Almost nothing of what you said pertains to game design. You can dress it up as patronizingly as you like; that because you are smart enough to create amazing stories for yourself that naturally a well crafted story wouldn't appeal to smart people, that smart people create stories and the process of creation is, of course, infinite. But that's an illusion. Even to the creator, the story ends. It takes time to get there, no doubt, but the story ends. You write the last page. And it's done. Every story ends. Even the Neverending Story has an end. It is directly condescending to say that people who want an end to their games are somehow less because they need a game to tell them where it ends. That's like saying that with your refined tastes you couldn't ever listen to music because it finishes before you want it to.
Here's what makes good stories - Boundaries.
Here's what makes for a good game - Limits.
That's the first thing you learn as a creator. When you have a box you can make the most of it. When you don't you go nuts and make something bloated and unfocused and where the message gets lost.
However you dress it up, however pretentious you try and embellish it; all stories end.
Edit -
Oh and 'trying something new' is literally the same as 'getting bored and starting over'. The language you use makes the former sound nicer but you're talking about the same thing.
Calling someone patronizing, condescending, pretentious, is not an argument. What's this nonsense about
smart people, anyway? When did I ever say anything about intelligence? Or even imply that people who don't think along the same lines are dumb? As I recall, I speculated that people who err toward creativity and imagination are more likely to want to play endless games, while people who err toward numbers and concrete things err toward victory conditions. You can attempt to spin that into some kind of arrogance if you want, but you're going to have a hard time of it.
I am here for a civil conversation, and I hope you are too.
The metaphor of the author is getting a little tired, but from how you responded, I'm not sure you understand what I mean. An author's tools are pen, paper, and his or her imagination. A player's tool is the game mechanics, a mouse and keyboard, and his or her imagination.
The author could keep writing. He has a stack of blank paper and his pen isn't dry, but even still, despite boundless imagination and a dozen directions the story could go, he presses pen to paper, places the final period, and calls it done. Perhaps it is time to start writing about pixies instead of vampires. Vampires, he decides, are
so 2010.
The player could keep playing. She has a whole galaxy to play with and she has stuff left she could do, events to respond to, wars to wage. The game isn't going anywhere. But even still, despite knowing that there is potentially more to see, she decides this empire's tale has ended, and so she presses escape, and quits to menu, and starts a new game. This time it'll be about a cultural slug race, she tells herself, and everyone will be singing slug songs across the galaxy.
The reason I am trying to point out the parallel here, is because you are conflating playing games with consuming stories, necessarily. Where stories have ends. But I am not doing that, I am conflating playing games with creating stories. And I want you to understand how and why we are not seeing eye to eye. Victory conditions,
designed into the game (not their mere presence but their influence on mechanics), take away from the player's ability to craft their own stories. It reduces the toolset. It replaces every wrench and screwdriver and lathe.. with a different shaped hammer. And it tells you that your story, necessarily, will be built with hammers.
Anyway, here's a couple of notes;
* Boundaries are defined in different ways. Game mechanics are boundaries. Game mechanics give limits. The inability to build a planet-destroying death-star in the first turn of a game keeps it entertaining. A victory condition is not required to provide limits to stories.
* 'Trying something new' 'getting bored and starting over' are not the same things at all. One thing is fueled by excitement, the other fueled by a lack of it. We eagerly anticipate change, we look for new experiences, we poke around in the unknown. These are good qualities. And even if that doesn't convince you, I would argue that perspective is everything. You can call them the same, you can accuse me of 'dressing it up,' but at the end of the day, it is whether or not something is enjoyable or not. And I can assure you, I enjoy starting new campaigns in CK2. I enjoy starting new empires in Distant Worlds and Endless Space. These are things I like to do. Take it or leave it.
* I am not the one trying to actively restrict the game.
