When does a game become too open-ended?

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-10-16 09:05am

Open-ended games is one of the big buzz concepts in video games. Some of the most anticipated or lauded games around (Baldur's Gate, The Sims, Spore, Fable, KOTOR, etc) use the player's ability to choose their own path as a major selling point.

I for one have never been a big fan of linearity myself. Multiple paths increases replay value, and I always loved games that accomodate my style of play. However, I have limits. Last year The Elder Scrolls were big with people I hung out with. I made several efforts to play it, but I was never able to get very far past the opening town. Discounting the painful graphics and awkward combat system, I just didn't feel like there was any direction to the game. There was some hinting of a plot in the beginning, but then it threw me into what was effectively a giant sandbox where I had to run for several minutes in order to do anything resembling action.

Where do most of you draw the line? At what level of customization does a game cease to be interesting? Obviously there are different levels of tolerance depending on the genre (RPGs can afford to be more open-ended than puzzle games, for instance), but I was just wondering in general.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2006-10-16 09:51am

San Andreas was cool, but was a tad bit too big. It depends, really. Are the alternate paths good or boring? The gameplay? The missions? It all depends on how it's done.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2006-10-16 10:02am

The Elder Scrolls games are awesome, and don't you say different!

Open-endednessness is good at any level.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2006-10-16 10:20am

I like completely linear games. If there is more than one way to go i will continue that one way for a while then turn around an go the other way for a while then turn around and go the other way again and so on. I´m afraid of stepping into some triggered script event that makes it impossible to go back and make me miss things in the game.s

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2006-10-16 10:22am

I like sandboxes. Most that have that sandbox-ish feel usually still aren't open enough for my liking.

And Morrowind owns your ass. Worship it. (seriously, it may seem a little intimidating at first, but if you stick it out and dig in you'll be addicted in no time)

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-16 10:27am

Morrowind and Oblivion are not nearly as intimidating and huge as they first appear. Oblivion less so than Morrowind, obviously, but both are quite easy to finish if you follow the plot.

The fun part is though beefing up your character and trying to do every sidequest in the world

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-10-16 11:19am

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:And Morrowind owns your ass. Worship it. (seriously, it may seem a little intimidating at first, but if you stick it out and dig in you'll be addicted in no time)

I didn't find it intimidating. I just found it boring. Sandboxes are all well and good, but unless there is some underlying plot that grabs my attention (which, for me, Morrowind lacks), it quickly loses any sort of appeal. If I felt like idly jacking off, I'd go do it in the literal sense.

On the other hand, I really enjoyed stuff like Fable or KOTOR. They were both definitely lacking in certain areas (like KOTOR's dark side path consisting entirely of "HULK SMASH!"), but there was enough there that I felt I had a reason for playing.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2006-10-16 11:37am

While KOTOR had multimple endings and you could be good or bad, it was hardly open ended, it was almost literlally run on rails.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-10-16 12:07pm

My biggest problem with sandbox games (especially ones with in-depth character creation) is that I end up constantly restarting. Once I'm actually in the game, I don't really have a problem keeping myself occupied. It's just getting into the game that's the major issue. I love Morrowind, but I really didn't care for Oblivion at all. Like any type of game, there's good and there's bad. I do love my JRPGs though, so open-endedness isn't a deal breaker for me.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-10-16 12:17pm

Darth Raptor wrote:My biggest problem with sandbox games (especially ones with in-depth character creation) is that I end up constantly restarting. Once I'm actually in the game, I don't really have a problem keeping myself occupied. It's just getting into the game that's the major issue.

I think I have the same problem. With Morrowind in particular, I wasn't able to get into the game itself, and there are better character generators out there.

On a similar vein, it sounds like a lot of people may have this problem with what will probably end up as the ultimate sandbox (Spore), since most people I know want the game entirely for the creature builder, and care a lot less about the higher level interstellar-level toys.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-10-16 01:21pm

It only becomes too open ended whe the devs run out of ideas and do stupid things witht he side quests/alternate endings etc... As long as things are kept fun and interesting there's no limit for me how open ended games shoudl be.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2006-10-16 01:27pm

To me, it becomes too open-ended if whatever you have to do to advance the plot is so well hidden that you can pretty much wander around for years (in game terms) without figureing out what to do next without a strategy guide. Oh sure, the critical plot element may be there, but it's too hidden or subtle that you just can't pick it up (of course, this can tend to be subjective depending on how perceptive you are of these sorts of things).

One example I came across is Quest For Glory 1. I have wandered up and down that map and still can't seem to figure out how to advance the plot along. I know what I'm supposed to do, I just can't seem to figure out how to do it. Maybe I'm just a little dense, but there you go.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-10-16 05:24pm

That's not a matter of open-endedness, that's an example of unclear plot progression, especially for a 1989 Sierra adventure game.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2006-10-16 07:46pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:That's not a matter of open-endedness, that's an example of unclear plot progression, especially for a 1989 Sierra adventure game.

Maybe. But you can still do other stuff and never, ever die from lack of action (at least so far as I can tell). The other games at least either push you along, or kill you if you waste too much time. That seems kind of open-ended to me, I guess.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-10-16 07:53pm

Well, it really isn't.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-10-16 07:58pm

There is a difference between open ended missions and a game that is entirely open ended. Open ended missions allow people to take them on as they desire. An entirely open ended game is far more chaotic.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 08:00pm

I prefer very open games with clearly defined goals or possible endgames. I *hate* open games with no goals or stupid goals, and I hate linear games packed with scripted events and path-blocking.

For instance, in EVE or Morrowind it's easy to determine a goal and proceed toward it under your own steam, using your own methods, in your own time. That's good stuff. San Andreas was very open and freeform, but didn't have enough content: vast swathes of mapspace and playing time is taken up with bland bullshit, and the actual missions don't gel well with the freeform parts. That's bad.

I can agree with the idea that a lack of 'storyline progression' can be bad. Daggerfall seriously suffered for this - the plot is there at the beginning, then you're cast out into the random, goalless wilderness and maybe one day you'll find the plot again. This would have been fine if the game had other possible goals (like 'be rich', 'run a company', 'get laid', 'develop technology' or something) but there was nothing. You were either doing meaningless quests to level up or you were desperately trying to find the plot.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-10-16 08:00pm

That's odd, I thought the main plot for Morrowind was pretty self-explanatory, and very good, to boot. Oblivion... not so much. Morrowind, yes (I'll even include the two expansions there.) I mean, your Journal pretty much told you what to do....

Personally, anything from Morrowind to complete linear works for me. I tend to like games with fewer branches and more sidequests. Completely linear can be great if the plot is good enough, but when it's not there are those moments of "ARRRGH! Don't do that, stupid man who is supposed to represent meeee!"

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 08:05pm

I think the idea of sidequests is stupid. It's just a lazy attempt at flexibility. Rather than creating a network of possible paths, there's one path with short branches that give you uber weapons. Wow, I'm blown away by the flexibility there.

When you think about it, Syndicate and XCOM were good examples of freeform: you could largely take your own path, and use your own tactics, but there was a clearly defined endgoal, and no 'sidequests' because everything had to be done and it either wasn't optional (Syndicate) or you were penalised for ignoring it (XCOM).

Morrowind is very easy to follow, which is why I specifically mentioned Daggerfall. I've read synopses of the plot, and I can confidently state I never got more than 15% through it, and never even heard of most of the people who were supposed to be important to the story. And the journal SUCKED in Daggerfall.

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2006-10-16 08:20pm

It took me a while to get into Morrowind. It is the first and most open ended rpg game I knew because you never needed to complete the quest to have things to do. I got into it once realised I just needed to make my goals. I was never motivated to complete the main quest, I just advanced through some of the guilds and House, had my own place and that was it.

Morrowind is not a well-designed game if you look at character progression and motivation to complete the main quest. It just didn't seem urgent to do the main quest; so players could do other stuff, become extremely powerful and finish the morrowind main quest in a matter of minutes (basically they just flew in and killed the final objective or something).

The other problem with morrowind's design was that it was too easy to acquire powerful skills and items through crafting. It was also far too easy to create an uber character if you know what skills to pick in the beginning. You don't need very long to become a god. You can even get powerful stuff by accident. One poisoning weapon can possibly kill anything, which was what I got through routein looting when I was only around level 7 or 8.

I'm not much of a sandbox type player when it comes to games. Sim games are open ended and I never play those for long. I really prefer open endedness in such a way where you have to complete objectives but you can have many ways of achieving them.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 08:26pm

Yeah, the whole Elder Scrolls system is broken, skill/item wise and motivation wise. It's apparently too much of a stretch to have a world that goes on without you, so you can get Elder Scrolls quests like 'zomg rescue the poisoned guy before he dies' and take months to do it.

My taste is motivated primarily by utter disgust with the terrible writing and plotting in games. In an FPS you can forgive terrible writing and contrived scenarios (oh noes the door shut behind me. ZOMG a boss!) but in anything deeper it becomes absurd. I don't care about Generic Fantasy Plot #3325 written by Programmer Steve, and I have no interest in 'following' that kind of plot. At least Morrowind's plot was somewhat complicated and interesting, had many angles to approach it from, etc. It *IS* funny to use a few water breathing potions to get the best armour and weapons in the game almost immediately, though.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-10-17 02:28am

Arcanum had it just about perfect a big interesting world to divert you and with a compelling enough plot to keep you going on the main storyline.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-10-17 03:30pm

I can't believe we have a thread on Open Ended games and no one has mentioned Fallout yet! Talk abiut open-ended fallout and fallout 2 have all you could ask for wihtout getting boring ad while keeping you motivated to complete the main quest.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-10-17 03:54pm

The problem with open ended games isn't the size of the world, it's not having enough to do. This is particularly a problem in late game GTA VC and SA, especially so in the latter, since you have such a disproportionate load of mission in Los Santos and San Fiero, but very little in the badlands and desert comparitavely.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-10-17 04:00pm

To be fair, a lot of the complaints about being able to level your character too quickly and get weapons that were too good early on in Morrowind would only be known to you if you'd played the game before or you had looked at a strategy guide. I mean, how would you know "what skills to pick" just by looking at the start-up screen?

See, when I played Morrowind, I was a dumbfuck and just believed the ability descriptions! I'm a moron!