Do gamers really want games to evolve?

[onelifecrisis]

Gaming machines are powerful enough these days to run games that allow a considerable amount of player freedom, but for for some time now the games we play have (with one or two notable exceptions) been moving away from player choices. Quick Time Events are the quintessential example of this kind of gameplay, but even games that don't use QTEs are heavily scripted. Most of today's big-budget games could quite accurately be described as "interactive movies" with the player really only being able to choose, say, whether to use the weapon that is clearly right for the given situation or use one of the others just for a challenge. The question on my mind is whether this is because the majority of gamers don't really want a choice at all? In other words, is the market responding to the consumers desires or is it merely restricting them?

Scripted events are a dream from a game development point of view, whereas open-ended gameplay is a nightmare where unknown variables lurk in every dark corner, but I can't help thinking that if the desire for open-ended gameplay was strong enough in the consumers then the benefits of delivering it would start to outweigh the risks. What do you think? And what level of freedom would you, ideally, want to have in your future games?

EDIT
Since some people seem confused let me clarify:
When I say "open-ended" I'm talking about the gameplay. I'm not talking about open-ended storylines. A game can have a linear storyline but still feature open-ended gameplay.

 

[Danzaivar]

The way everyone bitches about new games being no good, i'd say nobody wants games to evolve.

I personally think the best evolution is for games to become open ended and MMO based, it's not a nightmare to account for because the players will make their own stories.

 

[Micah Weil]

No. The market isn't responding to the consumer need anymore. It's more like an angry dictatorship, with people up in their ivory towers shouting down at the lower masses, telling them what they want. Frankly, I think we're past the golden age of video gaming and we're currently in the age where the icons wear their pants down around their knees.

Unique ideas, concepts, modus operandi, what have you have been shoved aside because, truly, we've become a community too scared of innovation. We've missed out on a lot because "OMGHALO!".

There's nothing wrong with "go from point A to point B and don't get yourself killed for Christ Sakes". Shit, that's how we started, right?

 

[Booze Zombie]

Games are still young, we found the fire some years ago and now we enter the dark ages... the enlightenment is coming.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

They both have thier place. Gears 2 wouldn't be as fun without the world collapsing around you at the right points... and fallout 3 wouldn't be as fun without being free to explore the playground.

Bioshock got the mix just right IMO.

Just curious, a question to the OP.. what would be a game that you consider to be open ended?

 

[onelifecrisis]

They both have thier place. Gears 2 wouldn't be as fun without the world collapsing around you at the right points... and fallout 3 wouldn't be as fun without being free to explore the playground.

Bioshock got the mix just right IMO.

Just curious, a question to the OP.. what would be a game that you consider to be open ended?

I've not really played many open-ended games because whenever someone tries to make one they tend release something which (judging by reviews and comments) is either buggy as hell (e.g. STALKER) or isn't open ended at all (e.g. BioShock). The last game I can remember offering any real freedom in it's gameplay was System Shock 2, which I loved and wanted to marry.

Oblivion was almost a good "open-ended" game. In theory you could go anywhere you liked and make whatever kind of character you liked. But in practice you really only had three predefined character choices (Warrior/Mage/Sneak) and every dungeon you entered was just the same as the last one. You got to choose when you wanted to progress the main quest, but it somewhat broke immersion when forces of Oblivion put their entire invasion on hold so you could check out that interesting cave you'd seen earlier. But when compared to the likes of CoD4, Oblivion is a haven of open-ended goodness.

 

[onelifecrisis]

God, I wish the world would STFU, about linearity in games.

Yeah non-linear games are fun. I like games like Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls. I like Sandbox games. I like online multiplayer in FPS's.

But how many people here grew up on 2D platformers? I mean seriously some of the greatest games ever are linear.

Calm down. I wasn't attacking linear games. Some of my favourite games of all time are completely linear. I'm just surprised at the lack of choice. I shop for a new game and I'm given a choice of linear, linear, linear, or linear. And it makes me wonder why. I'm sorry it offends you so deeply that I want to discuss that here.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

They both have thier place. Gears 2 wouldn't be as fun without the world collapsing around you at the right points... and fallout 3 wouldn't be as fun without being free to explore the playground.

Bioshock got the mix just right IMO.

Just curious, a question to the OP.. what would be a game that you consider to be open ended?

I've not really played many open-ended games because whenever someone tries to make one they tend release something which (judging by reviews and comments) is either buggy as hell (e.g. STALKER) or isn't open ended at all (e.g. BioShock). The last game I can remember offering any real freedom in it's gameplay was System Shock 2, which I loved and wanted to marry.

Oblivion was almost a good "open-ended" game. In theory you could go anywhere you liked and make whatever kind of character you liked. But in practice you really only had three predefined character choices (Warrior/Mage/Sneak) and every dungeon you entered was just the same as the last one. You got to choose when you wanted to progress the main quest, but it somewhat broke immersion when forces of Oblivion put their entire invasion on hold so you could check out that interesting cave you'd seen earlier. But when compared to the likes of CoD4, Oblivion is a haven of open-ended goodness.

True... Oblivion was great for just existing in its world. I found Fallout 3 to be a more interactive and open ended game than Oblivion because there was a bit more variety in the locations and activities and many ways to shape your vault dweller into a killing machine or sleazy poet....

 

[Flishiz]

No. The market isn't responding to the consumer need anymore. It's more like an angry dictatorship, with people up in their ivory towers shouting down at the lower masses, telling them what they want. Frankly, I think we're past the golden age of video gaming and we're currently in the age where the icons wear their pants down around their knees.

Unique ideas, concepts, modus operandi, what have you have been shoved aside because, truly, we've become a community too scared of innovation. We've missed out on a lot because "OMGHALO!".

There's nothing wrong with "go from point A to point B and don't get yourself killed for Christ Sakes". Shit, that's how we started, right?

It's pretty obvious gaming is going to keep going for a long time, just like movies, books, and music. The current market doesn't mean gaming from it's best form is lost forever.

 

[onelifecrisis]

So is this subject already well-worn and discussed-to-death? I've seen hardly any opinions on the matter in this thread, so far. I suspect that a lot of gamers are perfectly happy with their linear games and don't really want anything more from game developers. Am I wrong? Do (the majority of) gamers really want games to evolve? Should I take the lack of replies as a resounding "NO"?

Also...

God, I wish the world would STFU, about linearity in games.

Yeah non-linear games are fun. I like games like Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls. I like Sandbox games. I like online multiplayer in FPS's.

But how many people here grew up on 2D platformers? I mean seriously some of the greatest games ever are linear.

Calm down. I wasn't attacking linear games. Some of my favourite games of all time are completely linear. I'm just surprised at the lack of choice. I shop for a new game and I'm given a choice of linear, linear, linear, or linear. And it makes me wonder why. I'm sorry it offends you so deeply that I want to discuss that here.

I am calm... I'm sorry if STFU offends your delicate sensibilities. Besides, I'm not just complaining about you. For example, I've a friend who claims he hates linear games. This only came about after he played Oblivion. Now he refuses to even try great games like PoP:Sands of Time, Half Life 2, Resident Evil.

So basically you're annoyed because your friend won't play (linear) games with you anymore. I'm sorry to hear it, kiddo. Chin up.

 

[squid5580]

I don't think we can expect games to evolve until we gamers do. Once we reach the point where we appreciate games for what they are, not bashing them for what they aren't, then we can expect the industry to follow suit.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Scripted events are a dream from a game development point of view, whereas open-ended gameplay is a nightmare where unknown variables lurk in every dark corner

Unknown variables are where all the fun is.

And what level of freedom would you, ideally, want to have in your future games?

I'd like the games industry to take baby steps to mid 80's levels of freedom with a long term goal of trying to get back to the mid 90's.

 

[Avatar Roku]

This is really something we have to take on a case-by-case basis. Some games, like Fallout 3 or GTA IV, would fall flat on their collective faces if they were linear. At the same times, other games, like CoD or HL2, would be just as doomed if they were open world.

 

[irrelevantnugget]

All I want is that my games are fun and worth the money. Sadly, I'm seeing a decline in the fun/price ratio. So hrm.

 

[Vincent V]

To quote Yahtzee. Captain Boring's Monotonous Adventure!!!!

 

[blood77]

All I want is that my games are fun and worth the money. Sadly, I'm seeing a decline in the fun/price ratio. So hrm.

Well I guess that years ago games had more thought put into them, instead of now where some just seemed to be grind out for the purpose of money making.

One of my friends, not a gamer but a politics major, made the point to me that our stander for a "good" game might be a little high. While I don't dismiss the fact that some times we ask too much every now and again, I think over all we ask very little.

Look at super smash brother melee and how Sakurai reacted to it. Dozens upon dozens of gamers took this already great game and said "Hey lets try to make this more fun by using no items, only certain stages, and a stock limit of three and a time limit of 8 minutes?" And so they did and that is why we have smash brothers tournaments every where. Sakurai however wasn't all that happy about this. So he releases Brawl. Brawl was meant to be more user friendly to try to attract more players to the game. However some of the changes he made to the game, tripping being the biggest one, nearly ruined the tournament style play that many gamers have come to like. So now there are moders that have written codes to modify the game in order to remove tripping and a number of other annoying features. From what I have heard Sakurai is still pretty annoyed.

Now why would a major developer not listen to a major suggestion like that? The game would have required no changes from melee to brawl in order to preserve the special play style that many fans had come to enjoy. So did Sakurai go in this direction?

Frankly I blame this whole "user friendly" revolution that seems to weeding its way through the gaming industry. Any game that doesn't do well, in sales, must have a problem relaying information to the player. Thus let us make it more "user friendly," which is just a fancy way of saying lets dumb it down so a four year old could do it. And for any game that is doing well lets make it "user friendly" so we can attract a bigger audience and thus making the game even more popular.

Sorry to sound like I am on a rant, which I am, but I just had to say something about this issue. Feel free to disagree with me on anything

 

[Amarok]

I've come to ignore the hordes of people bemoaning the supposedly bad quality of today's games. They're fine. Maybe if you all stepped out and got some fresh air once in a while your whithered, dusty old brain might treat you to a few endorphins and you can cheer the fuck up.

That aside, I would love for games to evolve, and I'm sure they will in time. We've already seen some truly amazing games, from big budget releases to obscure gems, heck, when the film industry was this old all you had was people gesticulating silently and wildly while piano music tinkered on in the background. And damsels being tied to train tracks.

The "evolution" will come in time, not every game will be god's gift to the world but hey, for every oscar-worthy masterpiece there's a few trashy flicks based around fart humour. For every Mona Lisa there's a dozen uninspired watercolours of meadows. Just be patient, my children, and enjoy what we've got, 'cos it ain't as bad as some of y'all make out.