Rails versus freedom?

I think a sandbox is fine for something that's not trying to tell a story, like a Sims or a Civilization. But if you're trying to create a compelling narrative, allowing your players to wander off and ignore than narrative removes all sense of immediacy. It's fine to have options -- Deus Ex gave you plenty of choices, but always in service to moving the story forward -- but Oblivion turned me off when I realized I hadn't even touched the main, supposedly world-shattering storyline in days. It didn't feel right to be tasked with saving the kingdom yet being allowed to wander aimlessly across the countryside doing completely unrelated things.

I think MMORPGs have struck a nice balance -- most quests follow a storyline, and most zones have some kind of story linking their quests together, but if you need a break, you can wander about crafting or killing mobs for loot and XP, and there's no huge storyline you're ignoring to do so.

Bioshock is as linear as they come, and it's still one of the most compelling stories and video game experiences i ever tried.

And COD4 is way too linear, but as you say, its polished to perfection. It's tons of fun to play.

Crysis on the other hand, is more open and you can approach each situation from multiple ways. But the core was still lineal. Get to this point, kill everyone and then move to the new point on the map.

Bioshock was an excellent merging of open world and linear. It gave you a great illusion of a huge world, the ability to travel back to areas you have previously visited, and enough small little hidden areas to reward you for exploration.

With my RPGs i need an open world, but anything else i would prefer a well crafted, cinematic linear game.

Thing about this argument, even though it is valid, is that it's a bit of a misrepresentation. I don't see what's wrong that you're "allowed" to wander, the big problem is when the storyline itself is really engaging, or the world doesn't do enough to create this sense of urgency in you. That has little to do with the concept itself. I'm playing Oblivion now, for example, with a mod that makes the Daedra invasions be actual dangerous events that create wandering parties of monsters roaming the countryside, war bands of daedra attacking cities, etc etc. You can bet that it gives a lot more urgency to following the main questline. But if I'm playing the kind of character that wouldn't *care* about that, it's good to have the option.

An older example that IMHO perfectly illustrates this is a game you consolites never played called Ultima 7. The game was a sandbox as well, but in this case the whole world was involved in the main quest. You couldn't go anywhere without reminders that something was very wrong. You had a voice in your head mocking your ineffectiveness. You had objectives that were important, but not OMGURGENT. You started out completely unaware of what it was you had to do, so a lot of the exploration and investigation made sense as you actually had to do it to find out what it was that the main quest even *was*. All in all, that game alone made me discount all arguments against sandboxes. It's just that most current sandboxes are not that good (and please no "omg the retard didn't like Oblivion get him!" arguments again.)

Coming away from RPGs a bit and back to shooters. Being on rails also removes things from a game experience. In this case, it removes the need to worry about what else may be in the area, it removes the tactics from having several possible approaches, etc. If the only way to go is forward, why bother making "find the terrorist" or "find the escape route" missions? At that point you might as well watch a good movie and then go play duckhunt for a bit to test your reflexes

The Rails vs. Sandbox argument for me boils down to the experience you get from each. In linear games the stories you get from people are along the lines of "This cool thing happened" while in more free-form ones they more like "I did this cool thing". If the people making a linear game are not good you'll get a dull, repetitive game. On the other hand if you play a sandbox type the amount of fun you're going to get is pretty much up to you. None of the approaches is more valid than the other, in my opinion.

The Infinity Ward guy is indeed right—I've put ungodly amounts of time into Elder Scrolls games, but sometimes I just absolutely want to go from point A to point and blow shit up. There's absolutely a place for both types of game.

In my experience at least, an open-world game can often be more rewarding simply due to the fact that, in a lot of games of that ilk, you're able to affect the gameplay and/or narrative with a bit of your own personality or imagination. You don't really get something like that with COD4, but COD4 also offers unparalleled intensity and urgency. I like how stelios put it right above me...sandbox games tend to be an experience through your own eyes, while linear games feel like you're experiencing something through someone else's. Both can provide for equally exceptional entertainment.

It's also true that a lot of games are blurring the lines. A couple I've played recently had an interesting mix of sandbox and linearity that proved compelling. Lost Odyssey is a fucking massive JRPG that initially intimidates with its promise of hours upon hours upon hours of playtime spread across 4 discs. It proves to be much less daunting once you get into it and see that it's mostly on rails, with a clear narrative and clear objectives. It's a big, deep game, yet it's really difficult to miss anything as you go through it.

Viking was also cool in that it looks like a sandbox game on the surface, as you have free reign to travel across these large islands from the get-go, but your objectives are all very linear. Raid camps, free troops, assemble army, assault enemy stronghold. I always felt like I knew what I should be doing, and the game felt very tight and briskly-paced despite the apparent looseness of the gameplay. It allowed just enough freedom to let the player add a dash of their own imagination to the proceedings, which I appreciated.