Minecraft says nope.

This is TRULY a sandbox game:

I think like someone said above it's all about how good the story is and if there is *character progression (new weapons &new locations that have real variety, new abilities that change the way the game is played, like speeding up travel in Infamous) and stuff like that that keeps a Sandbox game feeling fresh. It's true that its harder to set up big set pieces in the story in case you skip an area entirely. In general I find sandbox games that give too much freedom and don't hold your hand and guide you through the story have generally weaker stories. But of course they can still be a lot of fun.

Try a playing one of my favorite sandbox games: Fallout 3. Being able to play as good or evil make the choices you face in the game very interesting. For me it was thrilling to explore the wasteland and discover new locations on your own. Fallout 3 was definitely one of my favorite games of 2008.

I would also argue that ANY game gets boring after a while. Play any game too much and that will happen. For you sandbox games just get boring faster due to repetition and maybe the worlds are too big to travel?

Far Cry 2 had the too big to travel feeling. Driving around in the car constantly and stopping to repair was boring. Not too mention when I cleared out an enemy camp they would all respawn when I drove back a minute later. So annoying. I gave up fast on that game.

I mean they are horrible.you walk around ,drive around,ride horse around for many hours to get to a point and even when you get to the point they give a boring mission. the whole thing is very unispired and almost empty.(not that the worlds are not busy,,,cause trust me they are busy)

let's see what games i played to get to this point:

GTA4

assasin's creed 1 and 2

Infamous

Far cry 2

Red dead redepmtion

mafia 2

etc

all boring and repetitive after a while.

what in the wolrd do you people like about open worlds?to me it is very over rated.

not to mention that the graphical hit(worse graphics due to rendring big parts of city) is the icing on the cake.

i feel like something is wrong with me.Every reviewer loves sand box games and yet when i hear the game is sand box it is a big negative in my book.

in linear games they throw many exilirating set pieces at you so you are constantly entertained . not the same case in open world games.

1. I am calm. I just do not see why that would be fun to shoot and kill simple pedestrians. They are not attacking you and they are bearing no weapons. Thats a simple but important difference to having fun in an egoshooter-multiplayer mode. And I don't get your argument of running amok as element of dark humour...

The element of dark humour is more or less the same as the comedy found in cartoons like Tom and Jerry, or Bugs Bunny but with the interactive element of games. The actions are outrageous and computer tech and graphics haven't advanced siginificantly where our minds associate the virtual pedestrians to actual real-life pedestrians in a meaningful way. It's difficult to describe unless you find it funny (like all humour). 

I did not say that Sandbox games are bad, just that I get bored of them because I feel them lacking. That does not imply that noone can have fun with them. I just don't understand the general praise of open world and seeing linear gameplay as outdated and boring as some reviews implied (FF13 for example). 

Linearity isn't outdated, it's just a different technique. Uncharted 1 & 2 are hugely linear but widely praised. FFXIII was criticised for a range of reasons and linearity was one due to the open nature of its genre.

2. Just because you see the cutscenes simply does not mean that you automatically understand what is going on. You have to think about what is going on and there are many things that are not directly spoken out, but only hinted at. If you just passively watch the cutscenes you will probably not get the whole story experience because there is purposely left enough room for interpretation. Thats often the case with japanese storytelling.

Cut-scenes aren't neccessarily a bad thing, but they are only a single technique that borrows heavily from film and can lead to a disconnect between gameplay and cut-scene. This is becomming less so as the models in recent games are also utilised for cut-scenes (Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid 4). However, all the depth is reliant on the quality of the writing and the directing of the cut-scenes which varies widely.

Final Fantasy XIII has a really deep story. You can sure see that one of the underlying theme is the holocaust and how people reacted to the minority. The deporation trains in the beginning cutscenes and that the people in the train would in reality be killed on arrival although the public opinion was that they would simply be brought to Grand Pulse.

The Fal'cie are more powerful, but they lack free will. So regardless their power they are not able to destroy Cocoon by themselves. So they had to make a plan spanning over thousand years to incite fear in the hearts of the people in Cocoon, so that they eventually will destroy themselves in a civil war. There are many things that are only hinted at and not everything would be clear if you just watch the cutscenes without thinking about what is going on. But I will not going further into Detail.

Much of this info is in the cut-scenes and datalog which is actually where my complaint was. Having cut-scenes? Fine. Having to read a datalog to find the smaller details? Bad. I prefer to find the subtleties of  the story through the game without having to stop and go to a menu to read the backstory. 

How is FF VII Open World? You have a clear oath that is simply going from A to B until the last CD (with Wutai being the exception). There are some minigames like Gold Saucer or the digging game, but I would not call that sidequests. And the "sidequests" like the 3 Weapons and Chocobo breeding are not normal sidequest, because you can get extremely powerful Materia through it. I would rather call them secrets than sidequests, because there are only a few, they are optional, giving valuable items (knights of the round 2xsummon mime?, omnislash and level 4 limits?) and are more more difficult/time intense than the normal game was. Sidequests in typical western games ( like borderlands or Deathspank) are available throughout the game and they offer not really the strongest items in the game There was a world map, but the there was not much exploration possible and the only difference was that your position on the world map decidede the possible random enemies. You could not access the whole map from the beginning, you gained access only after you progress in the story.

In the end the whole game was almost completely linear with only a few optional secrets at the end of the game (last cd) and a few minigames in Gold Saucer. And you had very little benefits of visiting old areas again late in the game...

The game was progressively open. I'm not sure why you think the side-quests are any less relevant compared to games like Oblivion. All side-quests are optional. Whether you call them secrets of sidequests they amount to the same thing. You don't have to do any of the side-quests in Fallout 3, Assassins Creed or Oblivion and in many cases their are significant rewards like the best armour in AC2 or The Grey Cowl in Oblivion.There's not really a significant difference. Admitedly you can have bad side-quests, but that's not solely due to games giving freedom but how the developers form them.

Tell me, how can you create depth in a game where you have freedom to do what you want? FF X dealt with the dilemma of personal benefit vs  group benefit. Square did put much efforts in showing how the people of  Spira were suffering through Sin. There were so many little Details that showed the fear of the People and how much hope they put into the summoners. How much they expect from Yuna, since her Father brought the last calm. And then how Yuna is slowly falling in love with Tidus. Thats what made the moment so special when Tidus and the gamer finally realized what was the prize for the calm. It wouldn't have worked so intense if the whole game wasn't build around the key moments of the game. If you break the linear storyline you would ruin this whole moment and take away from the intensity of the whole game.

I'll point you to Planescape Torment which explored the depth of the Nameless One; a man who couldn't die and couldn't remember his past lives. The game offered great freedom yet managed to develop a deep and emotional character with a very interesting concept. The story was so good that the novelised version was included in the New York Times "100 literary works of the 20th Century". Not all open and free games have this, but it doesn't mean they can't.

In a lot of open world games they also rely on player input, therefore the depth of the story and relationships is based around your personal actions. This is the case in Fallout 3 and the relationship between the player character and the Father.

I can play FF for several hours because I always looking forward to the next cutscene... Borderlands or Deathspank however are getting boring after an hour because there is no thrilling story to keep me interested. Often I stop bothering with reading the actual sideqest because it is just a totally unimportant task...Go there, kill x enemies and return, repeat procedure. In FF, you see the character develop and you often have a different impression from them at the end of the game that you had in the beginning. You see the character grow. In Borderlands, I stopped bothering since there is almost nothing to see. The whole game does feel different after 30 hours of playing. It is just doing the same things over and over again ...

I can't comment on Borderlands as I haven't played it. What you've described is basically how developers should not do side-quests. I'll point you instead to Oblivion where the side quests have an impact on the interaction of different characters and actually have a seperate narrative. The quests themselves are also well-thought out and typically have a purpose for the guild.

Again, most of your criticisms point more to a difference in storytelling technique rather than difference between free/open world vs linear structured games. Strong character development is still possible in a good story based open world game, but many choose to concentrate on depth in the game world rather than characters and others actually prefer that characterisation is directly influenced by the player.

Never got bored of 1000 hours of GT gameplay each iteration

Sorry to say that, but you are the kind of person I do not want to meet in person. If that is the sort of things that you call "fun" I hope that I will never meet you in an online game, too.