Someone Shit in My Sandbox: When Open World Games Don't Deliver
Open world sandbox games, the magic of Skyrim, the wonders in Red Dead Redemption, The craziness of Saints Row. These companies know how to do it! A giant map with loads of activities to do, taking any approach you feel for your current objective.
By definition a sandbox game would be a game where you can go anywhere you want, and take a situation in any way you see fit. So what about those companies that failed to do that?
Like Bungie, talking about Destiny at a presentation saying "All that stuff, if you ran out there, it's all playable terrain" while they were looking at places outside of the map where you cannot traverse, even to this day. Destiny would be a completely different game had it allowed you to traverse those huge wide open spaces, and it probably would have steered them in a different direction concerning the enemies you might encounter, or the events that would happen. Imagine having to fight a giant monster as part of an event (Like Oryx on Kings Fall raid kind of big.)
Or there is the case of Fable II, which claims to be open world. While it can be seen that way, it's also very linear, only offering you a few routes to take in between objectives.
And as much as I enjoy Metal Gear Solid V, I have to admit it's also this way in certain areas. As infinite as the tactics seem on this game, why wouldn't you be able to snipe from the cliffs in the maps? They already have the limitations on the outskirts, I don't see why you cant climb a cliff with some sort of tool.
If you could have access to every part of the map entirely, it would add much more depth to planning your approach, effectively increasing the replay value, or at the very least appease someone who enjoys sniping.
While these are just my opinions, I feel like these games could be much better if they didn't have these limitations. What do you think? Do you have anything to add to this subject? Let me know in the comments!