Talk:Open-ended (gameplay)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
[edit] Needs Rewrite
This article needs some major attention, starting from the definition of "open-ended gameplay" all the way to the game examples. If i find the time i will rewrite it myself, until then here are some major points:
- "Open-ended" means "without a definite, pre-determined ending". If the game has two or twenty differend endings, it is still not open-ended; it has a definite end, even if there is the option to display one of many.
- Throughout the article, the writer(s) confuse "open-ended" design with "sandbox" design. They are not at all the same. A game may have a very linear storyline and yet be open-ended (that doesn't happen often, but it is entirely possible, think GTA if the storyline was compulsory). More importantly, a game might give the player complete freedom, but end once a goal is achieved (Civilisation and pretty much all RTS games, also military sims).
- Customization options of the player's character has absolutely nothing to do with game design. Customization has been around a long time in all kinds of games, and getting more widespread as available processing power and storage means grow. It is often present on open-ended games because the player is expected to "keep" the character for a long time, and the absence of pre-rendered cinematic sequences that is common in such games goes a long way towards this. Unless a source can be provided that proves there is a link in functiion between character customization and open-ended gameplay, it should not be mentioned in tis article.
212.54.218.146 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Howdy. I was just looking at this article, having been working on theToshio Iwai article this weekend. I agree with your conclusions about the article; it's shoe-horning a lot of non-open-ended play into the topic, and missing the most important category of "software toys" or "toy-like games" - Sim City and Electroplankton, which completely lack a goal, and thus don't really qualify as games at all. (Actually, I added an Electroplankton link to the list of games just now.)
- I don't agree as much that Customization isn't related to (open-ended) game design - I think it's tangentially related, in as much as the type of play activity involved in noodling around with a character's inventory and equipment set-up is similar to the experimental style of play typified by SC and EP.
- I'll keep an eye on this article, and will probably also contribute. Rich Lem 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simulations?
This might fit better in the area of 'Early simulation games' or Game Universes. The whole three need a good look at to provide a coherent explanation of the evolution of these games/simulations
Smart 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some examples inaccurate
I'm going to go ahead and remove Deus Ex and Elder Scrolls IV as examples of open-ended games. As another poster stated, open-ended gameplay doesn't mean a game has many different endings, as in Deus Ex. It means that a game has no end, period. I'm not sure why Elder Scrolls IV was given as an example, but to the best of my knowledge, ES4 does have an ending, and thus is not an example of an open-ended game. I think ES4 may better be an example of a sandbox game. Though I could be wrong, as I'm not very familiar with it.
Anyway, are there any objections to this edit?
Also, I'm going to add The Sims 1 and 2 for PC as examples. Those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. I think the examples list could use some more additions if anyone's up to the task. --Evening Breeze 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
