Grand Theft Auto is usually quoted as a landmark franchise for the ability to blend an open and emergent gameplay with a dedicated and evolving storyline. Unfortunetly, as a result of such a story, some people find that the franchise has taken itself too seriously and sacrificed true innovation for a narrative that is, for all intents and purposes, the primary and most developed portion of the game. A title like Saints Row, by comparison, gives you the keys to the kingdom, with an arguably forgettable story, and just says, "Go. Exploit the world as you see fit and come back to the story based missions whenever you feel like it." This doesn't ignore the criticism that games of this type merely took elements that existed before and combined them in a new way (the old game 'Elite' is credited as one of the first open world based titles), but the idea is to really think about how much story do we as gamers actually want, or require, for a game to be fun?

The Mercenaries franchise plants you in the middle of opposing factions, providing some semblance of mini-narratives while framing it within something much bigger. But how fun was it in comparison to just tanking a tank and laying waste to the countryside while several groups give chase and end up warring as a result of you leading one to the other. Does the basic story of revenge even matter in the face of an explosion that could level a city block?

Two games in recent months that come to mind are InFamous and Prototype. Released very close to each other, and provide two different experiences. InFamous is a little more linear in its execution, but at times feels more polished. Prototype is definitely more, "Here. Go. Exploit.", and as a result feels a little unguided at times, but really has some wild and exciting moments.

When the Spider-Man 2 game dropped it chose to lose the linear gameplay in favor of a free-roaming romp through Manhattan. The story worked because the character lent himself to a story that had to explain through freedom. What I mean is - the character demanded the space to move without constraints. There was an established knowledge that Spider-Man, well, had to swing aroung, and not swing around 'on-rails' to be an effective display of the character. Fast forward to a franchise like Halo, and more specifically, Halo 3: ODST. This is a depature from the point A to point B feel of the previous iterations in the franchise, as the explorative elements give it the open-world feel, moreso than the others. Was this needed? Is this sandbox for the sake of sandbox? For the sake of story development? Or will it just feel like a tacked on afterthought?

I pose these questions for discussion and look forward to the thoughts you guys come up with.

Does it matter if the story is well written for a sandbox style game to be effective?

Or do you need a world that is 'just believable enough' to make it fun?