Namur: Part of the problem is that we, gamers, refuse to let go of ways of looking at things that i personally consider to be outdated in general and borderline inappropriate for an open world setting.
We need to stop thinking about the "perfect" ending as winning the RPG and every other ending as losing the RPG. We need to stop accepting epilogue slides that merely reflect 3 hours of picking dialogue lines from trees + narrative driven choices and for the most part ignore the other 37 hours of engagement with the gameworld as a whole.
The narrative says, "urgency"
Characterization says, "deep emotional ties to the object of the urgency"
Open world says "whatever, have at the pirates, cannibals, slavers, deserters, bandits, marauders et al"
If i chose to ignore narrative and characterization and instead listen to the open world then i won't necessarily regard a less than perfect or even dire ending as punishment, i can look at it as an accurate reflexion of how i engaged with the game world as a whole, as a broader concept of the "choice and consequence" RPG mantra applied to an open world setting.
Bottomline, 20 years from now i don't want to be playing games built under the same concepts of the games i've been playing for the past 30 years. That means new concepts, new ideas and the willingness to try them out both in which concerns devs and audiences.
Actually, no. What you want is your problem, but if you say "we", I'll say that I don't "need to", or actually
, give up on what I'm comfortable with and what drives me to play games in the first place in order to experiment things I'm uncomfortable with and which may generate/exacerbate anxiety and other negative and possibly downright harmful sensations in what's in its basic form a source of entertainment and escapism and possibly even a method of dealing with real-world problems or their consequences and finding some balance or aiding mental health in whatever way...