Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Is Open-Ended Gaming The Future? 76

Posted by simoniker from the welcome-to-infinite-nebraska dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Open-Ended Gaming The Future? More

Is Open-Ended Gaming The Future?

Comments Filter:

  • been there done that, in a word... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cassidyc ( 167044 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:42AM (#6964456)
    Elite

    thanksyouverymuch

    CJC
    • Elite

      Elite was pretty open-ended indeed...but (in some versions at least) it was pretty difficult to find the story that was in there, and to stay on it once you found it.

      Frontier was even more interesting. I'm amazed they were able to generate that kind of Universe from a 1.4 floppy...but they overdid the realism. Yes, space travel would be all intertial, with combat done from miles and miles away, but that's not neccesarily what I want to play...

      Some almost completely scripted games like Wing Command
    • Elite

      Indeed. SunDog [bfwa.com] as well.

  • Give me closed gaming any day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Snowspinner ( 627098 ) <philsand@3.14ufl.edu minus pi> on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:45AM (#6964491) Homepage
    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.
    • Yeah, but what about replay value? I'm playing Splinter Cell right now, and I can't help but think that I've paid $60 for a game that I can only really play once (ok, twice if I replay it on the hard skill level).
      • i agree, i sold splinter cell a week after i bought it. lots of fun, but with just one way through the replay is nil.

        personally,i loved morrowind. after a while it can get boring, but thats really only once youve done a majority of guild quests (to such a point that starting a new character means that youll redo a couple dozen quests you had done already)

        morrowind needs some work, its all scripted and set up, but very open ended. The combat is a tad weak as well and certainly could have been better. af

      • That's what my Blockbuster card is for. I paid $6 for a week of Splinter Cell. I loved it. I'll rent the next one as soon as I can. On the other hand, if a game offers me a reasonably long gameplay experience, like Zelda or Eternal Darkness, and I can see myself going back to it in 2-3 years, I'm happy to drop $50 on it.
      • I was trying to get one more run out of Splinter Cell by trying to make it all the way through on the hard skill level without killing anyone, but even though it's much harder I still start feeling claustrophobic with the lack of options. I started playing the PC version of Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 last week which, although in a completely different genre, is so completely open that I find myself having a much better time. All the reviews [gametab.com] I've seen agree with me and this review [gamers.com] compares it favorably to GTA II
    • Funny that thousands of people every day are running [gamespy.com] impossible D&D games every day.

    • Re:Give me closed gaming any day (Score:5, Insightful)

      by misfit13b ( 572861 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:40AM (#6965103)
      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.
      • Well, I think the other part of my point is that a well-made open-ended game is not yet technologically possible. The freedom offered will crumble when pushed, revealing the thinly disguised rails, and making me feel somewhat cheated.

        I'd prefer the rails be clearly labeled, and to just get on with the fun.

        • Most games (Score:4, Insightful)

          by misfit13b ( 572861 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @12:13PM (#6965414)
          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 (Score:3, Insightful)

            by n0wak ( 631202 )
            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 s

            • We agree. (Score:3, Interesting)

              by misfit13b ( 572861 )
              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.
              • you drive around in gta to listen to the radio?

                granted, its more entertaining then any real readio program, i still think you should go outside...right now. just dont shoot anyone ok? ...

        • If well-made open-ended games are not yet technologically possible, then aren't we asking the question too early?

          Personally I liked closed-ended stories since they -usually- have more depth than open-ended games. And depth, to me, does not mean X character is cool because he can drive a tank after being shot repeatedly with machine guns.

    • The ultimate in "closed path" gaming?

      Dragon's Lair
    • SimCity 2000 was an excellent, truly open-ended game. NeverWinter Nights is NOT open-ended, nor was it ever intended to be; while one can construct one's own modules, playing that module is riding the rails the creator laid.

      I like both kinds of games, but the open-ended ones stay with me much longer. I still play SimCity 2000 to this day, yea, even though it requires Classic to boot.

  • Like all things... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingPrad ( 518495 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @10:49AM (#6964537)
    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.

    ---

    • You make a wonderful point that developers will realize in time.

    • Re:how wonderful - merge A and B! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PainKilleR-CE ( 597083 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:45AM (#6965155)
      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.
  • "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, onl
  • Sandbox gaming is fun for a while, but I like a story arc with a beginning, middle and end.

  • What's the big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vslashg ( 209560 )
    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,

    • 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.

      The biggest difference, imo, is the time limit. GTA1 only allowed you so much time to get through the missions, so unless you cheated or managed to extend your time a great deal through completing missions quickly, you
      • I think GTA gained a great deal with its 3D engine. To be fair, I didn't play 1 and 2 that that much, but a decent physics engine has added so much to the game: you can do more entertaining things in vehicles (and to vehicles, using weapons). It's not "2D-hating" to appreciate how much got added with that.

        Plus, you could see like further than 30 yards in front of your car, which definately added to the gameplay...
      • The biggest difference, imo, is the time limit. GTA1 only allowed you so much time to get through the missions, so unless you cheated or managed to extend your time a great deal through completing missions quickly, you had to continue in a very mission-based, somewhat linear fashion.

        GTA3 had missions with time-limits as well. Right at the beginning of the game, you have to plant a bomb in that guy's car before he finishes lunch. vslashg has the right idea; GTA1 and 3 are so very similar. Activate 3's ove
        • Yes, GTA3 had missions with time limits, but GTA1 was time limited. If your time ran out in GTA1 your game was over. In GTA3, if the time limit on a mission runs out, you just go on playing, and come back to that mission whenever you feel like it.
    • 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.

      It has more to do with the platform. When GTA1 came out on the PC, not a lot of people knew about it and there wasn't any type of ad campaign (that I remember). I don't think people got into GTA3 strictly becaus
      • A top-down driving game with a "free" world like GTA3 has would just not be as interesting as a 3D world, IMO.

        One could argue that the best gaming is text gaming, because you have to use your imagination for everything. 3D gaming gives you a lot so you don't have to use as much imagination. 2D just gives you less to work with, and you can't really "imagine" up the difference.

        Sorry if that rambling didn't make sense, where's my coffe
        • A top-down driving game with a "free" world like GTA3 has would just not be as interesting as a 3D world, IMO.

          It was at the time though, since no one else made a "free" game like that where you could go around on a crime spree. I think comparing GTA 1 to text adventures is a bit of a stretch.

  • Orson Scott Card anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by diesel_jackass ( 534880 ) <travis DOT hardiman AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:06AM (#6964709) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MadocGwyn ( 620886 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:08AM (#6964742)
    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.
    • I think this is where RPG's are going to go in the future. I mean, think of Baldur's gate where new storyline kept being released constantly - basically an 'online' game where you can work with a small team of friends/etc. I for one would pay to have a single player experience in a game and have it keep expanding for a long period of time.
  • 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

  • Anyone Play Zelda? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kamalot ( 674654 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:31AM (#6964987)
    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.

    • Re:Anyone Play Zelda? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kisrael ( 134664 )
      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
  • 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 ch

  • Good scripted games (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @11:48AM (#6965183) Homepage
    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. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alkaiser ( 114022 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @12:03PM (#6965325) Homepage
    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.
    • See Magic: The Gathering for an example of emergent gameplay within a closed game.

      It's where elements of the game combine to make something that was unexpected by the designer. Things such as ripping up a card to scatter over the table because the card says that if any piece of it touches another card, that card is buried. Or using a card's ability to "untap" a card on itself, as adding a second card makes doing so advantageous. Some of these techniques, when discovered, are banned by the designers. If tha
      • I don't personally use Deus Ex as an example of open gaming...it just ends up getting thrown in the discussion so often, I wanted to get it out of the way first, and let people know that it is neither open-ended, nor is it non-linear. In any case, the previous time I'd gotten into the "emergent" debate it was getting tossed around...because the term "emergent" was "defined" differently in that particular instance of the argument.

        Back to your post, though...your example is of the Sims, and how people didn'

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

      In a word, yes. That's what game designers are talking about when they look for and deal with "emergent strategies" -- try as they might to create a fair, even environment, sometimes some paths toward a goal are easier than others. Even if a strategy would seem to be counter-intuitive, flaws in the game allow it to succeed. That's an "emergent strategy."

      In a game which has no obvious strategies or

  • I think this might interest you... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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
  • 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 i

  • I'll take a combo (Score:4, Informative)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@gmail. c o m> on Monday September 15, 2003 @12:17PM (#6965439) Journal
    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.
  • 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 tru
  • ...because the only true open ended games out there, MMOs, are constanly plagued by idiots who complain about the lack of an "end game".
  • 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 l
    • Emergent gameplay: Gameplay that can spontaneously come into being.

      Like in Deus Ex where one could (because of the flexibility of the engine) walk up to a pool table and actually play pool on it. or equally one could bat the balls around on the floor and try to hit people with them.

      A better example would be Half Life 2, where most of the environment can be moved around. I read an example somewhere of the player being chased by 2 soldiers at one point, and fled into a building, closed the door, and bloc
    • I think what you're missing bout GTA3's open-endedness takes place when the mission isn't going on...they've created a strong eough physics and NPC/gunplay environent that people enjoy just tooling around with it, figuring out what stunts can be done, seeing if they can steal a tank without cheating, etc. And what's cool about the missions is there's relatively little that's special in the world per mission, each mission is engaging and fairly unique, yet built with the same basic physics engine.

  • Games are about winning.

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

    • This is not always the case. For many gamers, it is the act of playing the game, the pure gameplay itself, that is what it is all about; this can be more adrenaline-infused, or less. Open-ended games with no clear winning objective may get boring after a while, sure. Some folks, like you perhaps, want concrete goals and a defined endgame, simething like, say, The Sims would probably be boring. On the other hand, the 100000th Baldur's Gate clone can be boring to others. I think the mistake is in trying to
  • 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.

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

    Morrowind

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

      And some people found it really, really boring.
    • eh, sort of.

      I mean, sure you can kill every living thing in the world, and sure you can carry this level of anti-social behavior to the point of actually creating a condition in which you can no longer "solve" the game, but can you really arrive at another outcome? You either save the world, or you don't. There isn't an alternate scenario that you become the mad overlord supreame or anything (at least i never got that) Open ended should mean more than just "do the mapped out story line at your own pace r
  • 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 fac

  • Duh (Score:2, Informative)

    by a_cussword ( 169950 )
    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.
  • 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, depend
  • 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!
  • 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 involve
  • 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 w

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close