Talk:Open-ended (gameplay): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Needs Rewrite: Agreed! |
m Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"Talk:Linearity (video games)" +"Talk:Nonlinear gameplay" |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Nonlinear gameplay]] |
|||
== 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. |
|||
[[User:212.54.218.146|212.54.218.146]] 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Howdy. I was just looking at this article, having been working on the[[Toshio 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. [[User:Rich Lem|Rich Lem]] 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 01:26, 22 July 2008
Redirect to: