Grand Theft Auto

[lordlundar]

Now, this is not a rant about the quality of the game or some moral high ground thing. If you want to play it, fine. Don't let me stop you, because I sure won't make a decision for you. Not my place anymore. No, my beef is with one phrase regarding the game:

SANDBOX

Seriously, I would like this term defined for me, because I don't see with any definition I can think of that it's exclusive to the premise of GTA and it's knockoffs similar games. I've seen it referred to as two things: freedom of mobility and activity and/or freedom of choice.

In the case of freedom of mobility and activity, why does this game get praised for it while other games it's regarded as "meh". RPGs have been doing this for years, where if you want to do what you want within the confines of the game, you can until you decide to advance the storyline. Hell, MMOs are specifically designed around this concept. So are adventure games. Where's the praise for the "sandbox" design with these? Oh, wait, it seems like these are supposed to be expected, while with GTA, you're expected to be confined. Sorry, no. All that is is breaking out of one mold into another and calling it freedom.

Then comes the freedom of choice, and here it really grates on me. People keep saying that GTA is so "innovative" (god I'm getting sick of the mutilation of that word, but that's a separate rant) because you get to choose to be a criminal or not.

Say what? I would love to see this choice, because it seems to me that the choice is do absolutely nothing and not be a criminal or do something and be one. There's no choices to be a civil person (or if there is, it's basically the dev saying "see, it's not totally criminal minded") apart from standing around. And if you want to play the law enforcement route or a vigilante? Nope, not gonna happen, because any crimes that occur without you directly involved are ones you can't interfere with, unless you're supposed to because you want to commit the crime. So the real choice is do nothing, or be a criminal. Wow, great choice. That's what I like to call surreptitious shoehorning.

(And yes, I am aware that the concept of the game is to let you be a criminal without having to be one in real life. That's not my point. My point is that its praised for saying you don't have to be a criminal and still be able to do things, but the design only allows any effort to be from committing crimes, which isn't really a choice.)

So please would someone define a "Sandbox" game in a way that GTA should be praised for it and hold the term almost exclusively? I'm just not seeing it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

A Sandbox game has freedom of mobility and action, maybe some choice as well. GTA is seen as one of the first to implement this in a way that the RPGs of the time did not. Furthermore, shooters and driving games have more or less never been free-form (to use a different term) with the exception of GTA and it's knockoffs.

That said, the GTA series has always been a bit overblown to a point. It is done a lot better than most if not all of it's clones, but these days it's certainly not innovative anymore. It's a good game, It's just not THAT good.

[BroomJockey]

Err, GTA shouldn't be the exclusive holder of the term "sandbox."

The term "sandbox game," as I understand it, is explained thusly:

While there is a plot to be advanced to, completion of the plot does not end the game. There are tasks that can be completed for the sake of completing them - they do not necessarily offer benefits to the character. Sections of the map may, or may not be blocked off to start, but once open, you're free to move amongst all areas in whatever fashion the game makes available.

To further clarify, I shall compare the "sandbox" game to your examples:

MMOs: The "open world" nature is deceptive, since you're not free to roam a higher-level area without risking death, the plot is nearly non-existent for most, and the "side quests" are simply there to power up your character, and grind your way up to killing more things. A sandbox game, an area is an area is an area, and you're not crippling yourself by not doing the side-content.

Adventure games are incredibly linear. You progress from one puzzle to the next, in order. There's usually very little to do that doesn't relate directly towards moving you to the end of the game. If you're not progressing the plot, there's nothing to do. Sandbox games, you can do things for hours that do nothing to advance the plot.

RPGs basically share the MMO and adventure traits. Most of what you're doing advances the plot, or powers up your character.

I think the error most reviewers make is that they are considering "sandbox" a genre, when really it should be a template. For instance, I'd consider Spider-Man 2 The movie: The Game a sandbox title. I wouldn't consider Fable one.

[gunsage]

Thank you. GTA is not and has not been sandbox. Yes, you're offered a large domain to roam around in and you can have fun with it doing nothing at all, but when I think sandbox, I think of something like Fallout 3 or, and some people may not have had this pop to the front of their mind but I'll get to why it did for me in a sec, Crackdown.

In Fallout 3, beating the game is...well, very meh. I had more fun just going around finding stuff to do. And by finding stuff to do, I don't mean finding packages or maybe resupplying between actual content in the game. In other words, you can be working on a mission, not working on a mission, or just travelling, or even working on several missions at once...your call.

In GTA, there's mission and non-mission mode and that's it. But why did Crackdown come to mind for me first? In Crackdown, ironically made by the original creator of GTA, you play as a super soldier/crime fighter that has to eliminate various super gangs to liberate a giant city.

If it was like GTA, there'd be missions and all this other stuff, but no, that's it. Sure, there are some tutorials or something I think and recommendations, but you can pretty much go forth, tackle the underbosses and bosses in whatever order you wish, and get stronger in various ways in the process depending on how you play.

Even better, the gangs get weak as you take their legs out from under them, so not only do you feel like you're progressing toward a goal, you're doing so in a way that has no real plot involvement whatsoever which, while some argue may hurt the experience, I feel actually enriched it because it left it entirely up to the player.

[gremcint]

I actually find a lot of sandbox type games rather boring actually, sure it's cool to do extra exploration but sometimes I want as driving plot, I want actions to have consequences. I like having something in between sandbox and linear, FF6 is a really good example you can go through and do just the plot or you can explore quite a bit of extra stuff and find some really cool things.