some kinds of fun by nature of its design and points of focus. (I'm not saying anything we don't already know.)

But for example, DF will never deliver the kind "atmospheric fun" that Amnesia delivers. Papers Please will never deliver the kind of object moving through 3d space, reflexes and reaction based fun that a FPS will.

So I see it likes this. You have these hundreds of fun types. As people, we gravitate toward a handful of them, and away from others. Games likewise grab a handful. They add a theme on top of this, and a player is either drawn or repulsed by the final product. (Excluding all those theory-destroying realities like polish, bugs, execution, ect....)

For me, I like a lot of different kinds of fun in games. FPS are the adrenaline shot, fast burning, outer world-destroying focus and immersion fun. You're engaged on an almost animal level. About 2 hours and I start to feel a little strung out.

ARPGs represent a slower drip, a shallower level of focus. But added to that is the overarching meta of gear management, a kind of long-term buzz of rational and logical problem solving. After about 5 hours, I tend to feel sort of sluggish because I've been so absorbed in something that requires 50% of my attention. That bit you use to look at gear and make choices, and the ever present click click click. The rest is for talking to friends or, for some people, watching movies.

And there's sims. Sims are the true slow burn. True action is rare and momentary at best. All of the fun is glacial in its delivery, watching something wander around and slowly become something else, or watching castle walls grow over hours and hours. It's sampling little bits of the fun slowly, like going out for Tapas with friends. You have the time and leisure to absorb information, imagine, get distracted, ect... versus what I mentioned above, where you're compelled to move on even when playing alone. I can play a sim for 8 hours or more and feel....not strung out or sluggish like with other kinds of games, but a special kind of detached, where you've been wholly wrapped up in something else, down to most minor of details, for hours. Like staring through a microscope for too long.

So yeah. I think it's ok to ask what kind of fun a sim gives up by nature of its being.....but not a binary fun: yes/no.

[Neonivek]

I see you haven't played Wind Waker.

Why is it worse or better than Twilight Princess in that respect?

I mean don't get me wrong, I like Twilight Princess... but the game would be a significantly shorter if you took out its excessive uneventful travel.