[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.