"Sandbox" vs. "RPG": mutually exclusive?

+

Aver

Forum veteran
Why you hate so much, I bet you payed those games.I know that may not say much. but they are there, and everything that is particular and more when you talking about SANDBOX open world. it always people will be comparing them. because they are famous and is the same aim as the GTA and all the games that are sandboxes.

Well, GTA games have nice, big worlds, but story and missions in those games are so damn boring. Most of missions are:
1) drive through the whole city to the checkpoint (it takes 5-10 minutes)
2) kill guy/guys (it takes 1-5 minutes)
3) missions accomplished

Missions, for most of time are about going from point A to point B in the car. Of course there are also quite interesting missions like bank robbery in GTAIV, but they are still just "ok". I don't remember a single mission that would make me like "OMG! This was amazing".

GTA games are great for open-world mayhem with friends, but other than that they are just "meh" for me.
 
But if we are talking about "sandbox' being some sort of free roam play style with little in the way of direction and weak push pulls (ie player motivation), then there may be issues with getting involved with a story, and IMHO that would be bad.

I don't see how...

In a video game the story is always going to be there. Even in a sandbox/Open World game. Even one with a huge map and vehicles, and everything else people want. The story is always going to be right over there.... and over there........... and under this rock..... and on that roof... or wherever the developers want to give us the event or the NPC, or the item, or the whatever that will present the next arc of the story. What a sandbox game does is let you do other things besides the story. It lets you tell you own story, it lets you explore, and interact, and feel like a part of the world, as opposed to a pawn following a script.
 
Well, GTA games have nice, big worlds, but story and missions in those games are so damn boring. Most of missions are:
1) drive through the whole city to the checkpoint (it takes 5-10 minutes)
2) kill guy/guys (it takes 1-5 minutes)
3) missions accomplished

Missions, for most of time are about going from point A to point B in the car. Of course there are also quite interesting missions like bank robbery in GTAIV, but they are still just "ok". I don't remember a single mission that would make me like "OMG! This was amazing".

GTA games are great for open-world mayhem with friends, but other than that they are just "meh" for me.

Honestly, the only games that have ever made me go "omg that was amazing" were in GTA style games. The Bank Job in GTA 4 you mentioned, taking down the General and the Yakuza leader in SR2, The farmhouse slaughter mission in RDR, the wedding in Sleeping Dogs...

Were some of the missions boring... sure, were some repetitive, sure... but no more so than in any other game I have ever played that even tried to tell a story. That is just the nature of video games... really its the nature of pretty much all entertainment. No matter how much you like something, or how new it is, its going to be similar to something that has been done thousands of times before... doesn't mean its a duplicate, jsut that parts of it are going to be similar.

In non sandbox games... it all just seems so scripted that half the time I just wish I could put down the controller and watch the movie the game designers obviously wanted to make...

Hell, the CGI cutscenes were the only reason I would even watch my brother play Final Fantasy games... the rest just seemed mind numbingly boring. And I don't even want cgi cutscenes in this game...
 
Just like in another thread... I kind agree and disagree with you both.

A good GM can craft a world and story the players can react to.

A great GM crafts a world and story in reaction to the players.

But a fantastic GM can do both, without the players ever knowing the difference.

I think my point was to say that there's no need for a backstory, and the GM doesn't need to drive the campaign forward. I mean situations where the players are desperately trying to play their own game which they think is awesome, a plot that they're trying to flesh out themselves, and then the GM would "need" to have something "bigger" or just something else going on? I don't think so. In my personal view in such a situation it would be good if the GM went with what the players are doing, and enjoyed that, when clearly that would be what everyone would like to do the most. I've had games like this, and GM's who felt the need to follow a written plot, whether it was written by themselves (or in their heads) or it was in a book.

Obviously a GM can do both, and sometimes, when the players are completely passive, should. I just disagree with the concept that there "should" be a backstory.

You have to excuse my ramblings every now and then, as even though I do tend to think in English nowadays, being Finnish kind of screws with certain nuances that I should be making much clearer. :cool:
 
Because videogame rpg is misconception. Current state of videogame rpgs is result of manipulation of terms. I suggest you read this article.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/


Damn... that was almost as long as one of my posts...

I like what she had to say, though I disagree with them on a great many things. Most notably that they really really seem biased towards rules lite systems for tabletop games. I despise them almost as much as I hate rules heavy systems.... I like my rules just right systems thank you very much:p

I definitely dig what she is saying about there really being no such thing as an video game rpg as of yet... but even then, that just felt like it was missing something.

More to the point, yeah, a lot of it seemed really on point, but something about what the author was leading us to believe they wanted just seemed to bug the crap out of me...I will think on it and get back to you.

Thanks for the link though.
 
I think my point was to say that there's no need for a backstory, and the GM doesn't need to drive the campaign forward. I mean situations where the players are desperately trying to play their own game which they think is awesome, a plot that they're trying to flesh out themselves, and then the GM would "need" to have something "bigger" or just something else going on? I don't think so. In my personal view in such a situation it would be good if the GM went with what the players are doing, and enjoyed that, when clearly that would be what everyone would like to do the most. I've had games like this, and GM's who felt the need to follow a written plot, whether it was written by themselves (or in their heads) or it was in a book.

Obviously a GM can do both, and sometimes, when the players are completely passive, should. I just disagree with the concept that there "should" be a backstory.

You have to excuse my ramblings every now and then, as even though I do tend to think in English nowadays, being Finnish kind of screws with certain nuances that I should be making much clearer. :cool:

A french scott english finn.... man make up yo mind...
 
Open World RPG's work. I want to be able to open up the Night City Sourcebook and go to the various places described in there. Along with a couple new places to show the evolution of the city.

Everything in that book, plus a vast desert for nomads would be and should be fully capable in next gen consoles.
 

Aver

Forum veteran
Honestly, the only games that have ever made me go "omg that was amazing" were in GTA style games. The Bank Job in GTA 4 you mentioned, taking down the General and the Yakuza leader in SR2, The farmhouse slaughter mission in RDR, the wedding in Sleeping Dogs...

I was talking only about GTAIV and in GTA IV not some missions are boring, but most of them. I enjoyed missions in Sleeping Dogs and Saints Row, but from RPG I expect something more than happy carnage.

And I'm not against open world nor sandbox. I'm against vehicles. I like having options to sneak by, talk my way through guards etc. I'm afraid that with game filled with car chases, it will be impossible to be silent assassin or master puppeteer .
 
I was talking only about GTAIV and in GTA IV not some missions are boring, but most of them. I enjoyed missions in Sleeping Dogs and Saints Row, but from RPG I expect something more than happy carnage.

And I'm not against open world nor sandbox. I'm against vehicles. I like having options to sneak by, talk my way through guards etc. I'm afraid that with game filled with car chases, it will be impossible to be silent assassin or master puppeteer .


Why... you could be a silent assasin in Sleeping Dogs.... and with roles like medai, corps, rockers, and fixers, I can pretty much guarantee there will be "talky talky" options of avoiding combat instead of just everything being "stabby shooty."..

Literally none of the things you have brought up are really going to be impacted by the game having vehicles... and I can think of many games where these things are already present in games with vehicles.

not sure what you mean by master puppeteer... but it's cyberpunk, there is definitely going to be plenty of netrunning and hacking...
 
I just want to say that a massive world isn't worth having unless exploration is rewarding. Skyrim had a huge world, but exploration was incredibly lame. "Oh boy, I just stumbled upon bandit cave #314, better go slaughter them all." Skyrim was also pretty light on the RPG part. Sure you might get to 4 or 5 dialogue options but they always boiled down to "I'll accept your fetch quest" or "I decline your fetch quest". It didn't have multiple endings. It felt like they sacrificed everything just to have a huge open world.

Assuming we had an "either-or" scenario, I would much rather take a smaller open world with rewarding exploration than a massive one that's littered with recycled enemy hideouts.
 

Aver

Forum veteran
Why... you could be a silent assasin in Sleeping Dogs.... and with roles like medai, corps, rockers, and fixers, I can pretty much guarantee there will be "talky talky" options of avoiding combat instead of just everything being "stabby shooty."..

Literally none of the things you have brought up are really going to be impacted by the game having vehicles... and I can think of many games where these things are already present in games with vehicles.

Please, stop joking. You couldn't be silent in Sleeping Dogs. You could beat people, but they were still shooting at you. It's not what I call silent. There was no sneaking mechanics. And please. Tell me titles of those games where you have sneaking/dialog mechanics and vehicles.

I just want to say that a massive world isn't worth having unless exploration is rewarding. Skyrim had a huge world, but exploration was incredibly lame. "Oh boy, I just stumbled upon bandit cave #314, better go slaughter them all." Skyrim was also pretty light on the RPG part. Sure you might get to 4 or 5 dialogue options but they always boiled down to "I'll accept your fetch quest" or "I decline your fetch quest". It didn't have multiple endings. It felt like they sacrificed everything just to have a huge open world.

Assuming we had an "either-or" scenario, I would much rather take a smaller open world with rewarding exploration than a massive one that's littered with recycled enemy hideouts.

Exactly. It's even wrose In GTA clones. I'm not interested in exploring those cities because the best thing I can find is a collectible item. For example in Deus Ex and DX:HR exploration was done amazingly well. You could find amazing NPCs in hidden locations with great dialogs, well hided quests or even such small thing like a suitcase with a sniper rifle and photo of assassin's target on the top of the building. I knew that it's worth to explore world and I want something like that in CP2077, but in open world.

On other hand when I play GTA I sometimes have those moment - "I wonder what is behind this gate.... Oh, wait! It's GTA there is nothing in there!"
 
On other hand when I play GTA I sometimes have those moment - "I wonder what is behind this gate.... Oh, wait! It's GTA there is nothing in there!"

 
Please, stop joking. You couldn't be silent in Sleeping Dogs. You could beat people, but they were still shooting at you. It's not what I call silent. There was no sneaking mechanics. And please. Tell me titles of those games where you have sneaking/dialog mechanics and vehicles.

GTA San Andreas had sneaky assassination.

Exactly. It's even wrose In GTA clones. I'm not interested in exploring those cities because the best thing I can find is a collectible item. For example in Deus Ex and DX:HR exploration was done amazingly well. You could find amazing NPCs in hidden locations with great dialogs, well hided quests or even such small thing like a suitcase with a sniper rifle and photo of assassin's target on the top of the building. I knew that it's worth to explore world and I want something like that in CP2077, but in open world.


On other hand when I play GTA I sometimes have those moment - "I wonder what is behind this gate.... Oh, wait! It's GTA there is nothing in there!"

So.... you want loot? I still don't see anything that precludes vehicles from being in the game... Sleeping dogs had loot all over the place. Sometimes money, sometimes a gun, sometimes clothing. It wasn't great loot, but it was loot. Nothing about having loot prevents vehicles, or vice versa. And nothing about having vehicles prevents you from meeting interesting NPC's.

So far the only real definable reason you don't want cars, is you just don't seem to like games with cars in them.

It's ok to just say you don't like cars in video games, but stop trying to justify it with reasons that really have no bearing on the things you want in the game. And just because you haven't seen something done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Again, we are talking about a next generation game. Saying it can't be done never got anyone anywhere, and if everyone thought like you, we would all still be playing pac-man.
 

Aver

Forum veteran
GTA San Andreas had sneaky assassination.



So.... you want loot? I still don't see anything that precludes vehicles from being in the game... Sleeping dogs had loot all over the place. Sometimes money, sometimes a gun, sometimes clothing. It wasn't great loot, but it was loot. Nothing about having loot prevents vehicles, or vice versa. And nothing about having vehicles prevents you from meeting interesting NPC's.

I don't care about loot. I care about detailed interesting world. I don't care if I find sniper rifle. When I see location that is clearly place prepared by Hitman for assassination, with sniper rifle, photos and memos with interesting background then I care.

I like vehicles, but I do get a shitload of games with vehicles. Every year there are one or two good GTA clones. I don't remember any descent RPG in last year. So I don't care about vehicles in RPG. I don't play RPGs for driving around, car chases and killing pedestrians. That's why for me vehicles would be wasted resources.
 
DUDE.... Rockstar may be a lot of things, but cheap they ain't...

Not sure why you have gone all spastic on Rockstar, if you don't like their games then fine... but chill out.

I loved Fallout 3... I loved New Vegas even more... but they were both buggy as hell, I could barely finish New Vegas because after an hour, or after fast traveling, the whole game would slow down so much I had to completely reboot my system. Yes, I know Obisidian did New Vegas, but they used Bethesdas engine.

I haven't played their other games, because I don't do fantasy.

But I also love Rockstar, and while I have no clue why you hate them to such a degree that I keep expecting you to pop a vein, I can definitely tell you I have never had anywhere near the problems with any of their games I had with Bethesdas, even though I have played each GTA game seperately for at least if not more (definitely more in the case of San Andreas) that I did with Fallout.

And yes, San Andreas definitely had RPG elements.

My apologies, drama free is the way to be. And in truth I'd love cars and a wide open world to be implemented if I thought it wouldn't take away from the elements I hold dear in TW2. So rather than bitching I should try to come up with ways it might actually be done.
 
I don't care about loot. I care about detailed interesting world. I don't care if I find sniper rifle. When I see location that is clearly place prepared by Hitman for assassination, with sniper rifle, photos and memos with interesting background then I care..

Okay, I'm with you on this one, but honestly, I can't see this level of detail happening in a big world and I don't want a small world. I'd rather have less details and the ability to jump from my still-moving cyberbike, (yes, Wisdom, I use induction pads, not cables! I'm not some kind of amateur) go rolling, pop Wolvers and launch myself into that Boostergang. Much to their -hopefully- simulated surprise.

That to me is a lot more fun than the level of detail even found in Deus Ex Human Revolution. Now if you add my reactive AI and random AI to AI encounters so every day on the streets is different....oh, yeah, baby. Oh yeah.
 

Aver

Forum veteran
Okay, I'm with you on this one, but honestly, I can't see this level of detail happening in a big world and I don't want a small world. I'd rather have less details and the ability to jump from my still-moving cyberbike, (yes, Wisdom, I use induction pads, not cables! I'm not some kind of amateur) go rolling, pop Wolvers and launch myself into that Boostergang. Much to their -hopefully- simulated surprise.

Yes, that's why there are two camps on this forum. People that want huge sandbox and people that want smaller, but richer and more detailed world.
 
Okay, I'm with you on this one, but honestly, I can't see this level of detail happening in a big world and I don't want a small world. I'd rather have less details and the ability to jump from my still-moving cyberbike, (yes, Wisdom, I use induction pads, not cables! I'm not some kind of amateur) go rolling, pop Wolvers and launch myself into that Boostergang. Much to their -hopefully- simulated surprise.

That to me is a lot more fun than the level of detail even found in Deus Ex Human Revolution. Now if you add my reactive AI and random AI to AI encounters so every day on the streets is different....oh, yeah, baby. Oh yeah.

Well I find that stuff fun in SR3, but I expect a bit more depth in an RPG, level design included. I hope to be able to enter a fairly large number of buildings and be presented with non-linear areas to navigate as well as having some wide open areas. Perhaps they could limit driving as a means to get to various city hubs, like hopping on the freeway and getting off at exits, but in the hubs themselves you're restricted to foot travel in more densely structured areas. Sort of sidestepping the monumental coding resources devoted to rendering a fully alive city like Steelport.
 
Top Bottom