next »

[AndroidScholar1]

I don't like games that are structured in an "endless" way but in fact have a proper ending. I have yet to finish Persona 3, but I heard after you've finished the storyline you just start again... I'd appreciate anyone telling me if that's wrong, because I have a feeling you can carry your stats over to a new game, which I don't mind.

A more recent example would be Fallout 3 though, with it's ending that just killed off the player and ended the game. Bethesda had to create a DLC to extend the ending just to appease the fans.

[Muz]

I don't think there's any games that's truly endless. I get bored of most of those games eventually. It's just seeing how many different things you can get out of a roguelike, before it becomes all the same thing.

Spelunky did a great job with this, though. By the time you can spot the sameness in a level (and get bored with it), you'd have a shortcut to the next group of levels.

Personally, I do like an end to an 'endless game'. Dungeon Crawl and Nethack had that orb stuff to "end the game" when your character was becoming too powerful to be stopped. I'd rather it be something like that than Tetris, that tries to 'kill' you with the game mechanics when you get too good to enjoy it.

[s0]

hint: stop playing when you reach the end?

Hint: Stop playing an endless game when you get bored?

yes, pretty much.

But you're still ignoring my main point (as has everyone else). What exactly makes a game that tells you when to stop better than a game that doesn't? I dunno, it just ultimately seems like a relatively minor difference to me.

[mirosurabu]

What's an endless game?

Game that has no sense of catharsis at some point?
No The End screen?
No dramatic structure?
No linear structure?

Game that possesses you and make you play it forever?


Most games have content on the surface and content under the surface. You will replay the game or, if it lacks linear structure, continue playing it until you are certain you've seen most of the valuable content. There is no game that has "endless content".

Content, in this context, also includes gameplay/challenge modes.

[Nix]

I suppose I don't really understand the mindset of having to have a clear-cut "end", it's a bit like sitting through a movie just to see the credits roll.I don't play games to "beat" them or feel like I've "accomplished" something, I mostly enjoy actually playing the thing. The journey is the reward and all that jazz.

To me, the distinction is between games like Super Crate Box, with simple mechanics that just keep going until you stop, and Super Meat Boy, with the gameplay from start to finish pretty well laid out. So I guess if you took a game like Super Crate Box and slapped on a "You Win!" screen when the score hits a certain point, then I would agree with you about and ending being superfluous and silly. But it's not really possible to not have an end to a game like Super Meat Boy, unless you enslave Edmund, make him immortal, and have him slave away at new levels day in and day out.

[iffi]

unless you enslave Edmund, make him immortal, and have him slave away at new levels day in and day out.

...though I suppose that's the purpose of the upcoming level editor.

[mirosurabu]

Demon's Souls has an end but also doesn't have an end. You know what I mean?

There is a linear structure: 12 levels, 4 boss-levels and final boss. Once you do these it's "The End". But there is more to discover beyond that, so you keep playing and playing and playing.

Thus, you don't really need "new levels" to extend the lifespan of a game.

[s0]

To me, the distinction is between games like Super Crate Box, with simple mechanics that just keep going until you stop, and Super Meat Boy, with the gameplay from start to finish pretty well laid out. So I guess if you took a game like Super Crate Box and slapped on a "You Win!" screen when the score hits a certain point, then I would agree with you about and ending being superfluous and silly. But it's not really possible to not have an end to a game like Super Meat Boy, unless you enslave Edmund, make him immortal, and have him slave away at new levels day in and day out.

Yeah, I know that some games need an ending by design (if they're story-driven for instance), but I was objecting to some peoples' idea that endless games are somehow categorically worse than non-endless ones. The whole "I don't like endless games because they get boring"  thing strikes me as a bit nonsensical. Usually you're willing to play a game as long as you derive enjoyment from it, and whether you're playing through Super Meat Boy a second time or simply have another session of Super Crate Box doesn't seem like a big difference to me.

[Toeofdoom]

I think a lot of endless games are badly designed and don't justify the time you spend on them - pick any flash tower defence and you'll probably spend 10 minutes in no danger of anything going wrong before the difficulty spikes.

The other thing is that you actually do play endless games until they get boring. Personally I don't replay finite games unless they were really freaking good, meaning I remember that awesome or even just okay first playthrough, not that 100th attempt that was finally boring enough to put me off.

The two types also have different elements by necessity, the most obvious (but definitely not the only one) being story. Endless games can also struggle to give you a sense of achievement - what's really the different between 1000 and 10000 points, or being 2000th or 4000th in the world?

It seems to me that games that go on forever can be just as good as amazing finite games, but the average neverending game is much worse than the average finite game because in the end you get so little out of it.

[s0]

Personally I don't replay finite games unless they were really freaking good, meaning I remember that awesome or even just okay first playthrough, not that 100th attempt that was finally boring enough to put me off.

As I said, I don't necessarily play games to finish them. I don't even finish half of the games I play, I just stop when I lose interest in them for one reason or another. That doesn't mean I don't take anything (good) away from them though. It's like a meal, you can finish it once you're full, before having eaten everything and still be completely satisfied. I don't stop playing games when I'm bored, I stop playing them when I've had enough of them, big difference.

The two types also have different elements by necessity, the most obvious (but definitely not the only one) being story.

Why? Demon's Souls has been mentioned already. Also, Infinity Blade, a recent iPhone game. There are other games that use this kind of endless "Groundhog Day" structure, but I don't remember any of them right now, perhaps someone else could help out.

Endless games can also struggle to give you a sense of achievement - what's really the different between 1000 and 10000 points, or being 2000th or 4000th in the world?

The difference is that you performed better, duh. How is that not  a sense of achievement?

It seems to me that games that go on forever can be just as good as amazing finite games, but the average neverending game is much worse than the average finite game because in the end you get so little out of it.

PROTIP: Don't play "average" games.

I dunno, maybe I'm just being unfair, maybe I'm trying to impose my way of playing games on other people. I also feel like this is more of an "arcade games vs. home games" discussion than "endless vs finite".

[Toeofdoom]

I've never played demon's souls or infinity blade, but I feel like a story that repeats itself doesn't count as a story that goes on forever. Also let me just quote your previous post -

Yeah, I know that some games need an ending by design (if they're story-driven for instance)

So yes, story has to be quite different in neverending games if it's present at all.

I wasn't actually responding to anything you said, C.A. Sinclair. The OP asked for opinions so I gave mine - both types can be great games, but the structure of finite games seems to disguise bad design and make them seem better. Or maybe it's just that a lot of people don't understand how to make endless games as well, since I think they need to be designed in a different way.

[s0]

Damn, I feel like some kinda raging troll now. 

[J. R. Hill]

I disagree with everything Sinclair has said.