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

What's the big deal?

[vslashg]

From the article...

But just because GTAIII is more fun and has sold more copies than most games, that doesn't strictly mean it's more innovative. In fact, any long-standing GTA fan would readily admit that the main differences between GTAIII and its predecessors are graphical. GTAIII has a more realistic look and feel to it, but structurally it's quite similar to the original Grand Theft Auto game from 1998.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Come on! Nethack and Rogue weren't even mentioned in the article, but still the author seems to get the point. There have been great open-ended games before and there will be great open-ended games in the future. So the Sims and GTA sold tons of copies. That's because they were fun. Move along, nothing to see here.

It's a sad state of gaming... few people I know would give GTA1 a serious chance when it game out. A few close friends I would play it all hours of the night. But no, you have to put it into 3D before many people will give it a chance. I guess that's a slightly off-topic rant, but it's true.

Orson Scott Card anyone?

[diesel_jackass]

so when is Ender's Game coming out?

(i would provide a link to the book, but i think everyone on /. already owns it)

Re:how wonderful - merge A and B!

[PainKilleR-CE]

I really don't think there are many examples of truly open experiences in games. This makes the exclusivity pretty much nill. On the other hand, what people really want seems to be more of the mixture anyway; freedom to do what you want, but a story that moves the game along. Even though writing the story can be a very small part of the process (compared to getting all of the artwork together, implementing the story in the engine, and creating the engine itself), it can also be very central to a game's success. GTA3/VC worked well because it was open-ended, but I don't think many would've cared as much for it if it didn't give you something to do to progress the story.

People start up a new game and want to know what they should be doing. Exploration may come a little further into the game, as they become bored with a particular task or as they learn the controls and see what else there is around them. However, if there isn't a story or an explanation, the first thing they'll say is 'now what?', and some may be turned off by not having a defined goal that they can accomplish easily at the start to get them familiar with the mechanics.

All of this being said, I appreciate linear games for different reasons from the more open-ended games. A well-told story and/or a challenging game can make up for the loss of freedom in the game. I also see a large difference between say KOTOR and GTA3 in terms of the open-ended experience. KOTOR usually feels like it's on rails when I play through it, even though I can do things differently that will change the story. GTA3, on the other hand, tends to feel wide open in terms of gameplay, but the story tends to feel constrained at certain points (ie eventually you do have to complete this racing mission to move on, even though there are other missions you can complete right now). The gameplay in one feels more scripted even though I have a lot of options, while GTA3 just loops through it's reality until you get around to completing the missions. Then again, maybe that's just because of the way I play the two games: I tend to get bored with the missions in GTA and start amusing myself by interacting with the world, whereas in KOTOR I tend to work harder at completing the missions at hand, and only spend a lot of time wandering around when it's central to completing one of those missions (on a side-note, I have noticed that a couple of missions have endings that aren't handled very well by the game, ie people act like they're still waiting for you to find people you've already found, even though they took part in the final portion of the mission).

Games that are more open in their story can be more rewarding for people that play through a game multiple times. On the other hand, a more linear game can add richness to the story that currently isn't found in many open-ended games. Also, there's something to be said for seeing the conclusion of a story well-told (though even many of the open-ended games have endings).

For infinite replayability I tend more towards multiplayer games anyway, because players are less predictable and there's almost always somewhere to improve your skills. At the same time, this usually provides little story, and sometimes that's all I want when I sit down to play a game. Even a game that is little more than an interactive movie can at least allow me to suspend disbelief and allow me to occasionally feel like I am pushing the story forward, which a normal movie rarely (if ever) can do.

We agree.

[misfit13b]

No argument here, but in those kind of games you're limited as to what you can do. Tetris is not really "open-ended", you're going to be filing blocks until either you lose or just give up.

I'm not trying to say that either method of play is better than the other. I personally like to skate around in THPS4 just trying combos, not worrying about the goals, or drive around in GTA listening to the radio sometimes.

Re:Anyone Play Zelda?

[kisrael]

Maybe I was too quick to play it with a guide by my side, but Zelda felt pretty linear to me. Or rather, not so much linear, but it felt like everything in the game was obviously put there for Link to interact with.

GTA3 and GTA:VC do a better job at making it feel like you're just a maniac in a city that pretty much has its own agenda. It's not like it tries to model a virtual economy or anything (and it does have that irritating habit of disappering and appearing things when your back is turned) but it was cool that it wasn't completely blatantly a universe that existed only for the sake of an adventure.