Is Open-Ended Gaming The Future?

Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing whether open-ended, emergent gaming works better than linearity in videogames. The author asks: "Should more games aspire to be "virtual sandboxes," inviting the player to run amok and experiment as much as possible? Or is there still something to be said for the tightly scripted, carefully contrived, more-cinematic gaming experience? He goes on to suggest that more open-ended titles often work better for him: "I like for a game to last me a good, long time. I also like being able to come back to a game every once in a while and not necessarily feel pressured to reach a finite conclusion", but cites Grand Theft Auto III as "representative of where emergent and scripted gaming can and should converge."

Comments

been there done that, in a word...

[cassidyc]

Elite

thanksyouverymuch

CJC

Give me closed gaming any day

[Snowspinner]

The problem with open-ended gaming, to me, is that computers simply aren't to the point yet (And, it is my personal belief, never will be) where they are capable of the dynamic responses to player actions that truly open-ended gaming would require. To me, once you begin focusing on accomodating player choices, you only serve to draw attention to the limitations on player choices.

Neverwinter Nights, to me, is a prime example. In theory, it was supposed to offer the ability to run multiplayer D&D games. But the engine was so drastically limited in so many ways - the inability to climb trees, the lack of true 3D, etc, that running a D&D game is still quite impossible.

To me, I'd much prefer a game that's on rails and only lets me follow the path, so long as that path is well-made, to a game that offers freedom, but crumbles once I try to push and probe that freedom.

Re:Give me closed gaming any day

[misfit13b]

To me, I'd much prefer a game that's on rails and only lets me follow the path, so long as that path is well-made, to a game that offers freedom, but crumbles once I try to push and probe that freedom.

So you'd rather have a well made game than a badly made one. That should be obvious, not insightful.

The question is would you rather have a well made closed game, or a well made open-ended game. Which in itself is a poor question because it really doesn't matter. Certain games, like GTA or an RPG, lend themselves to being more open ended. Other games, platformers, etc., do not. There are plusses and minuses of both, and both rely on personal preference.

how wonderful - merge A and B!

[KingPrad]

Is anyone else annoyed by these posts that ask a question "Should we have A OR should we have B?" as if either one is superior in all respects to the other. Then, of course, there is an example of where A and B are blended. WOW! Imagine that neither choice is the obviously superior and that they can be combined! So what was the point of the original question of choosing between them?

I especially like how the poster cites the author first saying "open-ended titles work a better for him" and immediately cites Grand Theft Auto III as the perfect combination and is thus not a totally open-ended game.

---

Prime Example missed: Morrowwind

[MadocGwyn]

A HUGE game, you could follow the story line, or just run off and level ff3 style but there were so many side quests and things to do you never felt you were 'divateing' you felt you were part of a living breathing world, the only thing I didnt like is things didnt 'change' much, events didnt move on. It was still fun when you bored of the main story line to clear out a few dungeons or experiment with the magic system. you could play for hours and hours accomlishing nothing story line wise but still have fun and get rewarded. Then the expansions built on this, old areas had new things, and entire new islands were opened up. There was no 'end' You finished the main story line saw the ending cinimatic, then were sent on your way, the npc's even recognised when you completed certain things, calling you by titles you had earned.

Anyone Play Zelda?

[Kamalot]

I don't know if any of you have played Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, but that game blends an amazing amount of freedom with a compelling story. The entire game feels like a giant playground to explore. There are numerous side-quests and so much to see and do that I never god bored. At the same time, you are rewarded for progressing the story forward by gaining additional abilities. In the early stages of the game, your range is limited. The more you play, the greater the game grows in scope.

Most games

[misfit13b]

have an overall goal to accomplish. The only way to make a truely open-ended game is to remove that goal.

But how far removed can a goal be from a game before that game becomes "pointless"? Most people who lay down $50 want to know that there is going to be some resolution of conflict once they have played.

Again, it's all subjective.

Re:Most games

[n0wak]

But how far removed can a goal be from a game before that game becomes "pointless"

Just because you remove a resolution doesn't mean that you remove a "goal". Goals can be self-defined by the player, defined to fit their gaming habits. Sim City does not have any definite goal. There's no way to "win" the game. You just set your own destination and see if you can get to it; or you just play around hoping to see where it will get you. Some might argue that SimCity is not a "game" per say, but this idea of self-defined goals can apply to other titles too.

Tetris, for example. There is no end in Tetris too, but it's still an enjoyable game. You can play it as an amusing distraction to fill the time, you can play it to see how many lines you can get, you can try to beat your own high score, you can try to beat someone else's high score, etc.

Personally, if a game's goal is simply fun, then that's good enough for me.