hey guys, i''m brand new here so....hi. i am developing an idea for a game (still pretty sketchy, daggerfall-ish...online perhaps) and was wondering, are open-ended fps/rpg''s a good idea? because of the mass complexity of the modern world, would the player be constantly reminded of the fact that he''s playing a game? i''m talking about stuff like phones not working, and no internet on computers...ummm, maybe even the game-world itself. the cities would seem closed and claustrophobic, unlike real cities...ech the list goes on. feedback would be appreciated When Irish eyes are conspiring...

Welcome to the forum!

I''m a big fan of open-ended games, and have been working on one myself (*ahem* for some time now). In my experience, yes complexity can get out of hand if you let it. Sometimes, in striving to create a rich world, you might mistakenly start trying to build a world simulation, which isn''t the same thing.

I think while there are a lot of us gamers who would like huge worlds, we accept that we can only have so much. The important thing to remember is that its just a game, and that if your gameplay is involving and interesting, players will overlook certain touches that really don''t add anything to the overall experience. Even if they''re grossly immersed in a world, they''re still going to want a game environment where there''s something to strive for and that responds to their actions / input.

Games elevate us above the minutia of reality, as well, and I think players find that convenient. The game world shouldn''t demand that players clip their virtual toenails, or change their car''s oil. The things we have to do that are repetitive and tedious in real life, we can escape from in games. So too much fidelity can very much be a bad thing, especially if it obstructs the player or misleads them in what they''re supposed to be doing.

Another idea I''ve found valuable is that of clever limits and illusions. You can bound your world with reasonable obstacles (say, a river if there''s no swimming) or even with interface paradigms (such as letting the player know that if they enter a certain area, they''ll be leaving the level-- if you have non-contiguous levels that is). Or you can take the approach of lots and lots of repetition in terms of scenery and game entities (sort of like how a real city is, btw).



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Reality.... this is a hot issue these days with better and better technology to make things as realistic as possible.
People play games in order to have fun yes, but, also to get away from the problems in modern day life... the test coming up, or the test just failed, the quarrel at work that day, the unpaid bill due last friday.......etc.... At some point, the graphics won''t be able to get any better, the animation won''t be able to get any better. So, reality is more then graphics of course... concepts and so forth, obviously. So what really needs to be developed? Things that can''t max out.. storyline......great ideas.... etc.. The point I am trying to make is....not everyone wants to play a life game... reality is fun.....to a point. So, don''t focus too much on it. Take what you want from it...and good luck with your project.Uhoh...another discussion with Wavinator, should be fun..and yet civil :D
Good luck on your title as wel Wavinator.