I think I’m done with open world games

[bystander36]

I never said that. Are you trolling or severely confused?

To repeat myself yet again: experiencing all significant content within 30 hours (or thereabouts) while having non-linear gameplay. Or to put it another way, a typical semi-open game of which I listed numerous examples before.

Open world games don’t follow that criterion, including Skyrim. You either have a 100+ hour time sink or you’re skipping significant content just to race through the main quest, which then ironically turns it into a linear game slapped on a massive landmass. So it becomes the worst of both worlds.

Skyrim without Faction, Daedric, and other non-trivial side-quests is not Skyrim. Go to any Skyrim forum and post something like “I only played the main quest”. The first reply you’ll get is “you played the game wrong, nobody plays Skyrim for the main quest”. Buying a game with the intention of skipping 90% significant content is stupid.

Skyrim is Skyrim whether you do 1 quest of 10000. Every major quest line is completely and utterly independent of each other. Whether you do the main story, do the civil war, expansions or guild quests, they are all separate, independent quests which give you the Skyrim experience regardless of your level.

I've played at least 20 characters, and I'm quite certain not a single character played all those quest lines. I don't think I've had a single character do even half of them. I've played Skyrim, and had the Skyrim experience regardless. You have a very strange view what makes the game Skyrim.

Whether I drink a single cup of Pepsi, or the full 2 liter bottle, it's still Pepsi, is it not?

 

[bystander36]

I personally find I just don't have the time to dedicate to gaming like I did as a teenager. Because of this, I never really get to finish open world games anymore. I have started playing The Witcher 3 more times than I can count, and I always enjoy it, but because I don't have a set amount of time to consistently play every day or two, I end up forgetting what I was doing and ultimately stop playing, only to try it again a couple of months later.

Having said all that, I do love the idea of open world games, and I hope the trend continues and evolves into even more detailed game worlds, if not for me then for current gamers to enjoy.

I'm curious as to how much time you would find manageable? I know when I started playing the Witcher 3, I started to feel like it went on forever, then I realized all I needed to do is stick to the primary quest line. That character ended up taking 60 hours to finish, but had I figured that I only needed to do the primary quest line, I'm sure it could have been finished in under 40 hours. Have you ever tried playing the game that way? I thought it got a lot more fun once I did, as the main quests are more exciting, give tons more experience, and keep you wanting to play more.

 

[Red Storm]

I'm curious as to how much time you would find manageable? I know when I started playing the Witcher 3, I started to feel like it went on forever, then I realized all I needed to do is stick to the primary quest line. That character ended up taking 60 hours to finish, but had I figured that I only needed to do the primary quest line, I'm sure it could have been finished in under 40 hours. Have you ever tried playing the game that way? I thought it got a lot more fun once I did, as the main quests are more exciting, give tons more experience, and keep you wanting to play more.

It's not a matter of getting overwhelmed. I want to get fully immersed in the game, to grab every quest, talk to every character that has lines, see every monster, find every treasure, etc. I love the game, it's just a problem of having a consistent amount of time to do that, which I unfortunately don't have.

 

[bystander36]

It's not a matter of getting overwhelmed. I want to get fully immersed in the game, to grab every quest, talk to every character that has lines, see every monster, find every treasure, etc. I love the game, it's just a problem of having a consistent amount of time to do that, which I unfortunately don't have.

The next time you get the urge to play it, try as I suggest. Stick to the primary quests and only do the 2ndary quests as needed, as sometimes you need a couple levels before you continue, or sometimes the primary quest tells you to deal with a particular 2ndary quest. You may feel as if you are skipping things, or not immersing yourself, but try it anyway. You may find you become more immersed.

When open world games first came about, the dev's were quite clear that those added quests were optional, and only for those who wanted to extend their gaming experience. The quality of those quests are usually quite poor anyway, in comparison to the main stories.

 

[Face2Face]

I have over 300 hrs playing SKYRIM since 2011. I never could get into Oblivion, and never played Morrowind back in the day. I do hope to play SKYWIND when it's released. Anyway, I didn't realize how much I liked exploring open worlds until SKYRIM. I was obsessed with the game for a straight year...Still to this day, it's my favorite game of all time.

 

[futurefields]

I stuck to the main quest in Oblivion and beat the game in a week

 

[OCNewbie]

I'm thinking most people that are racking up hundreds of hours in a big, open-world type game are generally doing so over multiple playthroughs. I think that's one thing that typically separates the open world game type versus the linear ones, that replayability is much, much more likely to be compelling. When you're playing an average-length, linear game, the first playthrough is generally sufficient to experience the best bits of the game, and there might not seem like much of a point to play a second, third, etc., time. In that regard, I think open world games definitely offer a better gaming value per dollar, even more so if they support mods.

 

[werepossum]

It's interesting to see that here we have two different problems with massive open world games. BFG doesn't want so much content because he feels a certain measure of satisfaction and accomplishment from finishing. Also, if we accept that content per dollar is a reasonable metric of a game, and he is only willing to put thirty hours into a game with three hundred hours of content, then he is getting only 1/10 of his money's worth. Red on the other hand wants all the content, but recognizing that he has time only to experience a part of it, tends to gain less satisfaction from massive open world games.

I don't see how developers can do much for BFG. Massive single player open world games have to have massive content; there is no significant market for an open world game with thirty hours of content. However, it's possible that they could provide a better experience for Red by making quests more modular, more naturally grouped into sets which are more self-contained. Break that huge game world into segments, with one main quest per area. Maybe tie together all the main quest lines into a mega story arc, so that the player can accomplish so great, world changing goal without having to concentrate on that for hundreds of hours.

The flip side is that there are only so many development dollars available for an individual game. If we get better written modules with more and better scripted events, then either overall content has to go down or cost has to go up. Fallout 4 was $60, with the season pass set initially at $30. I'd be happy to pay twice that for more and better content, but some players won't or can't. It would also make developing riskier, since as cost rises, sales decrease. Open world games are formulaic in development and quite expensive, so a developer changing the formula is at greater risk of losing money than is one who understands and implements the formula.

 

[bystander36]

It's interesting to see that here we have two different problems with massive open world games. BFG doesn't want so much content because he feels a certain measure of satisfaction and accomplishment from finishing. Also, if we accept that content per dollar is a reasonable metric of a game, and he is only willing to put thirty hours into a game with three hundred hours of content, then he is getting only 1/10 of his money's worth. Red on the other hand wants all the content, but recognizing that he has time only to experience a part of it, tends to gain less satisfaction from massive open world games.

With most these types of games, they spend 90% of their time on the major quest lines, and make a random quest generator for the rest that keep those who want endless content busy, and others can ignore. Skyrim is no exception, but they did add a few major quest lines, rather than just 1. Whether they made the game a 30 hours game, or 300 hours, Skyrim is a AAA company, and will charge you the same, so you get your value out of it either way. BFG just has to accept that. He could even play the game multiple times and treat them as 4 or 5 separate games, one for each major quest line (I do this a lot with Skyrim).

I don't see how developers can do much for BFG. Massive single player open world games have to have massive content; there is no significant market for an open world game with thirty hours of content. However, it's possible that they could provide a better experience for Red by making quests more modular, more naturally grouped into sets which are more self-contained. Break that huge game world into segments, with one main quest per area. Maybe tie together all the main quest lines into a mega story arc, so that the player can accomplish so great, world changing goal without having to concentrate on that for hundreds of hours.

They actually do a pretty good job at grouping up quests into groups already. Skyrim has the quests broken up into groups and labeled as such in your journal. They have the quest clearly labeled as a Guild, Dragonborn, Civil War and other quest lines. The Witcher 3 has them broken up into the main story, 2ndary quests, Witcher Contracts and Treasure hunts. BFG just doesn't like the idea that he hasn't finished all the major quests lines for a character. I personally have never finished all the major quest lines on any 1 character, as my character will achieve all the skills he has in his/her design, and I get bored with no new real progress to be made and start over.

The flip side is that there are only so many development dollars available for an individual game. If we get better written modules with more and better scripted events, then either overall content has to go down or cost has to go up. Fallout 4 was $60, with the season pass set initially at $30. I'd be happy to pay twice that for more and better content, but some players won't or can't. It would also make developing riskier, since as cost rises, sales decrease. Open world games are formulaic in development and quite expensive, so a developer changing the formula is at greater risk of losing money than is one who understands and implements the formula.

Unfortunately, AAA titles simply ask for $60 for all games, no matter how long or short they are. Whether they added or shortened the game is hardly a factor in what we will pay.

 

[BFG10K]

Skyrim is Skyrim whether you do 1 quest of 10000. Every major quest line is completely and utterly independent of each other. Whether you do the main story, do the civil war, expansions or guild quests, they are all separate, independent quests which give you the Skyrim experience regardless of your level.

No it isn't. Playing one quest and finishing at character level one isn't playing the game. It's some trivial time of futzing around at the keyboard, is what it is.

If I finish the first level of Dishonored (the game I'm playing right now) then stop, have I played the game?

If you think it's still Skyrim, remove that extra content. Of course that's a contradiction on your part since you were stating Bethesda can't remove it given there are people that play the game solely for that content. That means that content does make the game different.

You're basically now arguing that content makes no difference to a game (those 99999 quests). A truly lunatic argument.

I've played at least 20 characters, and I'm quite certain not a single character played all those quest lines. I don't think I've had a single character do even half of them. I've played Skyrim, and had the Skyrim experience regardless. You have a very strange view what makes the game Skyrim.

Your argument basically boils down down "you're wrong, the game doesn't have too much content, you just need to race through and do one quest while skipping the rest. See, you're still playing the game!"

By your own definition the game has too much content since you're skipping the vast majority of it. I don't buy games to skip 90% of their content. That's stupid.

It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with time. If I'm skipping 90% of something that means it's unsuitable for its purpose.

Would you enroll in a class to skip 90% of the content? But...but...I attended the first lecture so that means I still took the class. Give me a degree because the extra content doesn't mean anything!

With most these types of games, they spend 90% of their time on the major quest lines, and make a random quest generator for the rest that keep those who want endless content busy, and others can ignore. Skyrim is no exception, but they did add a few major quest lines, rather than just 1. Whether they made the game a 30 hours game, or 300 hours, Skyrim is a AAA company, and will charge you the same, so you get your value out of it either way. BFG just has to accept that. He could even play the game multiple times and treat them as 4 or 5 separate games, one for each major quest line (I do this a lot with Skyrim).

I don't need to "accept" anything. Like I told the other guy, you need to stop preaching to others what they should be thinking. Take your fanatical arrogance elsewhere. Nobody cares about your pastor-guiding-his-flock religious soapbox ranting. Not sure why you feel such desperation to show me the "error" of my ways.

I'd suggest you instead run along and play some open world games. Sticking to only the first quest of course because we all know content makes absolutely no difference to a game.

 

[bystander36]

No it isn't. Playing one quest and finishing at character level one isn't playing the game. It's some trivial time of futzing around at the keyboard, is what it is.

If I finish the first level of Dishonored (the game I'm playing right now) then stop, have I played the game?

If you think it's still Skyrim, remove that extra content. Of course that's a contradiction on your part since you were stating Bethesda can't remove it given there are people that play the game solely for that content. That means that content does make the game different.

You're basically now arguing that content makes no difference to a game (those 99999 quests). A truly lunatic argument.


Your argument basically boils down down "you're wrong, the game doesn't have too much content, you just need to race through and do one quest while skipping the rest. See, you're still playing the game!"

By your own definition the game has too much content since you're skipping the vast majority of it. I don't buy games to skip 90% of their content. That's stupid.

It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with time. If I'm skipping 90% of something that means it's unsuitable for its purpose.

Would you enroll in a class to skip 90% of the content? But...but...I attended the first lecture so that means I still took the class. Give me a degree because the extra content doesn't mean anything!


I don't need to "accept" anything. Like I told the other guy, you need to stop preaching to others what they should be thinking. Take your fanatical arrogance elsewhere. Nobody cares about your pastor-guiding-his-flock religious soapbox ranting. Not sure why you feel such desperation to show me the "error" of my ways.

I'd suggest you instead run along and play some open world games. Sticking to only the first quest of course because we all know content makes absolutely no difference to a game.

There is a very big difference between Dishonored, and Skyrim. Dishonored has an ending. Skyrim does not. Skyrim is a sandbox game. A sandbox game with no real ending until you say it has ended. If you want 30 hours, just play 30 hours. I usually finish not long after I hit level 50 and what ever major quest I was working on.

This is a pretty good definition of what a sandbox game is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms#Sandbox_game

A game wherein the player has been freed from the traditional structure and direction typically found in video games, and is instead given the ability to choose what, when, and how they want to approach the available choices in content. The term is in reference to a child's sandbox in which no rules are present and play is derived from open-ended choice. While some sandbox games may have building and creation aspects to their gameplay, those activities are not required. Sandbox games usually take place in an open-world setting as to facilitate the freedom of choice a player is given.

The whole idea behind a sandbox game, such as Skyrim, is you choose what ever you want. You create the rules. You decided if it's a short or long game. You chose everything you want, including duration. All those quest lines are just optional paths to follow, allowing you (as I do), to simply pick and choose.

 

[pmv]

There is a very big difference between Dishonored, and Skyrim. Dishonored has an ending. Skyrim does not. Skyrim is a sandbox game. A sandbox game with no real ending until you say it has ended. If you want 30 hours, just play 30 hours. I usually finish not long after I hit level 50 and what ever major quest I was working on.

This is a pretty good definition of what a sandbox game is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms#Sandbox_game

The whole idea behind a sandbox game, such as Skyrim, is you choose what ever you want. You create the rules. You decided if it's a short or long game. You chose everything you want, including duration. All those quest lines are just optional paths to follow, allowing you (as I do), to simply pick and choose.

I'm kind-of repeating myself, but I just think the problem is not 'more content than you can possibly play', but the difficulty of maintaining the feeling that you are experiencing a coherent story. Too much picking-and-choosing means it can end up all feeing very arbitrary - that you are just wandering around doing random tasks for no story-driven or character-driven reason. I mean it's all in the mind of the player, really. It depends what you want and how you think about what you are doing. But I think some people prefer a clearly-defined beginning, middle, and end, with a well-told story. The difference between sandbox and linear games is kind-of like that between games in general and, say, a movie.

 

[bystander36]

I'm kind-of repeating myself, but I just think the problem is not 'more content than you can possibly play', but the difficulty of maintaining the feeling that you are experiencing a coherent story. Too much picking-and-choosing means it can end up all feeing very arbitrary - that you are just wandering around doing random tasks for no story-driven or character-driven reason. I mean it's all in the mind of the player, really. It depends what you want and how you think about what you are doing. But I think some people prefer a clearly-defined beginning, middle, and end, with a well-told story. The difference between sandbox and linear games is kind-of like that between games in general and, say, a movie.

I understand that completely.

I'm not arguing whether or not you like sandbox games, or even if they have strong story lines. I'd agree with BFG if he was complaining about the story, but he's complaining about having too much content. In that regard, you have to realize you are playing a sandbox game, with near endless content, and it's up to you to pick and chose what you want to do.

That said, I found the game more enjoyable once I primarily stuck on task with the main stories (guilds, dragonborn, civil war and so on). I might do a few random quests in the mix, but limit yourself on those.

 

[werepossum]

No it isn't. Playing one quest and finishing at character level one isn't playing the game. It's some trivial time of futzing around at the keyboard, is what it is.

If I finish the first level of Dishonored (the game I'm playing right now) then stop, have I played the game?

If you think it's still Skyrim, remove that extra content. Of course that's a contradiction on your part since you were stating Bethesda can't remove it given there are people that play the game solely for that content. That means that content does make the game different.

You're basically now arguing that content makes no difference to a game (those 99999 quests). A truly lunatic argument.


Your argument basically boils down down "you're wrong, the game doesn't have too much content, you just need to race through and do one quest while skipping the rest. See, you're still playing the game!"

By your own definition the game has too much content since you're skipping the vast majority of it. I don't buy games to skip 90% of their content. That's stupid.

It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with time. If I'm skipping 90% of something that means it's unsuitable for its purpose.

Would you enroll in a class to skip 90% of the content? But...but...I attended the first lecture so that means I still took the class. Give me a degree because the extra content doesn't mean anything!


I don't need to "accept" anything. Like I told the other guy, you need to stop preaching to others what they should be thinking. Take your fanatical arrogance elsewhere. Nobody cares about your pastor-guiding-his-flock religious soapbox ranting. Not sure why you feel such desperation to show me the "error" of my ways.

I'd suggest you instead run along and play some open world games. Sticking to only the first quest of course because we all know content makes absolutely no difference to a game.

You are still conflating finishing the game and/or bringing a character to powerful levels with some actual accomplishment. They are not. Games are simply entertainment. Playing thirty hours or three hundred hours, finishing all the content or a small fraction, is all the same. It's only how much enjoyment one obtains, and perhaps, just perhaps, whatever larger thoughts are provoked.

 

[BFG10K]

There is a very big difference between Dishonored, and Skyrim. Dishonored has an ending. Skyrim does not. Skyrim is a sandbox game. A sandbox game with no real ending until you say it has ended. If you want 30 hours, just play 30 hours. I usually finish not long after I hit level 50 and what ever major quest I was working on.

Yep, there sure is a difference, namely Dishonored + both DLC is a semi-open world game that can be fully experienced within 20-30 hours, like I've just done.

See the pattern here? I can now move on to the next game completely satisfied instead of racing through 10%, or devoting 300+ hours to see all significant content, AKA open-world.

As for an ending, I've said right from the start my definition is finishing all significant content. What part of this are you still having trouble understanding?

I did Fallout 3 and Oblivion in 120 hours. This was already unreasonable, but Skyrim is easily 2x-3x that, which is out of control.

It's not a Bethesda or Skyrim problem. Virtually all open world games basically just pimp out km^2 landmasses and turn themselves into single player MMOs.

That said, I found the game more enjoyable once I primarily stuck on task with the main stories (guilds, dragonborn, civil war and so on). I might do a few random quests in the mix, but limit yourself on those.

The content you listed is well over 100 hours which is unreasonable. Not to mention it completely misses other significant side quest arcs, such as finding the Dwarven forge.

 

[BFG10K]

You are still conflating finishing the game and/or bringing a character to powerful levels with some actual accomplishment. They are not. Games are simply entertainment. Playing thirty hours or three hundred hours, finishing all the content or a small fraction, is all the same. It's only how much enjoyment one obtains, and perhaps, just perhaps, whatever larger thoughts are provoked.

Books/movies are entertainment too.

So do you watch a 3 hour movie with the intention of stopping after 20 minutes? How about randomly jumping to a few chapters for a few minutes at a time?

What about starting a book with no intention of ever finishing and/or just randomly flicking to a few pages?

Now before you say "books/movies need a linear context to make sense", how about something like Quake which has no story and the levels are completely unrelated? Who the hell picks up Quake with the intention of playing a few maps at random from all four episodes, then stopping?

It's all the same, right? Finishing all content or just a fraction because it's simply entertainment, right?

Constantly starting things you never finish is the classic definition of ADD. Or at least a sign that the entertainment you're consuming has serious flaws. In my case the defining flaw of open world games is being unreasonable time-sinks, so I'll be staying away from them.

 

[bystander36]

Yep, there sure is a difference, namely Dishonored + both DLC is a semi-open world game that can be fully experienced within 20-30 hours, like I've just done.

See the pattern here? I can now move on to the next game completely satisfied instead of racing through 10%, or devoting 300+ hours to see all significant content, AKA open-world.

As for an ending, I've said right from the start my definition is finishing all significant content. What part of this are you still having trouble understanding?

I did Fallout 3 and Oblivion in 120 hours. This was already unreasonable, but Skyrim is easily 2x-3x that, which is out of control.

It's not a Bethesda or Skyrim problem. Virtually all open world games basically just pimp out km^2 landmasses and turn themselves into single player MMOs.


The content you listed is well over 100 hours which is unreasonable. Not to mention it completely misses other significant side quest arcs, such as finding the Dwarven forge.

What if Skyrim only had the Civil war, and Dragonborn quests and a few side quests. Would you be happy with the game when you finished it? Based on your complaint/whining, I'd guess you would be. And don't kid yourself, the game would still have cost $50-$60 at released.

Why then, does the existence of more quests make you unhappy?

EDIT: Skyrim isn't a semi-Open world game. It's a straight up Open world and Sandbox game. Dishonored is a linear story driven game.

 

[Rebel_L]

Books/movies are entertainment too.

So do you watch a 3 hour movie with the intention of stopping after 20 minutes? How about randomly jumping to a few chapters for a few minutes at a time?

What about starting a book with no intention of ever finishing and/or just randomly flicking to a few pages?

Now before you say "books/movies need a linear context to make sense", how about something like Quake which has no story and the levels are completely unrelated? Who the hell picks up Quake with the intention of playing a few maps at random from all four episodes, then stopping?

It's all the same, right? Finishing all content or just a fraction because it's simply entertainment, right?

Constantly starting things you never finish is the classic definition of ADD. Or at least a sign that the entertainment you're consuming has serious flaws. In my case the defining flaw of open world games is being unreasonable time-sinks, so I'll be staying away from them.

While its not generally common to buy something to only use part of it I can certainly remember the days before online availability of music where I routinely bought entire CD's and only listened to a handful of tracks because those were the songs I liked and they came as a package deal.

I hear you saying the games are too long and I am having trouble understanding why that is a problem. You call it an unreasonable time sink, but in the end all games are time sinks, I imagine you stop enjoying the game long before you hit 300 hours, but as far as getting bang for you buck, getting 300 hours of enjoyment for $60 seems like a much better deal than getting 30 hours for the same price. As long as you are still enjoying yourself I dont understand how its a bad thing for a game to go on as long as possible. It seems like the real issue you have with the games must be something other than length, perhaps you get bored with the mechanics after a while and the lack of an engaging story makes the game boring to play at some point (this happens for me sometimes). Perhaps its something else entirely, but it really does seem weird to say a game is too long unless you are actually not enjoying the game play.

Sandbox games are more geared to letting you write your own story via the parts of the game you do play. Consider it like a choose your own adventure book, you can read all the different endings and try out all the choices, but as a single read through its normal to skip parts of the book as there is more than one story present. I remember when I played morrowind I played for probably 60-100 hours and had a blast, I joined the fighters guild and assassins guild, claimed a house for my own, visited cities and dungeons and never even realized I had not actually advanced the main quest past the intro until I was pretty much done with the game. I still have it functional and am actually looking a bit right now to see if I can get some better monitor support to go back and play the game again while doing the main quest line. I certainly dont regret spending the money or time on the game as I rather enjoyed the time I spent playing it even if I never did see the main story.

In the end I think its great that open world games exist even if I dont play many of them. There are plenty of more story driven games and I play more of those but I am rather happy to play an open world game once in a while.

 

[werepossum]

Books/movies are entertainment too.

So do you watch a 3 hour movie with the intention of stopping after 20 minutes? How about randomly jumping to a few chapters for a few minutes at a time?

What about starting a book with no intention of ever finishing and/or just randomly flicking to a few pages?

Now before you say "books/movies need a linear context to make sense", how about something like Quake which has no story and the levels are completely unrelated? Who the hell picks up Quake with the intention of playing a few maps at random from all four episodes, then stopping?

It's all the same, right? Finishing all content or just a fraction because it's simply entertainment, right?

Constantly starting things you never finish is the classic definition of ADD. Or at least a sign that the entertainment you're consuming has serious flaws. In my case the defining flaw of open world games is being unreasonable time-sinks, so I'll be staying away from them.

I treat movies, TV, and books just like games - I enjoy them as long as I enjoy them. If I'm no longer enjoying a movie, for example, I'm certainly not going to continue watching it just because there's more to it. Same with any other entertainment.

Absolutely no one here has a problem with you staying away from open world games. We simply have a problem (for entirely selfish reasons) with you defining the huge amount of content as a flaw when it's simply a matter of preference. Your unreasonable time-sinks are other people's fantastic bargains.

 

[bystander36]

I think all the argument here is based on not knowing Skyrim is a "Sandbox Game" and what it means to be a "Sandbox game". It's that simple.

You don't beat Skyrim. I don't think I've heard anyone say they finished or beat Skyrim. What they do say is they play Skyrim.

Let's use an analogy, one that makes a bit more sense in the context of the style of game Skyrim is. It's a Sandbox. It's like going to the park, or school and playing in the sandbox. In that sandbox, you might have a dome, a jungle gym, an obstacle course, a merry go round, and sand. You don't ever say, I'm going to beat the sandbox, or I'm going to finish the sandbox. That is because there is no rules for the sandbox, other than maybe not hurting others, and being courteous. When in the sandbox, you might have a race through the obstacle course. Maybe you'll just spin around the merry go round. Maybe your friends and you play tag, or you might build a sand castle. When you are done, you go home, and you can say you played at the sandbox, even though you might have only done a fraction of the things you could have.

Sandbox games are meant to pick and chose your activities. It's in the definition I posted earlier. You don't beat them. There is no meat of the game. It's simply a game with lots of options to "futz around in". Skyrim is more like Minecraft than Dishonored, but really is more of a single player MMORPG.

If you don't like or understand how to approach a sandbox game, just don't play them.

 

[werepossum]

I think all the argument here is based on not knowing Skyrim is a "Sandbox Game" and what it means to be a "Sandbox game". It's that simple.

You don't beat Skyrim. I don't think I've heard anyone say they finished or beat Skyrim. What they do say is they play Skyrim.

Let's use an analogy, one that makes a bit more sense in the context of the style of game Skyrim is. It's a Sandbox. It's like going to the park, or school and playing in the sandbox. In that sandbox, you might have a dome, a jungle gym, an obstacle course, a merry go round, and sand. You don't ever say, I'm going to beat the sandbox, or I'm going to finish the sandbox. That is because there is no rules for the sandbox, other than maybe not hurting others, and being courteous. When in the sandbox, you might have a race through the obstacle course. Maybe you'll just spin around the merry go round. Maybe your friends and you play tag, or you might build a sand castle. When you are done, you go home, and you can say you played at the sandbox, even though you might have only done a fraction of the things you could have.

Sandbox games are meant to pick and chose your activities. It's in the definition I posted earlier. You don't beat them. There is no meat of the game. It's simply a game with lots of options to "futz around in". Skyrim is more like Minecraft than Dishonored, but really is more of a single player MMORPG.

If you don't like or understand how to approach a sandbox game, just don't play them.

I don't think his point is so much that he doesn't have time to beat Skyrim as that he's paying for a lot of content he will never experience.

 

[bystander36]

I don't think his point is so much that he doesn't have time to beat Skyrim as that he's paying for a lot of content he will never experience.

But he is happy to pay the same money for 1/10 the content. Not just happy, but he prefers it. I think it's a matter of not knowing that sandbox games are meant to be that way.

 

[werepossum]

But he is happy to pay the same money for 1/10 the content. Not just happy, but he prefers it. I think it's a matter of not knowing that sandbox games are meant to be that way.

Maybe. We'll see what he says about it.

 

[Rebel_L]

I don't think his point is so much that he doesn't have time to beat Skyrim as that he's paying for a lot of content he will never experience.

Even that still seems an odd complaint to me. Think about say a smart phone, or a PC, or an E-reader, there is so much (even free content) for each that you cannot experience it all, everyone chooses what apps they want to use and what books to read but I never heard anyone complain about having options, usually people complain about not having enough options. Do people who subscribe to nextflix complain there are too many shows available that they cant watch them all? I only hear people complaining that the particular show they want to watch isnt a choice yet.

Extra choice and a better deal is something most people appreciate, I would think his issue with the sandbox games has to be something other than that.

 

[bystander36]

Maybe. We'll see what he says about it.

At this point, I doubt he'd agree with anyone just out of spite.