What 2009 taught me...

[nashua_c]

...is that all video game reviewers hate linear games yet find sandbox games pointless.

Also, nobody should listen to lone reviewers.

I love linear games. The story makes sense!

Someone tell me why linear is so bad now...honestly.

Comments

[neo53]

Because they like their fingers burning with FIRE and their brains to smell of onions. THATS WHY.

[nashua_c]

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[niiku]

I'm not about to say linear is "bad" really, I just don't personally prefer linear games because I feel they railroad me into decisions I might not have otherwise made, given a real choice. I enjoy sandbox type games for the freedom, but maybe also to help with my ADD so I can go OOOH WHAT'S THAT LETS GO SEEEE! at any given moment.

But again, it's a very personal choice there. If you like linear games, don't let someone else tell you you're bad for liking them. :P It's a matter of what you enjoy.

[nashua_c]

I see your point, but I don't like it when reviewers say games should have more sandbox elements when all that can do is pad a games length while not really adding anything to the story or character development.

They are fun, don't get me wrong...I love running around the city of GTA and doing random things... but NOT having a sandbox element in a game shouldn't be a negative mark against it.

And I am not including things like MMORPGs. I don't play those so therefore can not give a unbiased opinion on them for what my post is about.

[synchra]

Yeah I like storyline and character development. I get bored easily when it's all sandboxy..... never finished Jak2, never finished Infamous, never finished Sly... etc. D: SANDBOXY.

[nashua_c]

Yeah...haha you really REALLY hate those games.

[synchra]

I LIKED THEM. I just got bored. D: GTA is worse though.

[nashua_c]

Whenever that cell phone rang...I just wanted to break something.

[maitriaya]

I like when linear opens up to sandbox from time to time. The thing I hate the most is when it feels like you're in a wide open setting but you're constantly forced forward into the designer's view of what your game should play like.

[nashua_c]

Incredibly good point...but things like this about the Ghostbusters game...

"Ghostbusters: The Video Game succeeds in being a proper Ghostbusters game with a good storyline and gameplay that fits the setting and gets a thumbs up for that. On the other hand, it is embarrassingly linear with almost zero replayability and the PC version omits multiplayer modes found on the consoles. At least it is priced accordingly, offering reasonable value."

While I agree that the replay ability is incredibly lacking (no taking back the awesome upgrades you buy to the earlier levels? REALLY?) I don't see how a game like this would be better WITH sandbox elements.

I know this is somewhat cheap to flaunt as a point... but this is what I am talking about... reviews saying games could benefit from elements that would add nothing but mini challenges and frustration.

Source:http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/ghostbusters YouGamers section.

[maitriaya]

it's true, and I think the two ought not mix all that often. I find that most companies that do "sandbox" style games seem to spend the same amount of time on all the gameplay so you end up with 10 minutes missions or dungeons the size of my bedroom, but hey there's a giant world full of stupidly small things to do. There are definetely some exceptions, I still play the shit out of elder scrolls games because they are the best exception, but I hate sandbox as a kind of game that means 100+ hours of zero-depth gameplay.

[nashua_c]

When I was playing GTA4...I didn't know it actually ended. I was playing the last mission and had no idea. Suddenly, I get an achievement that stated "YOU WON!"

Beating a game SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE!