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."

been there done that, in a word...

Elite

thanksyouverymuch

CJC

Give me closed gaming any day

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

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.

Most games

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.

Like all things...

Why does Gamespot alwasy seem to swing from one extreme to another? Yes, non-linear gaming works well, but still has to be balanced with goals and rewards for accomplishing tasks.

Like all things, games should be balanced. Not too much, not too little, but just right. Duh. These guys get paid to write this stuff?

how wonderful - merge A and B!

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.

---

Re:how wonderful - merge A and B!

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.

That's all swell, but...

"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" .::: Which is all fine and dandy if you have the time for it. Although I like big adventures and such, I never finished GTAIII. Also the 'open-ended' thing has it's own problems as well. Things become mission-based much more quickly. That was also the thing I missed in GTAIII. Just screwing around didn't get you any further, only the missions did. If they can combine the open-endedness with a non-mission based structure, then we're on to something. Until that time it's going to (ab)used in every genre. Just look at Tony Hawk Underground and SSX3 for example. Ten to one they're going to be full of 'missions' instead of a big coherent adventure. ---

Quite simply no...

Sandbox gaming is fun for a while, but I like a story arc with a beginning, middle and end.

What's the big deal?

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?

so when is Ender's Game coming out?

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

Prime Example missed: Morrowwind

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.

Give me closed gaming

I've always liked the 'closed' games better than the 'virtual sandboxes'

Sure the sandboxes have a cool novelty but it gets old fast. You really need balance...you shouldn't pick one or the other. Also, as stated above some where computers just aren't ready to do open-ended properly. Once you play GTA3 or what have you for a few hours you find it's not so open-ended. Sure there are a bunch of streets to pick to drive down when doing a mission, but you still have to adapt to and get to know that games rules. It is no where near as 'open-ended' that everyone thinks it is.

Mabey when developers stop using invisible walls to push the player in the right direction...then we can talk about trying to make something open-ended.

Anyone Play Zelda?

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.

It will finally fill the gap if happens well....

The Virtual Sandbox is what helped to make Quake into what it is today. If there weren't Mods developed by the fans, that extended the product, then quake would have been a lower class product.

Open Ending Game will finally bridge that gap between the fluidness you get from pen and paper rpgs, and computer gaming. Why should a game stop at a linear path? Isn't part of the appeal for games is the continued use of the game?

Imagine if you had a character for a game you've used for the past five years. That character went from little wimpy avatar to highly intelligent, agile, financially successful, heroic and receive many accolades in game play. It's something you could be proud of in a sense. This is what is currently possible with tabletop rpgs.

Open Ending gaming is the next logical step in gaming evolution. I'm waiting for the day where I can play a game where in one period of time, I was a space trader, next period I'm the head of a corporate empire, and the next I sit upon the high council in the game dynmics. That would make it more meaningful than just hitting level 50 and moving onto the next game.

Reminder, you must keep your day job and have real lives in order to continue to play these games. ;=)

Good scripted games

I loved Half-life. That was a fairly tightly-scripted game. But it was also very well-written (at least during the first third). I was in a complete panic when I saw the first military dude shoot a scientist! I had to run that scenario a few times over just to convince myself that it really was supposed to go over that way.

On the other hand, I loved Unreal Tournament human-vs-human. No scripts at all, tons o' fun.

Room for both genres, I say!

"Emergent Gameplay" is a stupid term.

What emerges? Gameplay? Is it just bubbling underneath the surface, where it rises like a big submarine?

So ditch the term. Stop trying to make yourselves sound all cutting-edge by coining terms that don't make sense.

Second of all, this open-ended stuff isn't necessarily true. Just like Deus Ex...you're basically still on rails. Even these open-ended games. There's one main story arc...you just go about it different ways, and you reach the same ending or ending nexus no matter what you did during the game. Eventually, you get to the core question...which do you like more, "The Sims" or "Final Fantasy"?

The problem with open-ended gaming is NOT that we don't have powerful enough machines...is that there isn't enough time in the dev cycle. To create a game with choices that give you say 4 different endings that aren't just, "Ok, you're at the end of the game, which ending do you want?" or "Choice A sends you to path A, and Choice B sends you to game path B." and then scripting and testing those takes a freaking long time.

Fallout, and Arcanum are probably the closest finished products. You had all those side arcs in between. After you finished the game, depending on what did in the towns along the way, different things happened to them. You still went to one basic ending, but if you built into that a script to determine which path(s) your character would have left to them at the final decision based off of their string of previous actions, and that'd be great.

I think this might interest you...

A 'game' which I play a lot is "Second Life". I know its been featured on here a time or two, however, I think that it is a good example of where a 'virtual sandbox' has been created, and is quite a lot of fun.

Second Life has a 3d modeler built right in, along with a scripting language that was developed specifically for SL. Its quite advanced, however, not that hard to master.

For more info, check out: http://secondlife.com/ss/?u=3a6859b3184c7e30ae0426 6af64c1389

People and imaginations

The problem is with the gamers and their imaginations. Those that find GTA3 and VC boring just don't want to take the time to play around and experiment. They want a cut and dry "do this then this" experience. They don't care if they can get their bike up on top of a building or land a helicopter on top of a bilboard sign. They don't want to try and bail out of a car while in mid flight off a bridge and try and make it explode into a group of other cars. Its all about imagination and how strong it is in some people as compared to others.

I'll take a combo

The problem with "emergent games" is the following. In many games (especially RPGs), a new player is forced to create a character without knowing the game mechanics. The player will make decisions at this point that will affect his character for the rest of the game, but really not know what he's doing, practically forcing him/her to replay the game.

As far as RPGs are concerned, I really like a combination approach. The best example I can think of in the RPG genre is Final Fantasy 6 (3 US). The game started off being almost completely linear while you learned the ability system and whatnot. Half-way through, you're stripped of all your characters except 1 and given a new world to explore. You can get back characters in any order, choose not to get them back at all (the game is finishable with only 3 out of 16 characters joined), but no matter what, you know where the final boss is and can fight him at practically any time. The most rewarding part of this was knowing which characters I wanted even though only having played the game once (rather than doing on the basis of who "looks cool"), and being able to make good decisions about where I wanted to go next. Although it didn't provide as much freedom as say, Fallout, it had a shallower learning curve and was easier to pick up.

Imersion type games are fun, but I don't think any of the them should force you to replay the game in order to win out of ignorance of game mechanics.

Open Ended, Linear...

As I see it, these aren't the only two options. Truly open-ended gameplay usually gives way to chaos (GTA). Linear gameplay can be fun (Klonoa/Super Mario/Metroid).

There is third choice: Multilinear gameplay. This is almost what Morrowind does. There are definite, linear quests. Do X, Y happens. Take the McGuffin to mister Johnson. Pardon me, did you happen to find the ring I lost? That sort of thing. However, discovery of these pathways is so open ended as to frustrate and bore most gamers.

A truly magnificent game has a linear path which gives you a minimalist tour of the game, implicitly showing the extras which can be achieved (Super Mario 64, Ratchet and Clank). Would that more games applied this concept. More to the point, this minimalist tour should be about 1/4 to 1/3 the actual length/complexity of the game.

Of course, all this only really applies to action/adventure/rpg games. Puzzle games can be anything they like. They can even be ZooCube.

Open ended gaming is not the future...

...because the only true open ended games out there, MMOs, are constanly plagued by idiots who complain about the lack of an "end game".

emergent?

I think that the author is confused about what "emergent" means. How is GTA3 emergent? GTA3's world is pre-defined, with scripted (semi-linear) missions (for example, you can't go to this part of town until you beat this mission) and hidden "objectives" that are always in the same location. Just because there's some added freedom in between missions, and because you have multiple ways for solving missions, that don't mean it's not linear. And that definitely doesn't make it open-ended.

The character has limited freedom in a very scripted world. A world that is specifically designed by Rockstar. This is top down. Emergent, by nature, means a bottom up system. GTA3 is not.

By this definition, Civilization is far more "emergent" and "open-ended" than GTA3. Same with all the SimCity games. And even those are sandboxed to a degree.

True "emergent" games are a ways off, as the technology is not quite there yet.

Anyway, if you want a truly open-ended game, play Tetris. The game doesn't end, unless your own abilities fail you.

Open ended games...

Games are about winning.

That's the problem with open ended games - there's little adrenaline and they become tedious.

Self-important Game Designers

I attribute most linear gameplay to designers who are trying to be film directors. Why not allow the player to make an impact on the game world and the story?

Until designers stop trying to tell stories and allow the player to experience them instead we're going to keep getting crap like Enter the Matrix where the payoff is watching a short prerendered 3d film.

Open ended?

There exists an RPG out there which has to he hands down THE Open Ended RPG. One word:

Morrowind

Wrong Question.

Pitting open-ended gaming against whatever-the-opposite-of-open-ended-is gaming is kind of like pitting action movies against romance movies. If you're asking this kind of question, you're missing the point. Some people like action movies. Some people like romances. Some people like action-romances. Some people like to switch it up and try out the different kinds of movies at different times.

We live in a world where the market is large enough that you can make a game that doesn't appeal to everyone. In fact you probably should - it'll result in a more focused game.

The future of gaming isn't open-ended games or close-ended games. It's lots and lots of different kinds of games. Hopefully, lots and lots of good games, but I don't want to get my hopes up.

Duh

Open-ended gaming has been the future (well, it's tried to be the future) since SSI started making AD&D games for PC. Didn't really get very far until recently. It's not like it's a new idea.

Let's let Marc Lairdlaw Take The Stage

Hi Folks, my first post on any slashdot page.

I'm reminded of an interview that PlanetHalfLife did with Marc Lairdlaw a little while back. Marc is the writer for Half-Life, and Half-Life 2. I'll let him say it since he knows says it better than I ever could.

"Branching storylines are part of an unholy grail of open-ended interactive story design which I have little interest in pursuing. I'm told that The Way of the Samurai does a fine job with a branching storyline that differs each time you play it, depending on choices you make. However, the people who recommended this game didn't play it more than once or twice, so what exactly is all that branching worth to the player? Part of the allure of the concept of the branching storyline, to some developers, is this notion that it is somehow superior to a linear storyline. I really haven't seen any evidence to support this. So far, the Grail is useful mainly as a thing for game theoreticians to point at when they're saying, "See that insubstantial golden thing way up there? That's a whole lot better than the dribble glass you made." To which I'd say, "I'll stick with my dribble glass, thanks. Some of what I'm drinking might run down my chin, but most of it gets in my mouth."
Replayability is another matter. I think people replay Half-Life not because they want different story outcomes, but because they enjoy the gameplay and the scenarios. The fun of non-scripted events is that they fall out differently for each player, and on every play-through, not that they lead to completely different outcomes. Sometimes the variations are very small, but enough to let you know that you're not simply watching a movie."

Isolationist Console

Emergent games have been stealing work from good, hard-working American games for too long! We need border restrictions to keep the emergents out of our country!

well both are certainly welcome

Though I tend to dislike open-ended games. I suffer as a gamer from a need for completion...it brings a kind of closure to the game. I don't get this from an open-ended game. I feel compelled to "do everything" in the game, when "doing everything" isn't always possible. The latest derivations of Final Fantasy have especially been annoying, for they have made it ever increasingly tedious, annoying, and close to impossible to do everything in the game. Baldur's Gate 2 was annoying as well. I got involved in so many different subquests while in the middle of a single main quest that I had to write down a list of all the people I needed to help, where they were, and so on.

Now on the flip-side I happen to immensely enjoy Choose-Your-Own-Path books, where you flip to different page numbers dependent on what you want to do. Why this is I do not know...it feels different for some reason...it's less of a feeling that I'm missing something.

Too bad he got it wrong...

Alas, the term "emergent" is sorely misused in gaming. Grand Theft Auto is NOT emergent, it displays no emergent behaviors. It is simply open-ended, or nonlinear. Emergent behavior is something completely different. Yes, some games do disply true emergent behavior, but that means something very different than just having more than one ending or a nonlinear path.

You can't write emergent behavior into a game. By definition, emergent behavior is behavior that is *not* coded anywhere. All you can do is write a complex system that you think is likely to produce emergent behaviors of some kind, but you can't predict ahead of time what those behaviors will be.

This is just yet another example of people misusing a word they don't understand and having the wrong definition start becoming common usage.

Re:stupid questions

whoever modded this redundant missed my point. the similar post was saying that they should find a balance between the two. my point is more that they should continue to make each type, there should be open ended, linear, and mixed games available. in other words game developers should clone less and make more variety of videogames, bring back survival of the fittest. not that this will ever happen.

Re:The Killer App

open-ended online games where meaningful player interaction determines what will happen...where the story of the game is molded by the players and not the other way around....

A Tale in the Desert [atitd.com] comes to mind...