Not sure how this would work for an OEG, but I was just thinking that in most games you play as a character in the prime of life, and most peaople wouldn't want to play through several decades of life. Thus, you could have a system where after a while, if you've lived through several years of game time and made your mark on the game world (become king, get rich, become a war hero, become a crime lord, whatever -- there are many ways to accomplish something in an OEG, just as there are in life) the game will tell you how you're life plays out after the exciting stuff is over. You live happily ever after; people honor you for centuries as a great leader; you become a feared legend; you are the first in a long dynasty of rulers. The point is that you get closure after completing the most important part of your life, the road to some type of accomplishment or success, but you don't play through a lot of boring years with nothing much to do.

Take a look at games with high replayability for inspiration. Will Wright had mentioned in his talk about "Spore" that players like to have ownership of their character/items. Diablo 2 is a good example of this. Each player finds different items which can be combined for greater power. After a while, every character looks and plays differently.

This proves something to me. Players tend not to get bored if you keep throwing tougher content at them as long as you allow them to create something that is their own. Starting the player at point A where there is little difficulty and allowing them to progress through tougher areas infinitely is a possibility. For myself, the challanges are to design player property that can be customized to the players liking (without unbalancing the game) and generating content/environment that is not repetitive or boring.

Quote:

Original post by coderx75 Take a look at games with high replayability for inspiration. Will Wright had mentioned in his talk about "Spore" that players like to have ownership of their character/items. Diablo 2 is a good example of this. Each player finds different items which can be combined for greater power. After a while, every character looks and plays differently. This proves something to me. Players tend not to get bored if you keep throwing tougher content at them as long as you allow them to create something that is their own. Starting the player at point A where there is little difficulty and allowing them to progress through tougher areas infinitely is a possibility. For myself, the challanges are to design player property that can be customized to the players liking (without unbalancing the game) and generating content/environment that is not repetitive or boring.

I like that, make a weapon design screen or a blacksmith, let the player custamize the color of the sword and depending on what magic dust he sprinkles in, the power and magic abilities. I loved the whole being able to name and make your own spells and amulets also.

About meaninglessness, I got a thing or two to say. I've been thinking about this a lot, mostly from reading wavinator's and other posts, and my current train of thought is the following:

When the pattern to actions is discovered (therefore turning repetitive or merely predictable), attention slowly decreases and eventually the player stops playing the game.
This in all doesn't sound like a bad thing, only it will be remembered as such, for memory works in funny ways.
You tend to remember much more the end of the experience, so even if the player had a blast at the beginning, when interests drop for long enough, he/she will leave remembering mostly about how boring it became.
That's really bad word-of-mouth publicity.

So, for example, SimCity has a 'copout' in which at a certain year the game "ends". It's sort of a goalpost, where you can keep going on, but you you've got a reference point. Plot endings and timers can be used this way. If you allow the gamer to grow tired and bored, he'll remember those moments the most.

Same with "bad" endings.... but that's from another thread :D

Quote:

Original post by Madster You tend to remember much more the end of the experience, so even if the player had a blast at the beginning, when interests drop for long enough, he/she will leave remembering mostly about how boring it became. That's really bad word-of-mouth publicity.

This is a really insightful observation. I think the player subconsciously is always asking the game, "what have you done for me lately?" Not the wows a couple of days ago, and not even as much the balance of the experience (because I don't think we're that fair). And unfortunately, this is in juxtaposition to what's easiest to design and build. It's easiest to build an experience which scales in difficulty but stays within a narrow, testable, repetitive range.

Quote:

So, for example, SimCity has a 'copout' in which at a certain year the game "ends". It's sort of a goalpost, where you can keep going on, but you you've got a reference point. Plot endings and timers can be used this way. If you allow the gamer to grow tired and bored, he'll remember those moments the most.

I'm reminded of the feature in Civilization that lets you keep playing the game after you've obviously won. Ironically, whenever I've played on after winning I've found myself finding fault with the game because it goes on forever without any further official validation that I'm reaching goals. But the "one more turn" experience is so addictive that it's hard to stop. So I end up wanting to play more and more, and feeling that I'm getting less and less, and unless I stop myself THAT'S how I remember the game as a whole.

Quote:

Original post by Nazrix In freeform games such as Morrowind or sandbox type games like GTA, they use a "main plot" to give the sense of progressing the game. This is also how you "finish" the game. I have some ideas for an single-player RPG which I want to allow a lot of freeform and some sense of a sandbox environment which I think is plenty interesting as it is and I feel like a "main Plot" would detract from this freeform activity and make it too constricted. However, I can't think of a way to give a sense of finishing the game without some kind of main plot. Anyone know of alternatives?

Something interesting that Fable does, is age your character over time. Right now I'm playing through the game, and my hero is around 55 years of ago, and really starting to look the part (numerous scars, hands glow with magical power due to the heavy-magic play style I followed up until this point) of a venerable veteran. The problem is, I'm afraid that my character is going to croak at any time! I haven't read reviews or 'insider info' on whether this will occur or if it's merely a cosmetic game-feature, but since age is an apparent factor in my duration of fun, psychologically-speaking I'm beginning to become fearful of my hero's death. At this point in time I find myself ignoring the piddly smaller quests, and concentrating on the bigger fish.

If such an aging system were implemented in a sandbox freeform game, then not only would a character have limitations of Space, but Time as well. Knowing this, a player might more actively decide to perform certain (and more!) actions within the timeframe that is alloted to them.

The funny thing about this phenomenon is, our minds work in such a way that we wish to somehow survive, or be positively rewarded with something for our efforts. If somehow a character may be remembered via his/her actions by being permanently recorded in a Hall of Fame / High Scores listing, then the game retains its competitiveness, since their actions could potentially live on for all to see.

I think character aging can go either way. While I haven't actually played Fable (I would like to, is it worth buying?), I think it might work well in Fable because you go into the game knowing that the game is the life of this character. I am working on a game kind of based on the Pirates! games. I really enjoyed the Pirates! games, but they got a little dull after a while.

Anyway, the original (not sure about the new sequel) aged your character slowly. I remember being frustrated with that. The few times I played long enough to be forced into retirement, I was really frustrated. I'm not entirely sure why that would be, but I can think of a few reasons. First off, I didn't go in to it expecting to play a life time. I guess that may be my fault, maybe I should have. I just wanted to build up my fleet and loot towns!

Also, the aging in Pirates! seemed so artificial. If Fable is like I've heard it described, you know your character is getting old. It's clear to you, you see it happen. In Pirates!, it was just a number in your stats screen or whatever. You didn't witness it happen. It just felt like a dumb external limitation placed on the game, not a natural part of the game. I guess I may feel frustrated if my character dies of old age in Fable while I still want to play, but at least it seems like it's a part of the game. Does that make sense?

I think other people touched on this general concept, but the first game that comes to mind for me is (ha!) Animal Crossing. You were given free-form gameplay, but large "reminder" goals in the background. If you eventually paid off your largest house debt, you had essentially conquered the game's hardest challenge, and you were rewarded, and had a sense of accomplishment. However, you were still allowed to keep playing as much as you wanted.

So I'm thinking if you create a couple grandiose challenges or goals among varied playstyle choices (become the king, or become the Master of Theives, or tame and own a dragon, etc etc) while letting the player continue on past those goals, they feel like the achieved the hardest challenge in a linear group, and can either switch veins and try up to another of the list of "hardest" or just play around with their newfound power and fame. Kind of like "well, I did it, I now rule the country. Now I just want to head back to that one crazy town and explore it some more"

With any OEG, your only real determining factor for turning it off for good is boredom. From MMO's to Morrowind, on and on.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator This is a really insightful observation.

Why thanks! I'm honored :D

Quote:

I'm reminded of the feature in Civilization that lets you keep playing the game after you've obviously won. Ironically, whenever I've played on after winning I've found myself finding fault with the game because it goes on forever without any further official validation that I'm reaching goals. But the "one more turn" experience is so addictive that it's hard to stop. So I end up wanting to play more and more, and feeling that I'm getting less and less, and unless I stop myself THAT'S how I remember the game as a whole.

yup same with Sim City 2 for me.
But get this: my gf at the time played the same game, and given her l337 admin 5|<1llz she built on every single square in the map. It wasn't possible to build without destroying.
The economy was steady, not booming. You could leave the game alone and it would last for ages. This before the 2050 (IIRC) goalpost. So effectively, she finished the goddamn thing, even without getting the coveted arcologies.
Of course, she remembers the game fondly, while I do not.

So on this principle, I believe that the main thing that a free form game has to overcome is to end with a bang. Of any kind.

Actually... I think this might be a case where it's a bad idea to make the game too addictive. if the game is addictive, the player will play on after its stopped being fun, and due to the player remembering the last gameplay quality, the game is percieved as being boring. I cite civilization.
But, if the game is not too addictive, the player stops playing when the memory of the good times is still fresh. I cite Majoras Mask. If you get the fierce deity's mask, the game is still fun, but the player realizes that there is no point. The player then redoes boss battles a few times, but quits before the memory of the fun of getting the mask fades.