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

[blank_redge]

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

Hrm.

It seems that most of the differences of opinion I've seen so far stem from a philosophical / practical standpoint of what CDPR may or may not be able to do, in terms of budget / resources constraint, towards the design of the game.

We don't know much about it, other than:

1. the setting is Cyberpunk 2077

2. it will be an open sandbox world

3. it will be an RPG.

Historically, when someone says "sandbox," many people think of the granddaddy of sandbox franchises: GTA, and its many and myriad clones.

So, what do you think, folks? Is it possible to have a "sandbox" game in the GTA style, with strong / well done RPG elements? Or, do you think CDPR is going in a different direction with the "sandbox" concept?


(Full disclosure: if CDPR were able to make a GTA-styled sandbox, with strong, well-done RPG elements, I'd be as giddy as a ripperdoc with an untraceable black-market Dragoon, missing its Bod Pod.

Not that I am holding out hope that this will be the direction they take, mind you; I'd just be well pleased if they did.)

 

[rmtuggle]

If anyone can do it, CDPR can do it.

 

[Garrison72]

First off, let's define sandbox/open world. One of the first games I describe as such is Zelda....WAY earlier than GTA.

 

[rad_cow]

This is one of those questions I'd prefer to leave open until I play the game. Not that it can be answered beforehand or anything, but for some reason I actually want to wait.

 

[username_3642020]

I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive at all. Ideally, CP77 will be a very lovely mix of both. It would certainly compliment the setting.

 

[Garrison72]

If anyone can do it, CDPR can do it.

They haven't even come close to doing it. Both Witcher games feature open areas, but the actual concept of exploration, of discovery, is almost absent. They are brand new at this.

 

[Sirnaq]

Possible? Yeah it is possible. Is it easy? Hell no.

 

[walkingdarkly]

GTA: San Andreas
It had a decent lite RPG system built into it that I believe many fans really miss.
And for it's time, had one of the biggest maps for gameplay on consoles...only dwarfed by Morrowind.

I remember in San Andreas that you could level driving abilities for cars, bikes and airplanes/helicopters among other things
You could even level a "muscle" level or let it go all out and be over weight or even on the other side and being a scrawny walking stick.
And I do believe there was also skill level for weapons as well, where the more you used them the better you got at aiming and when you hit a certain level you were allowed to dual wield 1 hand guns.

 

[Garrison72]

Honestly, I think Rockstar is a pile of shit. And seeing GTA referenced for CP 2077 makes me ill every time I see it. Rockstar doesn't make RPG's. The only thing Rockstar does is ape whatever was popular last season on HBO, and then they throw it in a big, empty city. Oh...and you can drive around a lot with crappy car physics. CDPR cited Bethesda as an influence, not Rockstar.

 

[Sirnaq]

CDPR cited Bethesda as an influence, not Rockstar.

That's nothing to be proud of.

 

[rmtuggle]

They haven't even come close to doing it. Both Witcher games feature open areas, but the actual concept of exploration, of discovery, is almost absent. They are brand new at this.

Correction...they haven't started yet. Sure, they've got mixed bag with the Witcher series. Still, do you work for them or what, since you have such an astounding level of knowledge about the company?

Still, we don't know what they are actually going to do. They have an engine they've been using. Fine and good. Doesn't mean that they won't develop a new engine for this game, one that will encompass what the fan base is asking for. In any event, there is a limit to what can be done. While computers can be upgraded, those using consoles are kind stuck where they are. Then you need to look at the different software/hardware architectures of the various platforms that this game is projected to be released to. Sure, you can cut some corners between XBOX360 and PC since they are essentially the same OS, but you will have fits trying to translate that work over to platforms like the WII and the PS3. So, eseentially, making the console jockeys happy will probably be the biggest challenge when it comes to balancing gameplay, large area for exploration, solid role play and story line elements.

It also has to be remembered, when coding any project regardless of size and scope, that for every one line of code, there are always two lines of bugs. That is to say, never think you have it done. Never think that your work is jut right. There will almost always be something that pops up and breaks everything when you least expect it. Especially in cross platform programming, such as a project like this. They are in the conceptual stages right now. Then they get to start the basic coding, setting up the world, laying out the maps...that sort of thing. Next will likely be the objects in the world...vehicles, plants, animals, random objects. They pray that those items all work properly and don't kill the code for the city itself. After that come the people. First the NPCs and then the PCs. They need to make as much variety among the NPCs as they can so that players won't get bored with the game too quickly. There should be some animation for the NPC's, dialogues have to be written, recited and coded in. Hope that doesn't break anything thats already in place. There are the physics of the world. Have to make sure I can put a bullet through your cranium when there is a four foot thick masonry wall between us. Can't have Nomad Santiago riding his Thundergod through that same wall when it should stop him dead...and so on. And probably the most crucial is coding in the player characters. The pixels we control.

I could go on with that, but what we have is a classic production possibilities curve. CDPR has a limited set or resources and an unlimited set of demands on what they can do. So, they have to take all these varied aspects of the game, sundry requests for various things from players around the world. They have ot consider the capabilities of the platforms that the game will be played on. And tying this all together are the fiscal costs of this project. They have to consider all of these factors and somehow manage to achieve the best balance they can in trying to deliver what the fans are asking for. I, for one, am glad that they have decided to tackle this monumental challenge. I would not want to be in their shoes. However, we can most likely rest assured that they will take the lessons learned from their previous projects and use those lessons wisely in constructing this one.

In the meantime, if you don't like the way they are handling things, then may I suggest you come up with the funds and buy them out so you can make your game your way? Of course, if that's not a feasible course of action, you may try this...sit back and wait with the rest of us. The game will be what it will be.

 

[walkingdarkly]

Honestly, I think Rockstar is a pile of shit. And seeing GTA referenced for CP 2077 makes me ill every time I see it. Rockstar doesn't make RPG's. The only thing Rockstar does is ape whatever was popular last season on HBO, and then they throw it in a big, empty city. Oh...and you can drive around a lot with crappy car physics. CDPR cited Bethesda as an influence, not Rockstar.

Honestly I think Bethesda is the company that is a big pile of garbage, they've constantly released severely bugged games that took the fanbase to fix, have been using a rather crap engine to make crap graphics for their games to turn around and have the fanbase make mods that show what that engine can truly do. Bethesda is also sitting on Prey 2, a game so many want to get ahold of it hurts them. As for Rockstar, last time I played GTA 4...3, Vice City or San Andreas, they didn't look to empty to me, in fact they look flat out crowded compared to Fallout 3 and NV and Oblivion and Skyrim.

Have you even played Cyberpunk 2020 the pen and paper game?

 

[dragonbird]

Correction...they haven't started yet. Sure, they've got mixed bag with the Witcher series. Still, do you work for them or what, since you have such an astounding level of knowledge about the company?

No, slimgrin doesn't work for the company, but yes, he knows a lot about what the company has done in the past.

Neither of the existing games are "Open World" in the customary interpretation of the word and, unfortunately, previous discussions on this topic tend to go
- Open World
- Like Skyrim
- Flamewar

In practice, of course, open world doesn't have to mean "Like Skyrim". If CDPR don't sacrifice the story for open world then yes, I suspect they're capable of doing it.

But in the meantime, everybody is speculating and everyone is expressing their own preferences. Feel free to express yours, but please avoid attacks on those who disagree.

 

[Garrison72]

Honestly I think Bethesda is the company that is a big pile of garbage, they've constantly released severely bugged games that took the fanbase to fix, have been using a rather crap engine to make crap graphics for their games to turn around and have the fanbase make mods that show what that engine can truly do. Bethesda is also sitting on Prey 2, a game so many want to get ahold of it hurts them. As for Rockstar, last time I played GTA 4...3, Vice City or San Andreas, they didn't look to empty to me, in fact they look flat out crowded compared to Fallout 3 and NV and Oblivion and Skyrim.

Have you even played Cyberpunk 2020 the pen and paper game?

I'll take every crappy inch of Bethesda compared to Rockstar's attempt at games...besides, Bethesda makes RPG's. Rockstar does not. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that Rockstar makes RPG's? So will people quit referencing these cheap douchebags, like they're the only ones who know open-world?

 

[227]

Feel free to express yours, but please avoid attacks on those who disagree.

Says the dragonbird. Seriously, I bet you're not even a dragon or a bird. Tell me, why should we listen to a liar?

Sorry, that's the only thing I could think up an attack about. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement about what constitutes a "sandbox" game, but they don't seem like they would be mutually exclusive. By some definitions, even Chrono Trigger for the Super NIntendo could qualify as a sandbox game (going by the looser definition that considers Assassin's Creed a sandbox) because you have a lot of freedom to go around finding hidden things and doing sidequests later in the game, and that's still considered one of the best jRPGs ever made. With the stricter definition, Skyrim inevitably comes up before Grand Theft Auto for most people, and the only things (cripplingly) wrong with that game were that it was too easy and completely lacking a worthwhile story, both ills that CDPR has shown a certain skill for remedying.

So I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive so much as their coexistence has yet to be perfected.

 

[Aditya]

Calm the fuck down guys, no need for us to argue!. I love Rockstar, Max Payne was one of the first computer games I have played and personally love that and GTA. But RPGs and Rockstar? HELL NO, not even close or 'elements' what you speak of. Assassin's Creed may have some elements, because of some character customizations and very some looting but still NOT a RPG. And in my opinion (which might hold quite true) Ubisoft has done a much better job in open world games since the first AC in 2007 then Rockstar or anyone ever did.

Open world/sand box and RPG are two complete different things. The latter is a genre while the former is a 'type of game' and not technically a genre in itself.
Skyrim is a current example of both, even though it is far inferior when compared to both witchers (but I still like it personally speaking)

And when you speak of sandbox, legend of zelda and pokemon, playing them since long as I can remember, no matter what you argue ARE RPGs.

As for Rockstar, lets not heat things up. Just like other studios, they make some great games, do a LOT of shit, and in the end people forget after a few days. So let's not get into petty arguments just because of someone's opinion(s) here, including mine if you wish

 

[Ossirian]

Open world/sand box and RPG are two complete different things. The latter is a genre while the former is a 'type of game' and not technically a genre in itself.
Skyrim is a current example of both, even though it is far inferior when compared to both witchers (but I still like it personally speaking)

Precisely, the CP2077 sandbox would be to give you Night City, a gun, and some kit and let you at it. The RPG comes in with what they give you to do, the depth of the story, the richness of the environment and npcs. The sandbox is how you do it, the rpg is why.


And as someone who has never played a GTA game or an Elder Scrolls game I've never felt like I missed much.

 

[Sydanyo]

If GTA, the first one which was released in 1997, is the "granddaddy" of sandbox games, then all the games released in the 80's are the true ancestors of sandbox games, and they make GTA look like a little boy. As for a game being either sandbox or RPG, the two being mutually exclusive; it's a silly idea. A game being in a sandbox setting takes it closer to being a true RPG.

What's the biggest and most important thing about PnP RPG's? Freedom.

Freedom to be whoever you want to be, whatever you want to be, however you want to be, whenever you want to be. Freedom to do whatever you like, with whomever you like, to whomever you like.

The rulebook is only there to give you a set of guidelines you can agree to follow, and the GM is simply there to act as a referee if there are any guidelines, and if any disputes concerning those arise. However, neither is needed. Yes, you can roleplay without a rulebook. Yes, you can roleplay without a game master.

Having a game be a sandbox game, instead of moving on rails, and having the freedom to run around in a vast space instead of having to move in a walled off tube, that's much more like a true RPG than anything else in a video game.

So yeah... A sandbox environment doesn't "exclude" the RPG element. It strengthens it.

 

[Sardukhar]

Tough. It's tough. Trick is, at least in PnP, to have a plot that excites and interests people and have a world that encourages them to explore and overcome limitations.

Computer game, lacking the AI of the referee and the nearly-endless options of imagination and memory, must of necessity compromise between these.

The terms are both vague and exclusionary. Both are subject to multiple definitions. Typically we agree more on what they aren't than on what they are. RPG is not RTS. Usually. It is not a sim. Usually. Sandbox is not rails-shooter. Sandbox is not proc-generated iso action rpg like Diablo. Etc.

A more relevant question might be, "What kind of sandbox RPG do YOU -reasonably- see being built for your $US 60? How much time on quests/side quests/exploration do you hope for? What would you give up to have the, say ten elements of YOUR sandbox RPG?"

I hope for:

1.Character generation.
2.Personal plotline influenced by character choices.
3.Engrossing, memorable voiced NPCs on that plot line
4.Several dozen sidequests minimum, interlaced throughout the main quest.
5.Random encounters throughout the world, responsive to my faction and rep.
6.A world large enough - say at least 1/2 Skyrim size
7. Interactive buildings and towers
8.Dramatic differences in setting: Combat Zone vs Uptown
9.As much attention to sound as visual - this world should sound alive
10. I should impress myself on the world - radio, TV, etc.

I would give up:

1. Redundant but cool gear, cyber and weapons
2.Certain sections of the city that served little purpose or could be comboed into others.
3. Total character control - I can handle being forced by the plot into certain places and situations
4. Ally NPCs - tough to do right, clumsy when done wrong.
5.Romance - see above
6. All dungeon-style quests. Even modern versions. too easy to be repetitive.
7. Freedom to roam everywhere - I don't do it IRL, it doesn't bother me if I can't in the game.
8. Jet packs. I know, blasphemy.

 

[otlano1]

I think there seems to be some kind of confusion of what sandbox means. The only game that I know that comes close to a pure sandbox would be Eve. Sandbox means everything is created by the players which means economy and in-game items. You depend on players for all gear and other items. Also, that would mean quests and missions or building of cities, kingdoms and empires. Nearly all content would be player driven. Second life would be a perfect example of a sandbox but since that is not actually a game, you can't count it. There are games made in SL by the populace but those themselves aren't sandbox games.

People have thrown this sandbox idea around so much the meaning has gotten lost. Quite frankly I don't care because I think sandbox games will get boring after a short while. I like Eve at first but I got bored fast. There was another game, Shadowbane or something that was pretty much sandbox and that got old fast also. So let's worry about them making a game that will be enjoyable for the long haul. Something balanced between sandbox and linear control.