Discussion: Roguelikes Are Better Than Most AAA Titles

Yes, you did in fact read that title correctly.  And I know what you're already thinking so let's get a few things out of the way now: Yes I do know I am basically comparing apples with oranges BUT there is a reason for it.  I'm going to be putting up some well loved franchises on the chopping block today but bear in mind, I do think that most of these are fantastic games despite what I'm going to say about them.  That being said, please keep an open mind and read through to the end.  Now off we go.

So I bet you're wondering what I meant by that title.  Or you've already interpreted it a specific way and are heatedly typing away at your keyboard to give me angry, hate spewing comments.  So allow me to clarify in both cases: roguelikes do some things far better than AAA titles and are a better genre of games to invest in.  I'm going to break this down into a few main points and discuss each of them in turn while using general roguelike examples or specific titles compared against AAA titles.  So let's dig in shall we?

The first point I'd like to bring up is that roguelikes are fresh every time you boot them up while AAA titles can easily get stale after the first playthrough.  Perfect example to start with; Bioshock Infinite.  Bioshock infinite is critically acclaimed.  Fans and reviewers alike love and adore this game to death.  But you know what they love it for?  The story,  which is great.  I love a game with a great story.  However once you've played that story, there's really not much left going for the game.  Once you've gone through the game the first time you're left with a very "meh" first person shooter.  Let's compare that against a roguelike which is different every time you boot it up.  Maps are random, item drops are random, enemy spawns are random, everything about these games are random.  Heck, in Rogue Legacy, one of the more recent roguelikes, even your character is random.  Every time you play these games it will be different.  There's always something new and wonderous to look forward to and that is something that many AAA games just do not have going for them.

This ties in nicely with my next point: roguelikes have a staggering amount of game time to them.  You pick up a new AAA title and you have, what, maybe 6-8 hours?  Maybe a bit more if you go for a second time through?  That's not a lot in the long run.  What about roguelikes?  Well let's take a look at my Binding of Isaac play time on steam: 36 hours.  And there is still TONS of content that I haven't even touched yet.  Wow.  See the difference here?  Because of the random nature of roguelikes, you get tons and tons and tons more mileage out of them than you would many AAA titles. I'm sure you could easily get into the hundreds of hours on these.  "But dude, what about games like Borderlands 2?  Or GTA V?  I have hundreds of hours logged on those!"  Yes I do know that there are AAA titles that you can get tons of hours out of.  But that brings me back to that point of roguelikes staying fresh.  Don't get me wrong, I love Borderlands 2.  But after awhile it just starts feeling like you're pointlessly shooting tons of dudes with the same guns. There is no variety to the experience.  It gets stale.  Roguelikes keep from going stale by actually having significantly different experiences through differing enemies, maps, and items to help you along the way.

The next point I have to bring up is that in addition to staying fresh longer, roguelikes provide a more challenging and satisfying experience overall than most AAA titles.  Now hold on, hear me out.  I do in fact know that AAA titles can be very challenging indeed.  Dark Souls is a good example, being extremely hard and requiring a great amount of skill to play.  But then again, is death in that game really all that bad?  You lose your collected souls, money for those of you who haven't played, but you can get them back without too much of a fuss.  And how about other games?  Checkpoints are liberally distributed throughout most AAA games nowadays, death is hardly more than a minor inconvenience, and many games practically hold your hand through the entire experience.  It's a bit pathetic really.  Roguelikes on the other hand are not nearly as forgiving.  When you die in a roguelike, that really is game over.  Back to start, no checkpoints no nothing.  You died, you're done.  Start over from scratch.  This may seem like a horrible thing to most gamers.  Why would you want to play a game that is so unforgiving?  But see that's the whole point.  Death is actually meaningful.  When you overcome the challenges it is WAY more satisfying.  The game was unforgiving but you were even better.  But even if you do die, it's not too horrible either.  Which brings me to my next point.

Roguelikes are built to be shorter yet more brutal experiences.  You could probably get through an entire game in 5-30 minutes or less.  But of course you'll probably play more than that, just because of the factor of "Just one more try, I know I'll get farther this time...".  How does that compare with AAA titles?  Well most AAA games you really need to sit down for a bit with it to really get engaged with the game.  The worst offenders are RPGs.  Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim, all really require you as a player to set aside a good few hours to just sit down and play for awhile.  Now this is not an inherently bad thing, but let's face it we have lives too.  Sometimes we just don't have that much time to commit to a game.  On the flipside there's always time for a bite sized adventure or 3 with a roguelike.

My final point that I want to bring up is that roguelikes are more cost effective than AAA games.  For both the customer AND the developer.  Let's go back to those previous AAA examples, how much did you spend on those?  About $60?  And how much time did you get out of the majority of them?  6-8 hours?  Maybe more?  Maybe WAY more in the case of something like Mass Effect or Fallout or Skyrim.  And how much did the developers spend?  Millions of dollars you say?  Now go to the flipside.  Roguelikes will maybe run you up $5-$20 at most.  They can last for hundreds of hours.  And on top of that they're cheap enough that indie developers can make them.  INDIE DEVELOPERS GUYS.  It doesn't take much to make a decent roguelike.

So I bet you're all wondering now "Well man if roguelikes are so awesome like you say then why don't more developers make them?".  That is indeed the question of the hour: why don't more developers make them?  The only people who do it nowadays are indie devs.  Could you imagine what we could have if a developer were to make a roguelike with AAA levels of quality?  It would still be much cheaper than AAA titles nowadays and would have plenty of polish and shine on the current formula for roguelikes.  On top of that there's so much room for possibility in roguelikes.  Rogue Legacy is a 2D hack and slash platformer, Binding of Isaac is a top down pseudo twin stick shooter, Risk of Rain is a cooperative 2D exploration shooter, and Eldritch is a first person action game with an incredible variety of styles of combat and a wonderful mobility system.  Those were just 4 games and already we have a wide variety of different gameplay styles.  Imagine what else you could do with this formula.  The possibilities are staggering.  Thing is we as consumers need to direct the market.  We need to show what we want by what we buy and what we support.

Until next time, keep leaving comments and suggestions for more things for me to review and topics to discuss!  Thank you all for your continued support!

Gamer out.

Discussion: Home

So recently I got my hands on a little game called Home.  If you look at it on Steam it has a really low price of entry, only about $3 not on sale and under $1 on sale.  Looking at it, one might think, "well what can I get out of a game that comes at THAT low of a price?  Must not be super good because of how cheap it is."  Turns out the price tag is only because the game is VERY short, only about an hour to an hour and a half for a play through.  However what it lacks in quantity it definitely makes up in quality.

Now, originally I was going to review this game.  However, after playing it I realized you couldn't really review it without MASSIVE spoilers.  Also its a bit of a difficult game to review in general since its incredibly unconventional in how it plays out.  So I have decided to instead do a discussion post about Home and talk about some things it does well and some things that make it stand out on the gaming scene.  So going to say right now you should pick this up and play it, or find someone who has it and play it so you know what I'm going to be talking about.  It's cheap and not very long, worth the price of admission in my opinion. Warning label going up regardless:

SPOILERS AHEAD SPOILERS AHEAD

Alright lets start with the basics.  What is Home?  Home is a very simple and unconventional little story driven horror game.  You play as a guy who wakes up to find himself in a strange house with no idea how he got there.  But this is not the setting for the game.  Oh no.  The game is about this man's journey back home and what he finds along the way.

Now the first question that should be asked of every horror title is what makes it horror?  What makes this game scary?  Well, I can tell you one thing, it's definitely not a danger factor.  It's not about managing supplies and feeling that rush of adrenaline that comes from narrowly escaping death at the hands of a much more powerful opponent.  In fact there is no combat in Home at all.  All you do is walk around and look at things.  No, what makes Home scary is two things: it's atmosphere and the dread of what you'll find next.

Home effectively makes you feel like you're in danger for the beginning of the game.  It always feels like there is something out there, something coming and there's nothing you can do about it except keep putting one foot in front of the other.  However since you will quickly learn that there is no danger to you as a player the other type of horror that this game does well takes over.  Throughout Home you find pieces of things that happened before the start of the game.  A dead body, a video tape, your possessions in places they shouldn't be.  You slowly put the pieces together to find out what happened before.  And each new piece is one more piece you wish you did not know.

Throughout all this the gloomy lighting and your own footsteps help the atmosphere of the game to weigh heavily on your mind as each new piece of evidence comes to light.  Why was your wallet at the top of the water tower?  Who were those two dead campers and what happened to them?  Why is your friend dead?  Each new bit brings more questions than answers, leaving the player to interpret what happened for themselves.  Which brings us to the most fascinating part of Home: how it tells the story.

See, in many games you're run down a storyline that is predetermined.  The set pieces are in place, the ending is going to be a certain way, there is a definitive way this story is going to go.  Some games build upon that formula and let the player shape the story by giving them choices.  The Mass Effect series is a prime example, giving the player options throughout the whole game as to how they want to approach a situation and giving them control over many major events throughout the game.  However Home takes this a step farther.  Home lets you decide not only how your character acts, but how he perceives the world around him.

This next part is probably the biggest spoiler so far.  So if you really don't want spoilers, now is the time to abandon ship and come back after you've played the game.  You have been warned.

The prime example of how this mechanic comes into play is at the very end of the game.  You finally arrive at home.  It all comes down to this.  You explore the house a bit, and make your way into the basement.  Down there, you find a body wrapped in rags.  Up to this point, you've been making decisions like, did I take this or that item?  Did I go down the shaft without anything to help me down or did I use the rope?  Etc.  But then comes this decision: Was this body my beloved wife?

At this moment when I was playing, I just stopped.  I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  They were going to let me make THIS major of a decision?  They were going to let me decide whether my wife was dead or not?  But then you realize: they're not letting you decide whether your wife is dead or not, they let you decide how your character is going to perceive this dead body.  Is he going to deny that his wife is dead and keep searching for her?  Is he going to recognize who this is and try to piece together what could have led to this?  Then after that crucial moment comes a sequence where you go through all the bits of evidence you collected throughout the game and make decisions about each.  And each is a decision in how your character perceives what this evidence means in the grand scheme of things.

This is what I find the most fascinating about Home.  Not only are you affecting the story by your decisions, you're directly affecting your character's psyche by your decisions.  And not only your decisions affect this: whether or not you missed an item will affect how the story goes because of what evidence you have.  However this does not give it replay value.  Quite the opposite in fact.  If you were to go back and try to do Home over again, picking up all the items that you missed before, you would be severely disappointed.  The whole point of the game is to give players a unique experience that they can interpret and affect how the character interprets it.  The game is purposefully vague in what it gives you, and will remain so no matter how much evidence you collect.  So going back and redoing all of that just devalues the outcome you received.  Those questions that remain unanswered are better than if you had answered them.  What was in that room?  What was on that video tape?

It's games like Home that show how the gaming industry is so unique as a medium for storytelling.  Letting you directly control more than just your characters actions is something you just cannot do in any other medium.  My final word here is that this game is brilliant, unique, and is definitely worth the price of admission and the discussion with other players that it leads to.

To wrap up, I am still accepting requests for topics and reviews you would like me to do.  Post about your own Home experience in the comments below and post requests in the comments!

Gamer out.

Shantae: Risky's Revenge Review: A Hop, Whip, and a Shake

Ok, let me open up by saying this:

WAYFORWARD I LOVE YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU DO PLEASE KEEP MAKING GAMES FOREVER!

*cough*  Well then.  On to the review.

Shantae: Risky's Revenge (here on out referred to as S:RR because long title) is a sequel to the Gameboy Color game Shantae.  When I first heard about S:RR coming to the DSiware shop I was a little confused to hear that it was a sequel to a GBC game.  Usually in the gaming world reviving a franchise from that long ago is unlikely, and if it DOES happen somehow a lot of the time it's not great.  Granted however it has been happening a lot more lately with things like XCOM coming back from the dead.  But I'm going off on a tangent, let's talk about how the game is.

Environments and sprites are gorgeous.

In S:RR we pick up shortly after the events of the first game.  But don't worry, you can easily pick up here and still understand what's happening.  You play as a half-genie girl named Shantae.  Shantae is the guardian of Scuttle Town and it is your job to protect the town from pirates such as your nemesis/rival Risky Boots.  The story kicks off with Risky Boots stealing a magical lamp from your uncle and you set off to foil her latest evil plot.  I should probably mention here that story is, to be brutally honest, one of S:RR's weakest points.  The story is....bare bones at best.  However what it lacks in content it makes up for in charm.  The writing in S:RR is wonderful.  Charming and quirky, cutscenes will leave a smile on your face and a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart.  The character cast is great, with Shantae spearheading the whole thing as a wonderfully strong female lead.

Shantae is not amused Octo-dude.

Once the story is set up and running its time to get into actual gameplay.  Shantae is a 2D action platformer game.  It's got all your basics: running, jumping, basic hair whip attack to take out enemies, and shinies to collect to buy upgrades in the Scuttle Town hub.  There's a large overworld to explore, dungeons to delve into, and bosses to defeat.  But the main thing that makes Shantae special is her transformation abilities.  In each dungeon, you unlock a new animal form that you can transform into by dancing.  Each form gives Shantae new abilities, such as wall climbing, block smashing, and swimming  to gain access to new areas.  That being said, there's tons to explore in the overworld and lots of collectibles to find.  Everything is well made and running and jumping from place to place feels smooth and natural.

Shantae's got the magic.

Now, while I do adore this game, there are some downsides.  There is a lot of backtracking.  And when I say a lot, I mean a LOT.  You will revisit areas over and over and over again through the course of the adventure, granted with new abilities to access new areas, but sometimes those areas are very small and don't really scratch that itch of exploration for the time it took to get there.  Also, many times the game really doesn't give you any direction as to where to go next.  One memorable time (spoiler free) was when I was asked to get hot coffee and a rotten egg.  I went to my NPC buddies for a tip.  Nothing super helpful at the time.  So I'm stuck wandering around looking for the things I need to fulfill this part of the game.  This can be frustrating sometimes, though not game breakingly so.  On the contrary, it is downright organic gameplay, making you explore and think and really find the bits on your own is far more rewarding than being told exactly where to go.

See this is why I love S:RR.  It has a big world but not so big that you'll get lost.  It has puzzles that are challenging but not so difficult that you'll ever be stuck for long.  It's platforming is difficult enough to test your skills but not so hard that it's unconquerable.  It oozes with charm, color, quirkiness, and downright FUN.  S:RR knows what it wants to do and does it extremely well.  After finishing the game, I realized that this game was the first thing that I could really say I had fun with from beginning to end without ever getting burnt out on it.

Now for the recommendation.  If you own a 3DS and want that old school platformer itch scratched, BUY THIS GAME RIGHT NOW.  If you like metroidvania-esque exploration and love a title that is fun and charming, buy this game.  However if you're looking for complex story or something that will push your skills to the limits, you may want to look elsewhere.

As always, please leave comments and requests on other games to review and topics to discuss!

Gamer out.

Review: Killing Floor

Alright first review here we go.  So lets get a few things out of the way first.  I am going to tell you about the game I'm reviewing, what I liked and what I didn't like.  I'm going to tell you features and anything interesting about the game.  At the end I'm going to give you a recommendation to the people who might find it enjoyable.  What I will NOT be doing is giving out a score.  I hate trying to score things mainly because I can never give a good rating for something.  That and the number system for game reviews nowadays is entirely broken.  Now on to the review.

Killing Floor is a first person co op zombie shooter.  How often have we heard that in the game industry right?  Anyway the setup is that this company Horzine did a bunch of genetic experiments and now those experiments have gotten loose and are overrunning London's streets and it is up to you and your friends to cleanse the streets of the monstrous outbreak. 

The zeds are hungry...

Killing floor is arena based.  You will be plopped in a map with either just your lonesome or 1-5 other people in your team.  You fight off waves of zeds surviving until the end of the game. But you will definitely be well equipped to do so.  At the beginning of the game you will choose a perk, or class if you like, for the game.  You can switch at any time if you like.  And each perk does not limit what kind of weapons you may use, although each will definitely support a certain playstyle.  As you kill zeds you'll accumulate money.  At the end of each wave a store will open up to buy new guns, ammo, and body armor.  That is basically how the game rolls.  Now on to the goods and bads.

The fleshpound.  Be afraid.

Killing Floor's HUD is impressively clean.  The ammo, health, and armor displays are very clean and minimalist.  There is no reticle for guns, which can be problematic for some people.  However this game definitely has a well done aim down sights system.  Gunplay is very smooth and feels very good.  Another thing to note is headshots are critical.  Headshots will either outright kill or severely damage an enemy.  If a headshot doesn't kill an enemy outright, it will prevent them from using their special ability and cause them to take damage over time.  And considering the sheer number of zeds coming at you at any one time, you need to be crackin headshots on as many zeds as possible.  As such, you are going to need to be a pretty good shot.   Now, the gameplay is great, but on to the bad things.

This is entirely normal

Now the problem with Killing Floor is the learning curve is rather steep.  Trying to jump into it is like trying to dive into a 2 foot deep pool.  It takes practice to get used to how things work.  You see, Killing Floor goes with a realistic approach to the gunplay.  If you try to line up a shot while moving you're going to have a bad time.  The guns sway quite a lot while moving and no reticles make shooting out of ironsights quite a trick.  On top of that getting used to the hordes of enemies slowly surrounding you is quite the trick.  This games is brutal and getting over the hump of beginners difficulty is tough.  In addition to that, each perk is leveled through different means.  And the game is very difficult at early levels in all the perks.  And leveling up each perk takes quite awhile. 

The horde is coming...are you ready?

Now, don't let me discourage you.  Killing Floor is greatly rewarding and incredibly satisfying and fun once you get used to it.  It is a bloody good time and has incredible replay value.  If you can get past the beginning difficulty hump you'll have an incredibly fun, satisfying, and rewarding game with nigh on infinite replay value.  Now for the recommendations.  I would recommend this game to people who can step to a challenge, like first person shooters, and love killin hordes of zeds at a time.

And that about wraps this review up.  If you have a game that you'd like me to review, post it in the comments.  I'll review it if I have it.  If I don't, and you reeeeaaaaally want me to review it, if you get it for me I will drop whatever I'm playing at the time and play your game for review.  And that's it.  Gamer out.

Linearity Isn't a Bad Thing

Hello again everybody and welcome to the second installment of the Cultured Gamer.  Thank you to everyone who took to the time to read through the first post.  I loved all your comments and appreciated your feedback.  I'll be attempting to address some of those concerns in this post, mainly the ones regarding formatting.  So pretty pictures ahoy!  Anyway lets get down to business.  To defeat.  The huns.  Ok, for real this time here we go.

Linearity, in the gaming world, has become a really dirty word.  Reviewers will call a game "linear" when they think it restricts the freedom of the player.  Now, sometimes this is true.  Sometimes games that are linear ARE a bad thing and restrict the player.  But I think the idea of linearity gets a bad reputation because of it.  In this discussion I will talk about what defines a linear game and how it can be good and bad.

Alright, first things first: what do we mean when we say linear?  Now, there's a few different things that this could be referring to.  We could be either referring to: A. the story or B. the level design/gameplay.  First lets talk about linear story.  Linear story is in almost every game you play.  Linear story simply means that the story you are being told in the game is set in stone.  You don't have a choice int he outcome of the story.  Now I'm not trying to make this sound like it's a bad thing.  It really isn't, in fact like I said many games have this and are fantastic for it.  Games like Half Life 2, Limbo, and Psychonauts all had amazing stories, and all of them were linear storytelling.  Next up we have linear level design/gameplay which will be the main focus of this discussion.  This essentially means the game goes in a straight line.  There are varying degrees of linearity in games, but for the most part you are channeled along a path to the goal. Still a bit confused?  Here's a few that are like that real fast: any 2D mario game, RAGE, Alan Wake, Metro 2033.  

Linear Gameplay

Now, as we know these games are fantastic.  Mario has been goin strong for years and years now.  So why are these games so good if they take away the freedom of the player to make choices and pick their own path?  For that we shall turn to the example of Prince of Persia: Sands of time.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is an old platformer from back in the day of the PS2 and Gamecube.  You play as, you guessed it, the Prince of Persia who is trying to undo a magical apocalypse that he brought about through his own pride.  The main gameplay was navigating through a castle, getting from point A to point B with all your body parts accounted for.  To do this, the Prince has to jump, wall run, climb, swing his way through obstacles in his way.

                              An example of Gameplay from Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

However, what the game did was essentially funnel you from one trap set to the next combat encounter to the next trap set, etc.  Sounds a little tedious right?  But it wasn't.  It still holds up, even today, as one of my favorite platformers, and possibly games, I have ever played.  In this case, the linearity of the game enhanced the experience.  By channeling you through the traps, you actually HAD to solve the puzzles of figuring out how to navigate through the next room to your goal.  And figuring out that perfect series of jumps, wall runs, and other maneuvers is incredibly satisfying when you get it right.  If these puzzles were left open ended in how you were supposed to complete them, it would not be nearly as satisfying as finding that one right answer.

So if linearity in games is not such a bad thing, then why do game reviewers give it such a negative connotation?  Well, the truth is whenever it DOES pop up as being something noteworthy, its usually not a good thing.  If a game is linear, you shouldn't NOTICE that its linear.  If you are, then there's something wrong with the game you're playing.  Here's a good example: the Red Faction series, specifically Red Faction: Guerrilla and Red Faction: Armageddon.  Red Faction: Guerrilla was a giant open world game where you got to go where you wanted, pick up missions as you liked, and cause lots and lots of destruction.

                                                         Red Faction: Guerrilla Gameplay

Sounds great doesn't it?  And it is.  Red Faction: Guerrilla is a great game and very fun.  Now the problem with linearity kicked in when Red Faction: Armageddon came out.  Red Faction: Armageddon went in the complete opposite direction of Guerrilla.  Instead of being out in the open on the surface of Mars like Guerrilla was, letting you go where you wanted and blowing up buildings at your leisure, Armageddon took you underground into a series of tunnels under the surface of Mars.  These tunnels essentially are just a means of funneling you from one shooting segment to the next.  And where Guerrilla gave you tons of stuff to destroy and see their hilarious physics engine at work, Armageddon severely limited you in that regard. See, the problem in this case was not the linearity.  As we said before, games can be great when they're linear.  The problem here was that not only did Armageddon take away the amazing freedom that Guerrilla offered, but it didn't offer a good experience to make up for it.  This is the sort of thing that makes game reviewers say "linear' like its an evil demon child that is to be shunned and kicked out of the house.

Linearity isn't bad.  It can be done badly, but it is not bad inherently.  Now you may ask why we need to discuss this as players.  Shouldn't this be something for the developers to worry about?  Well, yes and no.  The developers are the ones who are making the games.  And as such they do need to know how to make a game linear and good at the same time.  But we as players need to understand what we are playing.  We need to let the developers know that we DO like linear games, but ones that are done well.  We need to say yes, we love mario and Prince of Persia, but don't do things like Armageddon.  Our voices are heard as a community, and to better influence the games we play, we must first understand what we play.

On Sandboxes

Alright, so this is my first blog post.  Hello everyone!  So what this blog is about is mainly a sort of discussion on video games, what makes them fun and their future as an art and entertainment medium.  I will do occasional reviews, either post posthumously on games you may not have played or heard of, or new games if I manage to get my hands on one and play it early enough that I can do a relevant review.  I know I'll probably get compared to Extra Credits in the discussion, so let's just get this out of the way: yes, this is similar to Extra Credits.  However while they approach the discussion from the development side, I want to approach from the player side.  And if you don't know what Extra Credits is, go check it out.  They're good folks who deserve your support.

Alright, on to today's topic.  Today I'm going to talk a little bit about sandboxes.  Why?  Because I've been playing a lot of sandbox type games recently.  So it's fresh on my mind and I've been thinking a bit about them.  I asked myself, what makes these types of games so much fun?  To answer this question, we're going to take a look at a couple sandbox type games and look at what they do well and what they don't do so well (keep in mind, these are just ones I have played and think make good examples.  On top of these, I can think of plenty of other sandbox games that would make good examples, had I played a significant amount of them).  And let me just state here: what I say in this discussion by no means reflects my opinion of the games as a whole.  We are just looking at the sandbox elements of each.

Lets start off with a series well known and loved, Assassin's Creed.  Assassin's Creed, as you probably know, follows a series of Assassin's throughout the course of history in their fight with their rival group the Templars.  Each game takes place in a different time period, but all have assassinating, hidden blades, sword fighting, loads of equipment, and lots and lots of free running.
What it does well:  Ok, let me start off by saying that the free running in the Assassin's Creed series is a blast, and is improved with each game.  Finding paths to jump, climb, and run along is smooth and fluid and overall just feels good.  Also on the list of enjoyable things is the sheer amount of things to do.  In my opinion, a good sandbox should not only give you a compelling main mission set, but an equally compelling set of side missions to do.  If you're going along in the game and it says "hey man, you gotta get this done!  It's the main story mission!" and you reply "yea, ok, I will after I do this other stuff first because I'm having way too much fun!" then the game is definitely doing something right.  Assassin's Creed does not fail on this front.  It provides plenty for the player to do, from assassination missions, to races, to collectibles, to hunting down pieces of "the truth" in later games, to climbing view points to reveal more of the city map.  And everything is organically put in place.  For example, you could be on your way to the main story mission, or even an assassination side quest, when you see a view point or even a collectible on the way.  You can just go off course from what you were doing and grab whatever it was you spotted, and it takes nothing away from the game. 
What it doesn't do well:  Ok, so I'm probably going to start getting tons of butthurt from angry AC fans at this point, so hear me out first.  One thing that I see wrong with the AC games is the lack of things to do outside of side and main missions.  The sandbox game is basically like a giant playground for you to use.  The AC games however, do not feel like that.  There are rules as to what you can and can't do.  You can't murder civilians, you can't recklessly murder guards unless you want the entire city guard on your tail, you can't run on rooftops where guards can see you, etc.  And I can understand why these rules are in place, they make sense in the context of the setting and such.  However, I am not discussing this, I'm discussing it's place in a sandbox.  If anything, these rules would fit better in an open world game rather than a sandbox (and yes there is a difference which I will discuss in a future blog post maybe).  Sometimes these rules also get in the way of some of the good factors.  For example, say you're running along a rooftop, free running along tight ropes and jumping across gaps and having a grand old time.  Then you get spotted by a guard on a roof and you don't get out of sight fast enough.  Now, this was not so much of a problem in AC 2 and on, but still it is obnoxious to have your entire flow of free running interrupted by a swarm of guards out for your blood.  However, more importantly these rules give a lack of anything really fun to do outside of missions and side quests.  Sure stabbing a guard and not getting caught or alerting the entire city guard just so you can kill them all with your awesome sword fighting skills is fun for a little while, but that gets old really fast.  The main reason why is there is no real reward for doing so.  All that happens is you get the satisfaction of killing the guy and getting away with it.  In fact, in AC 2 onward this is actually punished with the notoriety system.  So you can't even randomly bump off those annoying guards without having to then go and tear down wanted posters, pay off guards, or kill witnesses.  And while these mini activities are entertaining, they can get to be a chore if your notoriety gets out of hand.   As such, the games become mainly running around from side quest to side quest and mission to mission with no real engaging way to spend down time.  Sure there are the collectibles and the truth and hunting down treasure chests, but the economy is already rather broken so treasure doesn't feel terribly rewarding, and collectibles are so hard to find its almost more of a chore to hunt them down than enjoyable.

Now lets check out another game:  Dead Rising 2, or as I like to call it, Zombieland the game.  The idea behind Dead Rising 2 is that a zombie outbreak has occurred at a sort of casino luxury resort and you have been accused of causing it.  You have 3 days in which to clear your name, help out survivors, and keep getting medicine for your daughter to treat her zombie infection (don't worry, she's ok and hasn't turned, unless you don't get the meds).  And while you're doing this you get to tear through hordes and hordes of zombies with anything and everything you can find along the way.
What it does well: Let me just say, that Dead Rising 2 is insane.  Zombies are everywhere, and you can use anything and everything as a makeshift weapon.  Now how does this tie into the sandbox idea?  Well remember how I said that the AC series didn't really give you much to do outside the missions and side quests?  Dead Rising 2 does the opposite.  Pretty much everything moving on the screen most of the time is an enemy, and you're allowed to just go to town on them.  Additionally, it doesn't feel empty and meaningless to do so.  Every kill you get gives you some exp, or PP as they call it in the game.  As you gain more PP, you level up, upgrading your stats, letting you learn new moves and skills, and getting you new combo cards which let you build even more ridiculous weapons than the ones you just find.  You can have just as much fun, if not more so, bashing a zombie's face in with a purse you picked up in a department store as you would have doing an actual mission in the game.  Another great part of this game is how everything is smoothly integrated.  Side missions don't even have places to pick them up or begin them.  Essentially you get an alert on your phone that says "hey man there's some people you should help here" or "there's a dude going totally psycho over here, take care of him".  Then it gives you where it is on your map and you can go do it when you want to.  You just go and do it.  Doesn't even pull you out of gameplay to do so usually.  Personally I love it.  It's smooth, simple, and is a great system.  On top of that, the entirety of the casino/resort that you are in is absolutely ripe for exploration.  Just wandering around looking for new and more ridiculous ways of slaughtering the undead is fun and engaging, something that feels lacking in the AC series.  Personally, I would love to just wander around the entire place, exploring and grabbing random stuff to pummel the undead with as I went.  Which brings me to the bad parts of this game.
What it doesn't do well:  Remember how I said Dead Rising 2 was pretty much the opposite of the AC series in terms of outside of side quest and mission stuff to do?  Well it's pretty much the opposite of the AC series in terms of navigation as well.  You're character plods along at a snail's pace, walls of zombies make navigation tricky, and while you can improve your speed and ability to outmaneuver zombies, its still does not feel fluid or smooth like many other sandboxes out there.  Now the truly big problem with this is that everything, and I mean everything is on a timer.  You get  a main mission and a timer appears next to it, saying you have this much time to get it done.  Same with side quests and getting medicine for your daughter.  Now, while this is an interesting mechanic in relation to the whole game being on a timer with the military coming in 3 days, it just feels bad.  Everything you do is on a time limit.  You feel pressured to get everything done and you can't relax and just screw around freely.  Even if you've gotten all your side missions done and you have some time before your next main mission, you just can't relax because of that timer.  Niggling in the back of your mind is the knowledge that at some point soon you're going to have to rush back to pick up your next mission or else you'll automatically fail the game.  It takes away from that whole idea of the place being a crazy zombie filled playground by not letting you relax and enjoy it. 

Now, these are just two games.  In fact, I was going to do a bunch more games on this topic, but after seeing how long this was getting I decided to cut it off at 2 games.  Some of the others I was going to discuss were Saints Row 3, Just Cause 2, and Batman Arkham City.  Now here's something else I'm planning to do with this blog: I don't claim to be the absolute truth on any of this.  Rather I would like to help start discussion between all of you reading this.   So post in the comments what you think on the topic.  Post about a sandbox game that YOU like, or one of the ones I mentioned in this blog post.  Tell us what you think it does well and what it does not do well as  a sandbox.

And with that, I bid you farewell for now.  Gamer out.