I think there needs to be a greater distinction between "open world" and "sandbox". They are distinct.
An
open-world will simply provide a non-linear pathway through the game's content. However, it can still be heavily structured for the purposes of pacing, balancing gameplay mechanics, and creating a narrative arc. Games like
L.A. Noire,
Dragon's Dogma, or
Cyberpunk 2077 are like this. In my opinion, the "sandbox" elements are there to add a little variety and allow the player some wiggle-room to roleplay "off-road". However, it's not really the main focus of the game itself, but rather the backdrop for a more balanced, narrative exploration (which still offers a lot of variety and cause-effect role playing...
if you like that approach.)
A
sandbox on the other hand is more about creating a set of tools, environments, and circumstances that the player can explore simply for the sake of exploring. Stories tend to be the backdrop to the world in these games. Just ways of highlighting the various mechanics and gameplay elements available out-of-the-gate. The purpose of sandbox games is to literally go anywhere and do anything, not try to tell a moving story. The
X Series of space simulations,
Mount and Blade, or
Minecraft. Stories set in these games tend to be mostly or completely linear, and I would argue don't really offer more than a way of flavoring what is inherently a mess of individual mechanics that can be put together any which way.
Most games work somewhere between the two extremes. A game like
Detroit: Become Human is almost wholly devoted to an open-ended, interactive narrative, with opportunities provided to explore "open" but contained environments here and there, some customization options, etc. A game like
Terraria is the opposite extreme, where the game can basically be played and explored endlessly, as a platform / brawler, a lite rpg, or a crafter / building game without ever really engaging in what little "story" is there. Something like
GTA or
Red Dead is super light on the RPG elements in terms of stats, weapon and combat variety, and story pacing...but really heavy on the sandbox. And
Cyberpunk 2077 is more limited in sandbox elements in order to create a pretty deep narrative.
As always, it comes down to preference. Whether I like or dislike a certain approach, that doesn't
invalidate the other approaches. There is no
correct way to do things. There are just individual designs that many people like more than others.
Personally, I love the Cyberpunk narrative. I was absolutely engaged by main story, short as it may be. I felt there was a lot of cause-effect gameplay, and tons of role-playing both in and out of combat...even if it may not be as stark as other games. (But, I won't mind seeing some of the bugs and clunky features receive a nice buff and polish. I swear, if one more cop spawns out of the blue to shoot me in the back because I happened to miss a target I was trying to stealth-snipe with a pistol...from
waaay beyond a reasonable range...and it just so randomly happened to hit some passerby instead...! Look...! Either you want my help or you don't, NCPD!
)
