Alan Wake developer Remedy has explained its decision to remove sandbox elements from the long-awaited action adventure game.
"It's not a good mixture with storytelling. For it we would have been forced to make such compromises in the game that we at Remedy don't want to. The most important thing for us is a compelling story and so we decided to go in that direction" Amen. I dont mind if they removed the Sandbox part of the game because Theres WAYYYYY to many Sandbox games nowadays and for somekind of reason that's the new trend in gaming. Imagine playing a Resident Evil 1 , Silent Hill 1 type of game in a Sandbox type of game! that's a big WTF.
What he said..
Everything is not fun in a sandbox :)
Am I the last one who got to know this!? :((((((( It's no longer a sandbox game? Man, one of the MAIN reasons why I was very interested in this game is its sandbox nature with all those beautiful graphics. This is seriously a huge letdown for me. :( And to those who agree with this step by Remedy, well yeah now the game is more focused on the story but be sure that it has lost a huge portion of fun elements. I was very impressed in 2007 when I saw the first screens of the game. That stunning, dynamic world NEEDS to be free-roamed. :(
No way,I was looking forward t just driving around searching for stuff and getting freaked out if I broke my car,then having to roam the woods trying to find a hut or something. I was left slightly disappointed by the stage demo,and now this :( been waiting for it since I seen it my UK OXM all those years back so my hype has died a little. But at least the atmosphere is good,but I get a feeling the scale the people/press had once assumed from early previews was more than remedy could deliver,and i'm guessing the game was scrapped more than once during development
That it was a sand box game and looked absolutely amazing at the same time. Now I understand why the demo at E3 looked so good. They got rid of the sand box aspect of the game and were then able to ramp up the graphics. If I had it my way, I too would do as they have since sand box games are not entirely my cup of tea. We all know that most, save for inFAMOUS, sandbox games do not look as good as other genre titles because of the size and scope of the game so for them to drop the sandbox idea and make a better looking game here is the best choice possible IMHO.
I'm starting to believe they had faced some technical issues and found it best to drop the open-world elements. That "more focused storytelling" excuse I don't buy. When they showed the game back in 2007, one of the key points Remedy told us that it's a sandbox horror adventure. This is how I have always thought of Alan Wake. Until now >:[ Maybe it was a mistake to show the game to the public that early. Damn hype.
in 05 they announced it for the 360 and pc. every bit of footage they shouwed running it was on pc and it showed realtime lighting and open sand box roaming then E3 09 comes they show first footage on 360 and no longer open world!? it just makes you think. MGS4 has a great story not because its linear but because they have CUTSCENES and they dont have to sacrifice the sandbox element. they could of been innovative with the way they told the story like Splinter cell how things super impose off the walls they made this move purely because the 360 couldn't handle it and to tell you the truth i dont think the ps3 could handle it because both systems dont have enough ram and thats the most important hardware for a sandbox title thats ............
I'm glad, I can't stand sandbox games. My favourite are games with multiple routes or ways through levels, like MGS4 or Halo to some extent.
I thought it was gonna be bigger than Silent Hill games since SH is somewhat linear except for those instances when you go for a more different ending. Guess, we cant drive off cliffs or whatever crazy stuff we do in sandbox games.
and anyone else that thinks this is a problem, You have to understand this from a developer's point of view. I completely agree with Remedy on this decision because i believe a well told story is the most important aspect to this type of game, and if you try to include sandbox elements, it makes things much more difficult. Not only will you have to deal with budget concerns, but you also have time constraints, technical issues like trying to program good A.I. that will function decently is a sandbox world, and simply put, they would have to sacrifice other aspects of the game(such as story, maybe some other important details that require much attention) in order to make the sandbox style work. They would have to pure more resources into the sandbox stuff and spend less time crafting a great cinematic experience. Do you nerf the story aspects in order to make a game that many other games have already mastered? or do you make a compelling story, something that few games try to do? I am glad that the story i am looking forward is not being compromised for something that i feel is less compelling and interesting. From the start, Alan Wake was promised to be a cinematic experience, something that has drawn in gamers who enjoy a great story for 5 years now, all of them following Alan Wakes development. For me they are making a responsible decision. This sort of situation is not as easy to solve as many of you would like to believe.
If they start talking about the story as the most crucial part of the game, you know the game will suck. Games that put too much emphasis on story usually have under-developed gameplay. There are certainly exceptions, but that's the general rule I follow.
they removed the open world elements out of this game. It is blatantly obvious it is because of the limitations of dvd 9.
Not only were there excuses for the graphics saying "well its because its a sandbox.. thats why it doesn't break any new ground or look like Uncharted" Remedy ran up against the reality of the 360, and now they have removed the sandbox portion from the game, which I imagine is a re-write of an entire engine, and it still didn't get any nods at e3. more than likely because this was the version they've only been working on the mechanics recently, not the PC-Tech demo version from 2005. So we are here, in 2009. Alan Wake isn't sandbox, and its visuals aren't on par with Uncharted, let alone Uncharted2. There was a ton of "wait for alan wake" talk as far as showing off the capabilities of the 360. There you go. Sure it will be a good game. But We have to go from 2009 on, since nothing else applies.
...and was not a sandbox game. I think Remedy will make a great game and fans will be very satisfied to me that's what really matters. I can't play sales. Even while the prospect of this game being sandbox at one time was very exciting it's still should be a great experience.
Who the hell was attacking/complaining about the change? They know what they are doing, its Remedy.
This game was hyped to be the best looking title to hit the Xbox 360 in the near future and now it's just another action horror game... Boy, the future sure is not as bright as it was a few months back.
Cause I've always had the feeling there aren't enough sandbox games. Especially, good ones. I don't have enough time to list cut scene, mission based games and First Person Shooters but, I guarantee there are more of them than sandbox games. On the flip side. I totally agree with their decision if it is what is best for the game. There is nothing worse than a crappy sandbox game or a sandbox game that acctually isn't (Think Driv3er). If their hearts aren't in it to make it a sandbox- so be it.
@ Blaze929: Dude, tons of people are disapointed by this. Go to the official forums and see it for yourself. I'm disapointed to be honest and my hype went down much. And I don't get how some here are comparing the success of non-sandbox games like Resident Evil or MGS to Alan Wake, lol. Those are different things. This game was first shown as an open-world horror adventure, that's the MAJOR idea the game is built upon and in a way it could have redefined the horror genre with that. It's like one of the posters here said "it's no longer the same game". It could turn out to be good (please don't be another Alone in the Dark) but it's definitely not the Alan Wake I was hyped for.
@ Marcelles25 WTF are you talking about? When was MGS4 a sandbox game? The game is linear. Just because you have a broader scope to walk around in doesnt change the fact that the game initiates cutscenes when you take the designated path. There's no side missions or alternative endings that change the initial outcome? These people did Max Payne, why would you question their decision making...you're all just nerds. These people get paid to make AAA titles and you can clearly see Alan Wake has a complicated story. Especially since light plays a big role in the game. He cannot eliminate the shadow spirits w/o light. Sometimes the flashlight batteries go out and he has to find alternate sources, so how do you encompass this element in a sandbox game? Use your f-ckin' head and stop thinking like a nerd that collects hentai pics and movies.
im gonna take it you didnt understand me look at my comment, "MGS4 has a great story not because its linear but because they have CUTSCENES and they dont have to sacrifice the sandbox element. " Rephrased,"MGS4 has a great story not BECAUSE ITS LINEAR but BECAUSE IT HAS CUTSCENES and they (being REMEDY) dont have to sacrifice the sandbox element for story telling if they added cutscenes..............
This is sad. Alan Wake was hyped up to be an epic game of epic size and scope with a huge world to explore. And of course, the huge world PLUS the great graphics is part of why people payed attention to it (much like the original Far Cry and Crysis: size + graphics). But now we're saying goodbye to the open world. Oh well. I'm sure the media will find a way to spin this around and make it look good. I'm gonna laugh when next week we see some article titled "Uncharted 2 isn't open-world because of limitations in the Cell".
Lol? They said that there's still exploration in the game. The only people who are complaining from what I see are people who's comments do not even belong in this thread. "This game's gonna suck! We all know how Remedy is! They make terrible games and lie to us and have ever since FOREVER!" First off, the whole "sandbox" thing? Yeah, that was talked about back in 2005 and then went into the shadows. So I'm not sure where you guys are getting the fact that 2005 = 2009. If you saw the footage/gameplay/screenshots back then and saw what it is now, it's almost done the Splinter Cell: Conviction. Secondly, just shut up. None of us have played the game. The only justification of how good this will be is to look back at their past creations. Which, to say the least, were revolutionary. Time to round um up. SL1M DADDY Greywulf Shingo Dustgavin Vx_ Mods, where are your bansticks?
i'm probably talking out of my ass, but could it be that free roaming would be too much for the 360 to handle? i mean from what i saw during tech demos on the PC, i couldn't possibly see the 360 or even the ps3 pulling it off. not taking potshots at anyone, just wondering if there was actually technical limitations with the console version which forced them to pull back some features and gameplay elements. i could all be wrong and just speculating, but i know there has been a lot of bullshit talk from developers and PR's in the past such as sony saying the reason they got rid of rumble for the sixaxis because it was "last gen" and it interfered with the sixaxis motion sensor in the controller when it was actually because of a lawsuit. i do agree that the sandbox style of gameplay could have possibly compromised the story, but i still think the story could've been perfectly in tact no matter what. imo, it's possible to make a very linear game out of a sandbox game (no matter how oxymoron that sounds.) just my two cents.
Because it's obvious. They were shooting for the stars. The limitations of their hardware didnt even let them out of the atmosphere. The PR they're doing with the excuse that they needed to focus on the story more is just nonsense... A very ambitious game that turned out to be overly ambitious. But at least there are Developers out there trying new things.
If Remedy thinks this decision will make a better more focused game on storytelling, and gameplay rather than sacrificing a bit of one of these more important elements for "free raoming" then I'm all for it....the game is looking amazing and the E3 demo looked like spooky fun game, so strip away the open-world aspect and you're left with a awesome action-horror game.....I'll take that any day vs an unfocused game that had so much potential but ultimately wasn't as good as it should of been because the dev's didn't make the right decsions for the game. Remedy knows what their doing....I don't make a lot of predictions, but I'm usually right when I do, you watch, AW will be awesome....well based on what we've seen so far and Remedies track record its really a no brainer. JOY
Go cry to mommy little one. It's called an opinion and last time I checked, it was OK here to have one. If you don't like it then make your own website and play Nazi and ban anybody that doesn't agree with you.
"LOL @ the fanboys that defend this crap." "@ Pennywise Not true!!! If it were released on two discs, then it could be officially called last gen." "What do you mean no weather? No night? No ralley racing? What a joke! I was at least expecting that with two DVD's and only 400 vehicles that they could at least toss in a night driving level or some dirt tracks. And this is supposed to compete with GT? Really?" These aren't opinions. This is trash. Especially in a place where you do not even like the thing they're talking about. That, by the way, is trolling. Open Zone is your turf.
splinter cell conviction's half stealth half sandbox, crackdown2 is a sandbox, assassin's creed 2 an other sand box game, GTA4's 2nd dlc......more sandbox. i got over 150 hrs of sandbox rigth there, do i really need 20 hrs more? people, has anyone yet gotten the chance to fully complete gta4...once. (let alone twice like i have :) ok with that out of the way, frankly it didn't even cross my mind that this game was going to be a sandbox game. (if you look at the gameplay it all points to a "pre-determined" pathway, if you correctly look at it.) http://www.gamersyde.com/st... honestly i'm fine with whatever gameplay style remedy wants alan wake to be, i just want the game to look like the way it does right now, and to be done.
AW will still probably be good but I think the main reason it stood out is because of the sandbox aspect. I'm sure they can take it out and rework the engine/game so that its still a good game but I don't think it will be as memorable as if it followed through with the sandbox side of it. Only thing I question is how long did they change this and why are they now telling the fans/followers of the game of these details. I don't really care why just seems like they would have had to make this decision awhile ago and if that's true than why we hearing about it now.
THE REASON WHY THIS GAME WAS GNNA BE BIG IS BECAUSE IT HAD GOOD GRAPHICS AND WAS AN OPEN SANDBOX....THATS WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH HYPE BEHIND IT and now remedy cant live up to what they PROMISED at the beginning and then they use a cover up like,...Well we needed to have a good story well if they are good developers (which they are) they should of found away to incorporate the story in a unique and more interesting/innovative type of way
"Alan Wake isn't sandbox, and its visuals aren't on par with Uncharted, let alone Uncharted2." Wow...trolling at it's finest lol.
"Lol? They said that there's still exploration in the game. The only people who are complaining from what I see are people who's comments do not even belong in this thread." Exactly. It's the same usual suspects Greywulf, TallTony, Sl1mDaddy. It's the same PS3 fanboys that whine and complain ab