Drowning in sand

The sandbox game has become a dominant genre in the games industry. It started with GTA 3. Complete freedom. Non-linear story structure. No force pushing you towards a goal. Just you, your rifle and a thousand stolen cars, some dead cops, and violence that would make Jack Thompson run for the hills. I've noticed that since this game came out, non-linearity has started to become a requirement or an expectation for game titles.

A lot of reviews by GameTrailers, IGN, GameSpot and their cohorts have unofficially made this part of their stringent marking criteria. While games may play great, if they force a player towards any sort of goal, reviewers will take it upon themselves to lower their recommendation of a game. These reviews often have profound effects on a game's sales, and also subtlely sharing their idea of "21st Century games must always have elements of sandbox" with all their readers. A powerful vantage point, indeed.

Is having a defined and forced critical path really a bad thing now? A game like God of War, which has sold incredibly well even as a PS2 game in the "next-gen" scene, was about as far from a non-linear game as you could. Even so, it was ridiculously popular, and ridiculously fun. Having such clear cut starting and ending conditions as "start small" to "kill everything in your path til you get to the boss" provide ample opportunity for enjoyment.

Being told what to do isn't a problem when what you're doing is fun. Having a clear path to victory, or flashing signs telling you where to go is a lot easier for people to remember. Complete freeform is never fun.

I'm gonna tip some salt in the industry's eyes and say: Perhaps sandbox sometimes is a cop-out for poor game mechanics? Call me a sucker for ludus-based play (you're probably right), but it seems that "non-linearity" isn't a valid criteria for game reviews.