Some people are just too hung-up on strict definitions of terms like "open world" or "sandbox" which are, after all, just approximations useful only in comparing games.
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
I'm glad you knew what he was talking about. But someone who never played any Witcher title, wouldn't have your frame of reference though. So, that's where at least some degree of accuracy in descriptions are needed.
It'd be nice if sandbox and open world were accurate terms that convey the same idea to everyone. Unfortunately, they aren't. No need to have played either game to get the gist of the meaning, albeit your own subjective gist
So, just to throw it out there for clarification, saying WoW has an open world sandboxy feel to it makes sense to you? I say that not to be facetious, I am saying that because the world is open and mostly seamless, so under certain logic, the argument could appeal to some. Personally, I don't agree with the above statement. Nor would I ever associate a single person shooter with some RPG elements in it as sandboxy, but as you say, it's subjective I guess.
EDIT: I'm also aware that I don't have all the info either. FO4 could have a very heavy crafting aspect to it. Also there are some elements in Skyrim about character skill building that is somewhat akin to sandbox games that previous TES games didn't have.
Some people are just too hung-up on strict definitions of terms like "open world" or "sandbox" which are, after all, just approximations useful only in comparing games.
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
I'm glad you knew what he was talking about. But someone who never played any Witcher title, wouldn't have your frame of reference though. So, that's where at least some degree of accuracy in descriptions are needed.
It'd be nice if sandbox and open world were accurate terms that convey the same idea to everyone. Unfortunately, they aren't. No need to have played either game to get the gist of the meaning, albeit your own subjective gist
So, just to throw it out there for clarification, saying WoW has an open world sandboxy feel to it makes sense to you? I say that not to be facetious, I am saying that because the world is open and mostly seamless, so under certain logic, the argument could appeal to some. Personally, I don't agree with the above statement. Nor would I ever associate a single person shooter with some RPG elements in it as sandboxy, but as you say, it's subjective I guess.
WOW as compared to what? I wouldn't call it a sandbox nor an open world but compared to Neverwinter? Yeah, more open and about as sandboxy -- which is to say, not very.
Like I said, it's useless to try to judge it against whichever definition of sandbox or open world you like best, which, I'm guessing, just like everyone else's, is an imperfect one.
Do you know of any game where you can do absolutely anything you can dream up or one where there are no borders whatsoever? I don't know of one. No matter how sandboxy or open a game world feels to you, you're going to run into the limits sooner or later. But comparing one game to another, yeah, the words have meaning in that context.
If you want to disagree with what Bill said, do it in context: do you believe that F4 does not do the sandboxy open world thing better than W3? That was the statement that was made. I didn't read where he said that either of those is the "true" mythical open world sandbox, just that one is more than the other in the continuum from 0 to infinite open world sandboxiness. And like I said, I understood what he meant and agree.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Some people are just too hung-up on strict definitions of terms like "open world" or "sandbox" which are, after all, just approximations useful only in comparing games.
If you want to use the terms in the strictest possible way, there can never be a sandbox with any kind of quest or story other than the ones you dream up yourself, nor can there be an open world with boundaries of any kind.
When Bill says that Fallout 4 does the "open world sandboxy thing" better than The Witcher 3, I know exactly what he means and I agree with him... and neither of those two has to be an absolute strict open world sandbox for the comparison to have meaning.
I'm glad you knew what he was talking about. But someone who never played any Witcher title, wouldn't have your frame of reference though. So, that's where at least some degree of accuracy in descriptions are needed.
It'd be nice if sandbox and open world were accurate terms that convey the same idea to everyone. Unfortunately, they aren't. No need to have played either game to get the gist of the meaning, albeit your own subjective gist
So, just to throw it out there for clarification, saying WoW has an open world sandboxy feel to it makes sense to you? I say that not to be facetious, I am saying that because the world is open and mostly seamless, so under certain logic, the argument could appeal to some. Personally, I don't agree with the above statement. Nor would I ever associate a single person shooter with some RPG elements in it as sandboxy, but as you say, it's subjective I guess.
WOW as compared to what? I wouldn't call it a sandbox nor an open world but compared to Neverwinter? Yeah, more open and about as sandboxy -- which is to say, not very.
Like I said, it's useless to try to judge it against whichever definition of sandbox or open world you like best, which, I'm guessing, just like everyone else's, is an imperfect one.
Do you know of any game where you can do absolutely anything you can dream up or one where there are no borders whatsoever? I don't know of one. No matter how sandboxy or open a game world feels to you, you're going to run into the limits sooner or later. But comparing one game to another, yeah, the words have meaning in that context.
If you want to disagree with what Bill said, do it in context: do you believe that F4 does not do the sandboxy open world thing better than W3? That was the statement that was made. I didn't read where he said that either of those is the "true" mythical open world sandbox, just that one is more than the other in the continuum from 0 to infinite open world sandboxiness. And like I said, I understood what he meant and agree.
Ahh, now I get it. In this context you are using open world and sandboxy synonymously. I never through of the two as interchangeable, but that's fine.
"As good" is hard to quantify. Less polished, but arguably better in some respects. Where Witcher 3 is tops at story-telling, Fallout 4 does the open world sandboxy thing far better in my eyes.
I wish those ideas didn't seem so mutually exclusive. I would love to see quality narrative evolve into quality open narrative set in an open sandboxy world.
This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Bethesda's open-world comes as the result of many mini arks within a single game. Let's say one game has one 400 hr ark vs another game that has eight 50hr arks. One's going to have a better story, the other will have the open world
"As good" is hard to quantify. Less polished, but arguably better in some respects. Where Witcher 3 is tops at story-telling, Fallout 4 does the open world sandboxy thing far better in my eyes.
I'd imagine that "as good" or "better" will ultimately be determined by which game setting you prefer the most. I lean toward the "post apocalyptic" more than the traditional medieval settings, because I'm very much a sci-fi fan, and the sword-and-board epics are becoming a little tired by now...
I agree, which is why I prefer the Witcher 3. The most addicted I've been in quite some time now that I just finished 4 of the first 6 or 7 books :-).
"As good" is hard to quantify. Less polished, but arguably better in some respects. Where Witcher 3 is tops at story-telling, Fallout 4 does the open world sandboxy thing far better in my eyes.
I wish those ideas didn't seem so mutually exclusive. I would love to see quality narrative evolve into quality open narrative set in an open sandboxy world.
This is why I typically tackle the main story-line first in a Bethesda title, from there I move on to doing side quests, taking part in open world activities, etc... It helps with my RP for one as the main quest is typically something that requires immediate attention in these games, so there's not much sense in dilly dallying, from a character standpoint.. it also helps with the pacing of the main story, and keeping track of what is going on in it. Once I've "saved the world" I'll move on to living in it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I actually think I am one of the few people who could not really get into The Witcher 3. I loved the first one but the second and third one just....eh. Not sure what it is
I wanted to like it, but the game runs like utter garbage. Nothing kills immersion more than having to turn the graphics down to PS2 quality and still getting choppy game play.
I'll pick this up when the GOTY package is inevitably released. I'm done buying games on release day only to see them on sale two months later for half price.
That's strange because W3 runs buttery smooth on ultra @ 60+ fps on my 5 year old PC with my lone upgrade being a GTX 970. Sounds like you were limited by your PC.
$80-$120 for a pc game is unjustified at this point. I'll wait for the Steam sale.
I paid $46 and change for my copy of F4. I buy all my Steam games exclusively through GMG (when available) with their site wide 20% off coupons. If you register an account, you can get personalized, one time use 23% coupons emailed to you and have access to their VIP page where pre orders sometimes go for 25% off.
I find it funny, one of the biggest things my friend was raving about while waiting for this game to be released, is being able to build your settlement and have people live there and all that. Strange to see it listed as a con.
I agree with the open world comment, nothing within the world changes without me starting or finishing an ark. Open world is a world that exists without me and I make my way in it not a world in a frozen state waiting for me to interact with it.
An open world has nothing to do with what happens in it while you're not around. Open world just means you can run off anywhere at any time and aren't forced into a linear story experience.
I agree with the open world comment, nothing within the world changes without me starting or finishing an ark. Open world is a world that exists without me and I make my way in it not a world in a frozen state waiting for me to interact with it.
I'd have to disagree about the Open World part.
I put about 160 hours into Skyrim and probably only completed about 25% of the main story. It was really easy to just roam around and make my own fun. I did complete the odd side story here and there, but to this day I haven't come close to finishing the main story.
One thing that told me these games are not Sandboxes is that I wanted to assassinate the rebel leader in Skyrim. I snuck up to his bedchamber and waited... The guy came in and I attacked him, got his health bar all the way down to zero and he would not die, I could have fought him through eternity.
These games are definitely Open World, but they are definitely not Sandboxes.
Compared to most contemporary MMORPGs Skyrim and now Fallout 4 convey a feel of world and accomplishment that makes them seem like sandboxes in contrast. Being institutionalized to follow quest hubs through the small world ride of the game for several years, getting to do things as you find them for the most part feels like super freedom.
To its credit, seems like Fallout 4 is good at making you want to play in the world. I dismiss the Author's negative comments about the settlement portion as railroader garbage. It may be half baked but at least they tried.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Bethesda hasnt done a "true" sandbox since Morrowind. They watered down the "system" completely for Oblivion. With lvl adjusments, unkillable NPCs, easier zones, simplified skills, easier (and less) item management, speelmaking/casting, etc.
Fallout 3 came out as a partial remake of Oblivion based on previous lore from completely different games like FO1&2. Since then Skyrim and FONV have been another step down into a more FPS/Action like and simplier gameplay and this FO4 looks to be the same.
One of the few things FO3 did well was to take your character skills into acount when playing the FPS like part. That you were able to put the fire cross above the enemy (any monkey could do that) doesnt guarantee that you hit. Skill advancement not only gave more damage but also more %hit chance. Making it a sloopy but noble intent of being a FPSRPG. If your character had 20 points in small weapons no agility and/or perception you were bound to fail a lot (or land "glancing" hits) wich is normal.
That only true aspect of a RPG like system was actually what 95% of players said that was bad. So lets just be honest here, people secretly (and openly) want plain shit shooters in (not totally obvious) rails. And thats what they get delivered. I cant even begin to imagine what they could achieve with modern day tools and engines if they were to try a true sandbox game similar to morrowind. Sadly 90% of players would say its crap cause they attacked a demigod with a stick and got killed.
Its the curse of the times.
$80-$120 for a pc game is unjustified at this point. I'll wait for the Steam sale.
Huh? I paid $48.00 after the Green-Man 20% discount.
Items bought
Fallout 4
- PC
$48.00
Savings:
-$11.99
Total
$48.00
There is a risk buying from sites like that,likely a very low risk but still one i would not want to pursue.
Sadly i have at least trusted Steam in the past but even there many people are buying codes that are already used/not working.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"As good" is hard to quantify. Less polished, but arguably better in some respects. Where Witcher 3 is tops at story-telling, Fallout 4 does the open world sandboxy thing far better in my eyes.
I'd imagine that "as good" or "better" will ultimately be determined by which game setting you prefer the most. I lean toward the "post apocalyptic" more than the traditional medieval settings, because I'm very much a sci-fi fan, and the sword-and-board epics are becoming a little tired by now...
To play the Devils advocate
This is the same post apocalyptic setting we've played in previous Fallout games - yes it's a different area, but it's very much the same game again.
yeah, hoped this one would bring in something new, like picking a different race to play or maybe in the back of my head i hoped it would be closer to an mmo.
$80-$120 for a pc game is unjustified at this point. I'll wait for the Steam sale.
Huh? I paid $48.00 after the Green-Man 20% discount.
Items bought
Fallout 4
- PC
$48.00
Savings:
-$11.99
Total
$48.00
There is a risk buying from sites like that,likely a very low risk but still one i would not want to pursue.
Sadly i have at least trusted Steam in the past but even there many people are buying codes that are already used/not working.
Green man gaming is legit. Ive ordered from them dozens of times over the years, never had a problem. They also have pretty good deals, even on brand new games. I also got Fallout 4 from them with the discount.
I actually think I am one of the few people who could not really get into The Witcher 3. I loved the first one but the second and third one just....eh. Not sure what it is
I wanted to like it, but the game runs like utter garbage. Nothing kills immersion more than having to turn the graphics down to PS2 quality and still getting choppy game play.
I'll pick this up when the GOTY package is inevitably released. I'm done buying games on release day only to see them on sale two months later for half price.
I'm with you on this. And not just the bugs, the game actually gets way better if you play it later. I'm playing DAI now, next stop is W3. Probably will start F4 in the next season or even later.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
Comments
EDIT:
I'm also aware that I don't have all the info either.
FO4 could have a very heavy crafting aspect to it. Also there are some elements in Skyrim about character skill building that is somewhat akin to sandbox games that previous TES games didn't have.
Like I said, it's useless to try to judge it against whichever definition of sandbox or open world you like best, which, I'm guessing, just like everyone else's, is an imperfect one.
Do you know of any game where you can do absolutely anything you can dream up or one where there are no borders whatsoever? I don't know of one. No matter how sandboxy or open a game world feels to you, you're going to run into the limits sooner or later. But comparing one game to another, yeah, the words have meaning in that context.
If you want to disagree with what Bill said, do it in context: do you believe that F4 does not do the sandboxy open world thing better than W3? That was the statement that was made. I didn't read where he said that either of those is the "true" mythical open world sandbox, just that one is more than the other in the continuum from 0 to infinite open world sandboxiness. And like I said, I understood what he meant and agree.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
One's going to have a better story, the other will have the open world
There Is Always Hope!
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.