Once again its time for my traditional release question. I have asked this for Morrowind and Oblivion and now Skyrim.

One of the hardest things for a person new with thier first tes game to get used to is the freedom. They usually have a hard time with the concept of go anywhere do anything there are no levels to clear or path you have to follow. So with that I like to ponder ...Can a game be too open ended?

Skyrim is really making me think on this. Usually by now the nerdy of us have already calcuulated alll of the possible skill combinations, We are now busy plotting what skills to use for each character and class, frusrtated that we only have 7 slots or trying to fill all seven,. All the while safely knowing that in a few levels in our cleric wont really be able to use bladed weapons well so why pick one up.

We had a nice little structure to build on. Now I find my self wondering if I'll be able to make really different characters or if natural tendancies and preferences will always get me to the same character? The other questions I have are whats the number of skills I can have and be able to play well at higher levels .. is 3 too few? 8 too much? How willl I spend perks? Can their be 15 per skill? how the spotted owl does pickpocket get 15 perks?

I think Skyrim may answer my question finally.. but does the next game go further and even eliminate leveling? Like life, you get a little better when you practice. You gain strength and wisdom and skill not in big discrete chunks, but a little at a time?

What do you think? b]Can a game be too open ended? [/b]

No.

No, I don't think so.

When I first got Oblivion, I was a little surprised at the incredible open endedness, but then I grew to like it. Most modern RPG's that are nto open ended pale in comparison to open ended ones, such as FO and ES.

However I think they can be too overwhlming for some people. My brother for example, cannot play a FO or ES game because he cannot just wrap his mind around the open endedness. So no, but yes.

This.

I never had an issue, and the further you go back the higher the learning curve. So... I feel like people who can't handle a game like this either just have short attention spans, or don't like this kind of game.

I think they do a good job because they always give you a quest to start you out. For people that have *no* idea what to do, they start that first, and learn along the way they don't have to follow a set pattern. I mean, your first stop in town is going to get you 5 more quests, so...

Of course not. I wish I had that much freedom in pretty much every game I play.

Lol your getting your moneys worth if it is!

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The notion of open-ended games is always warmly received. People like the idea that they can do whatever they want without feeling like they're just being filtered through a linear storyline, save by save. Let me qualify that statement by saying not EVERYONE likes open-ended games, and those who don't will find TES games far too elaborate for their sensibilities. Some people just like the quick fix, they want to be led and not discover their own unique ways of doing things. Those of us who are fans of deep immersion in gaming (giggity) view TES games as our salvation. And for those of us who play it on PC, the open-ended experience just gets better and better as we share mods and evolve the game to suit our playstyle and desires. So, no, for me a game can never be too open-ended.

Only to the point to where it is to be mistaken for real-life, where the player is svcked in and is tricked to believe that IS real life, and then dies of dehydration or something along that line. Skyrim though, will be just right (or at least I hope)

Sorry don't buy it, there is no such thing as too much freedom in a game.

well all you have to do is open the journal and it tells you where to go and what to do. How can you get lost if it's as easy as that to find your way? So my answer would be no.

The "lost" part only lasts for a day at most. By that time you would have learn enough about the game to do what you like.

Also, a game without leveling means you are struck with the exact same enemies from start to finish, which is worst than Oblivion's scaled leveling. And we all know how well that went.

you have asked this since Morrowind? Why are you playing Elder Scrolls games then? Or why do you keep asking if you always get the same results?

:wink_smile: no, the more open-ended a game is the more love i have for it- and more of my money the 'makers' get :wink_smile:

Not really. The only problem Bethesda can ever run into is trying to please everyone. The more open the better IMO.

Sometimes in Fallout New Vegas I feel like I have too many quests running at once. You get one quest and are told to go see some one else and they give me two more quests. It's like wow, I have all this crap to do now... but thats ok, but sometimes I forget what I was doing I get so many started at once. It's just a tad overwhelming if I think about it, so I just focus on one and get it done and keep going. Eventually the thing will have to run out of quests, I'm just amazed at how many get added without me really even trying.

nope

I believe so, there is some sort of balance that usually needs to be maintained...too much or too little of anything can be bad depending on circumstances.

No. A game cannot be too open ended.

I love open ended games, so the answer is no.

BUT, I had a hard time getting into morrowinnd because of the way quest were presented in the journal. Maybe I didn't give enough time and in a way I wish it did, but it turned me off. In Oblivion, totally had a blast and the way the quests were handles made it easier.

Now, I don't expect to point out exactly the location of where I need to go, but I like quests, especially in open ended game, to be clear of what needs to be done next. So as long as I don't get lost of what my next step is in a quest, then everything about open ended game I love.

Life itself is open ended. There's nothing really stopping you from doing anything except yourself. So until a game reaches the complexities that go along with life I'll have to say.. no.. it can never be too open ended.

its a long-term benefit kind of genre; the kind publishers absolutely hate because "it gets better later" can cost them precious moneyz. from a consumer point-of-view, there is theoretically no real limit to how open-ended a game can be and still be enjoyable; you just have to have the patience to find out what all your options are. some people dont have the patience, but some people dont like horseraddish yet someone keeps making and selling it :liplick: .

practically however, you only have so many resources when making a game, and spreading them to thinly results in what i call 'the fable problem' of trying to please everyone so badly that you end up pleasing nobody. i do believe its better to have one very deep game mechanic as opposed to a thousand shallow ones, but great open-world games are the ones that can strike a perfect balance between variety and depth. its certainly a bigger challenge the more open-ended you want to make a game, but the only real obstacles are budget and figuring out how to structure the ever-expanding game rather than any inherent flaw with the concept.

in short, conceptually speaking there is no limit to how open-ended a game can be and still be fun/good, but practically speaking it gets harder and harder the more open-ended it is.

This along with the possibility of easily becoming a "Jack-of-all-Trades" (If not expert or something) is why I have a slight fear of this "be what you play" philosophy. However I don't think a game can be too open ended gameplay wise. BRING ON THE OPEN ENDEDNESS!