Let's try this again, because I really do need to get some statistics on this.

I have a few questions in preparation for an article regarding sandbox games. The questions are focused only on games driven by character and plot development (e.g. Grand Theft Auto, Dead Rising, Saint's Row), excluding MMOs, and the results will not be used to negatively represent gaming in any form.

Alternatively, I welcome any responses via a private message.

1) Your age? -
2) What is more important to you in a sandbox game, violence or free will? -
3) Would you be willing to play a sandbox game featuring the production values and gameplay elements of high-rated titles, but lacking graphic, person-on-person violence? -
4) Additional comments or concerns regarding sandbox games and your reasons for playing or not playing them? -

Most recent blog posts from Brian Rowe...
Still waiting on Warhammer Waiting forever A case of corporate influence

Feedback
	Genj - October 26, 2007 (08:51 PM) 1) 21 2) I guess free will. When I first played GTA3, exploring the city was my favorite thing. Killing random people got old fast, and usually I only did it so I could get into high speed chases with the police (way more fun). San Andreas was especially engrossing just because there was so much to do. 3) Yeah I guess so. Wasn't the Simpson's GTA clone like that (more cartoony violence)? 4) I always found some of the cursing and random sexual crap in the GTAs almost embarrassing at how poorly/immaturely handled they are. "HOOKERS! WOW, WE'RE SO ADULT!" I thought this when GTA3 first came out and I was a mere 15 years old. I've never been interested in any of the other sandbox games due to the fact they always seem to be poor imitations of GTA, though Dead Rising looks awesome if you count that as "sandbox."
	overdrive - October 26, 2007 (09:39 PM) 1) 33 2) Free will. While San Andreas is the only one of these games I've played for any length of time, I can tell you that simple violence is cool and all, but only a piece of the puzzle. I love driving around listening to the various radio stations, testing my skills with the various courier/driving license/etc. missions just as much if not much more. 3) Define graphic person-on-person violence. Most games I play have violence of some sort, whether it be spaceships blowing up or blasting a zombie's head off at close range with a shotgun. I wouldn't lose sleep if the game didn't have blood and guts, but would want some semblance of reality with the fighting (ie: taking out someone just to get a RPG-esque...."I'll let you live for now, but if you continue on, I'll show you my real power" sort of thing wouldn't cut it). 4) Not really much to say other than the appeal of these games is simply the variety of what you can do in them combined with how they (at least in the GTA games) portray an over-the-top cartoonishly hyper-violent society. To me, it's fun, but impossible to take seriously — which means it gives great entertainment.
	Felix_Arabia - October 26, 2007 (10:12 PM) 1) Your age? - 21 2) What is more important to you in a sandbox game, violence or free will? - Violence 3) Would you be willing to play a sandbox game featuring the production values and gameplay elements of high-rated titles, but lacking graphic, person-on-person violence? Yes, but they would still have to have some sort of violence or combat because exploration is only interesting if danger lurks in the unexplored realms you're about to enter. 4) Additional comments or concerns regarding sandbox games and your reasons for playing or not playing them? - They're big, so that's always one reason I like playing them.
	Halon - October 26, 2007 (10:13 PM) I meant to do this but got caught up in some stuff. My bad. 1) 20 (21 on Monday) 2) Free will, I personally don't care for games that are more or less violent than they should be. Extra blood and guts doesn't mean anything to me. 3) I'm not big on the genre but if it turns out to be something interesting I'm open to anything. 4) I don't care for the genre too much, GTA3 was fun back in the day but killing whoever and being chased by the cops got old pretty quickly. I didn't care for Vice City because I was tired of the formula and never tried San Andreas and have no intention to. I also played a little bit of Bully, The Godfather and a few others and got bored pretty quickly. However, if someone is willing to come up with a refreshing concept regardless of how violent or tame it is (such as in #3) I'll give it a spin. I can enjoy a good E-rated game just as easily as I can enjoy one with an M-rating.
	zigfried - October 27, 2007 (08:22 AM) 1) Your age? - 31. 2) What is more important to you in a sandbox game, violence or free will? - Free will. Violence can be added to any genre. As a focus, violence works better in non-sandbox games, where the violence can be "directed" better by the designers. 3) Would you be willing to play a sandbox game featuring the production values and gameplay elements of high-rated titles, but lacking graphic, person-on-person violence? - Yes. Starflight (1986) was great. 4) Additional comments or concerns regarding sandbox games and your reasons for playing or not playing them? Random violence against innocent people wandering through the world gets dumb after a few minutes. Sure, I had fun killing the villagers in an action-RPG like Efera & Jiliora, but basing the majority of gameplay around that concept? Yeah, uh, no. Now, if the sandbox game starred you as a freedom-fighting "one man army" human, trapped in an alien world, and your goal was to destroy their civilization thoroughly and completely... I could get behind that.
	daff - October 27, 2007 (12:34 PM) 1)26 2Free Will. It seems like most free will is choice a is "good" and b is "evil". I'd like more complex free will would be nice. I don't have a problem with violence, but the violence level won't really change my opinion on a game. 3)yes, ultimate spider man was one of my favorite sandbox games in the last few years. IF it is fun I will play it. 4)Violence is what put these games on the map and I must say I had a lot of fun beating up hookers and killing innocent bystanders in GTA3. After that I tried Vice City and San Andreas, but it just seemed like the same thing in different cities. I think there are a lot of possibilities for the genre including different environments, better plots, and improved sequels. Dead Rising in a full sized city would be freaking awesome.
	Suskie - October 29, 2007 (09:15 PM) 1) 17. 2) Free will, of course. A lot of non-gamers think the only reason we play GTA games is because we're addicted to violence. Really, the reason we play them is because we love the overwhelming possibilities presented in a world in which the player can do whatever he or she wants. Violence is what made GTA famous throughout the world; free will is what made GTA famous among gamers. It wasn't killing random civilians that made us giddy with delight, it was the fact that we had that ability, and many others. 3) Absolutely. I certainly don't mind graphic violence (in fact, like OD said, there are cases in which it adds to the realism of the title), but again, it's the freedom that sandbox games offer that really defines them. A sandbox game can exist without violence; it can't exist without some form of free will granted to the player. 4) GTA and its clones are obviously the first tites that come to mind when you try to picture a sandbox game, but let's not forget that there have been plenty of sandbox titles that don't feature such brutal violence. The Elder Scrolls series and a select few superhero games have done just fine without extreme bloodletting, and that's because players like to have lots of options when they play their games.