Anyone else feel that sandbox games are the future of single player?

[Maximilian]

I do. Fallout 3, GTA, Oblivion, Saints Row 2, Just Cause 2 etc, i just dont see other games like the traditional FPS being relevant today, multiplayer sure but not in single player.

Not saying that in the future it will ALL be sandbox but it definitely will take the single player spotlight.

 

[dpodblood]

I think there is plenty of space in the market for both, and they appeal to different types of players. Sandbox for people who like to sink tons of time into a game and do their own thing. Traditional FPS/Action games for those looking for a story driven scripted experience. Personally I love both.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Metro 2033. Linear, scripted, first person, awesome.

Very short though, as with most linear single-player FPSs.

I think the problem is that it's hard for publishers to get people to pay full price for a single player game with 6-8 hours of gameplay. Multiplayer, sure, but SP-focused games always drop in price quickly.

 

[CPA]

Some of those games are more like Sandbox hybrids. When I think of Sandbox games, I think of Simcity, Train Simulator, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.

 

[gorcorps]

Future? I think you pretty well pointed out that they're the present of good single player games. The vast majority of single player games I've enjoyed in the modern generation have been sandbox games. There's been a few good linear ones like Mass Effect and such, but overall I've much prefered the "sandbox" style.

 

[bentheman939]

Nope.

 

[darkewaffle]

Sandbox games don't really do much for me that often, I think it's hard to strike a balance between a game feeling open and a game feeling like a waste of time or pointless. I couldn't get into FO3 or JC2, and I feel like that was due in part to the "sandbox", because when I started playing it wasn't long before whatever the original point or story to it was lost. I didn't get any sense of urgency out of it, no sense that any of what I did mattered.

Which a lot of games are guilty of to some degree; "I have to save the princess! But luckily I have time to wander aimlessly from place to place rescuing kittens and collecting frog eggs with no consequence before I get around to it." Which pulls me out of it, at least.

I think some games can pull it off by not letting the cat out of the bag right away with regards to the story and by creating side quests that actually have some amount of emotional gravity. Like Dragon Age wasn't really a sandbox game but had a fairly open world feel; and by dividing the central story into branches rather than immediately putting you on the "Gotta kill the archdemon!" track, those branches still feel 'important' (or did for me).

 

[RobertPters77]

Yes.

 

[sactoking]

I hope not. When I get a half hour or hour to play a game I want to accomplish something. I want to experience some storyline to make my time investment worthwhile. I have a life and responsibilities, so when I get some R&R time I don't want to spend it doing mundane things often associated with "sandbox" games. I can do mundane chores in real life and actually accomplish something useful.

 

[dpodblood]

I hope not. When I get a half hour or hour to play a game I want to accomplish something. I want to experience some storyline to make my time investment worthwhile. I have a life and responsibilities, so when I get some R&R time I don't want to spend it doing mundane things often associated with "sandbox" games. I can do mundane chores in real life and actually accomplish something useful.

Try playing just cause 2. I wouldn't call it mundane!

 

[Arg Clin]

Really good games are a mix I think. There has to be a good story but also some feel of freedom. Darkewaffle already mentioned Dragon Age, as probably the best example. I believe Mass Effect falls into the same category.

Without a good story, sandbox does nothing for me. Even a very linear and scripted game with a good story is better than a sandbox where the player wander aimlessly around.

As for the future .. I think it will always be a variety, because some like apples while other prefers oranges. I certainly hope it will be a variety anyway...

 

[Red Hawk]

No. They'll certainly have a place, but I don't forsee them taking the "spotlight". There will always be a section of gamers who love intricate stories in games, and that's harder to do in a sandbox setup.

 

[Red Storm]

Story still matters to a good deal of people (like me), so I say no. Sandbox games are nice and fill a desired niche, but I would hate it if every game tried to become one.

 

[nitromullet]

I hope not. I like to see a mix of things.

Far Cry (1) was great like that because it was a series of linear focused objectives, but you had a lot of freedom on how you chose to approach them.

Fallout 3 was also good. There was a clear focus on where the main quest line was taking you, but the side quests were generally pretty important too. You could rescue slaves or something, which (IMO) would be a worthwhile reason in real life to put the main quest on hold for a bit.

Conversely, I just feel like an errand boy playing Red Dead Redemption or any other RockStar game. It's like paying someone to give you tasks that you have to complete with gimpy controls.

 

[shortylickens]

I dont think I'd call Mass Effect or Dragons Age sandbox. But then I've never played Dragon Age, just heard about it from you guys.

Mass Effect had side stuff like scanning planets and collecting garbage, but that could be safely ignored and you could focus on the story.

 

[Sureshot324]

I refuse to buy another linear, scripted FPS. I may make an exception for HL3 though if it ever comes out.

 

[shortylickens]

I refuse to buy another linear, scripted FPS. I may make an exception for HL3 though if it ever comes out.

Half life is more of an adventure/explorer set from the first person perspective.

 

[coloumb]

You forgot Borderlands.

Or is that more of a "finish and then farm to find the best gear you can" game?

 

[biostud]

Games that focus on good level design have their merit too.

 

[ikachu]

I think we're not quite there yet technologically but I could see sandbox games w/ auto-generated stories and random levels becoming more popular.

Like, imagine that it's an RPG and two kingdoms are at war plus there's a giant monster invasion going on. You could go to the battlefront and help one side or the other or go to the towns that are being overrun by monsters and do stuff there. Dungeons and towns would be generated on the fly ala Diablo, and if you leave an area and come back after there's been a battle it could be completely destroyed or an army is being garrisoned there or something.

There could be some overarching goals such as to defeat the monster invasion or become the emperor of the known world but all the minor interactions and quests are generated on the fly.

Add onto that computer generated speech that matches quality voice actors and auto-generated people (that actually look good and have common traits depending on where they are from, etc..) Basically I guess imagine if Peter Molyneux could actually deliver on half of his promises...

 

[Monster_Munch]

I think FPS games usually are weaker when mated to the sandbox genre. Look at FarCry 2 for example. The problem is content gets recycled and you end up doing the same thing over and over again. Borderlands, FarCry 2 and Just Cause 2 are all guilty of giving you an endless succession of formulaic missions.

For me the best single player FPS in recent years have been linear narrative heavy games like Portal 2, Bioshock, Crysis and even the Modern Warfare games.

 

[DaveSimmons]

No, or at least I hope not.

Fallout New Vegas was better than FO3 because it had a stronger story while keeping the sandbox elements.

The best RPGs (in my opinion) are the ones that have the strongest stories. I'd rather have a near-linear RPG with a great story than a pure sandbox with none. (Even though I'm busy enjoying my $3 Torchlight purchase.)

 

[zokudu]

I think we're not quite there yet technologically but I could see sandbox games w/ auto-generated stories and random levels becoming more popular.

Like, imagine that it's an RPG and two kingdoms are at war plus there's a giant monster invasion going on. You could go to the battlefront and help one side or the other or go to the towns that are being overrun by monsters and do stuff there. Dungeons and towns would be generated on the fly ala Diablo, and if you leave an area and come back after there's been a battle it could be completely destroyed or an army is being garrisoned there or something.

There could be some overarching goals such as to defeat the monster invasion or become the emperor of the known world but all the minor interactions and quests are generated on the fly.

Add onto that computer generated speech that matches quality voice actors and auto-generated people (that actually look good and have common traits depending on where they are from, etc..) Basically I guess imagine if Peter Molyneux could actually deliver on half of his promises...

This sounds a lot like the idea behind the questing system in Guild Wars 2. From my understanding the Devs want you to be exploring and OMG INVASION!. So you join into the fray to defend the town from evil doers.

 

[pontifex]

I get bored with sandbox games quickly if there isn't a meaningful story to follow as well. Sandbox games are pointless.

 

[JSt0rm]

I would love to see a game with the graphics of a witcher 2 or oblivionish type thing with the auto terrain making features of minecraft. I love exploration in a rpg fantasy game and I really think the future will exist with a game like I just mentioned.