[protonfish]

I think the desire to make games "open-ended" is inherently flawed (if you also want players to enjoy themselves.) The more complex and unpredictable a game becomes, the more difficult it is to balance. A certain (probably small) number of paths will be gravitated to leaving most stories unexplored and ending up equivalent to a linear story line (with a lot more work.) One way to attempt to fix this is to create multiple balanced paths (essentially a "choose your own adventure.") This can be brute-forced by adding more and more optional story lines, but in the end it is just many linear stories which is functional equivalent to selecting from different games to play.

It is fun to think about creating a virtual world that is as rich and complex as the real one, but we already live in a reality that often sucks so hard we want to retreat into fiction. Stories with minor interactive components are a fine genre (if well done and compelling) as are puzzle and action games. The fact that they are different than reality is their primary feature, not a flaw.

[DaFranker]

I think you're restricting your thinking to a certain type of games and a certain subtype of story.

X-Com games are a common example of "open" games. The "story line" is single, of course, so if you're only talking about story they're very linear. However, how you get through is much more up to you. It doesn't force you down the right side of the bunker and require you to throw a grenade inside before you can proceed in the story; X-Com puts aliens in the world, and gives you some tools and options to fight them, and whenever something particular happens, story also happens (for a simple example: you lose all your forces and bases, the aliens take over the world! Game Over)

The desire to make games that are open is clearly not "inherently flawed"; Risk is a very open-ended game, yet I've never heard of anyone complaining that the way it divides the story into branching paths just boils it down to choosing the best two or three storylines.

[protonfish]

Your definition of "open-ended" is very, um, open ended? If Risk is an open-ended game then so are all multiplayer games. X-Com (which are great games by the way - not criticizing) does not go too far beyond a basic turn-based strategy game which is basically chess puzzles with upgradable pieces decorated with an alien invasion theme. It has a decent random level generator, but I don't believe it is enough to qualify it what I think most people would term "open-ended."

[DaFranker]

Alright, what specific qualifications are we talking about then? If this is about branching story paths with different endings, then let's use those words, rather than put the word "open-ended" there that may or may not accidentally blur the difference between those and other things I'd call "open-ended".

[protonfish]

That's a good question and probably critical to answer before discussion. I wonder if an open-ended world could be best described as one where the player finds enjoyment playing without an explicit win condition and/or can solve problems using many different strategies. (Preferably not "canned" solutions but ones where clever use of skills and the environment could even surprise the developers.)

[DaFranker]

Those seem like two somewhat distinct regions of definitionspace. But yes, they sound about right for what I usually mean by "open-ended". X-Com would be mostly an example of the latter, while a sandboxy game like Minecraft would primarily identify with the former.

But at this point I think it's more convenient to ditch "open-ended" and find other words to associate less confusingly with those notions. "sandboxy", above, is my first candidate. I have no good ideas for the other kind at the moment.

[angersock]

Just to be clear, are you referring to the original XCOM, or the new ones? There's a lot of difference.

[DaFranker]

Ah, context. I used "X-Com" in a deliberate typographical attempt to exclude "XCOM" from the conversation.

[protonfish]

I've only played the first 2.