Linear Gameplay vs Open Worlds

Continuing a thread from yesterday.

I'm fine with linear gameplay. Being shoved into a corner sucks, but if a game is good and fun, chances are you don't notice it. On some recent Lost episode, Locke told Hurley to take off (by himself) and head back to the beach. Hurley thought about it and decided it was a bad idea. Ben, perceiving that result as intentional by Locke, told him (paraphrasing) "well done, now he thinks it was his idea to stay."

If your player wants to go the same direction that you want to send him, linearity isn't that big of a deal. HL2 is linear, but was awesomeness anyway. Ditto for Portal. I thought HL2's linearity was, in some places, too linear. It dig bug me. But I got over it.

I think Sirlin would say "no annoying mechanic is worth keeping." (He, and this catchphrase, has been my ghost the past week. Maybe he wouldn't say that, but I'll save that for another day.)

It's not really that hard to add varied paths into a game. Two door and two hallways; complete three goals, but in any order that the player wants. Don't send him to find the silver key then the gold key--let him find either first. Variation has to be planned around; HL2 went through a ton of tuning, and having multiple completion paths can throw testing and tuning time through the roof. Depending on the implementation!

If the player is running in fear (the player, mind, not the character), he's less likely to notice that he only had one real option. If it looks like he had several options, he might later go back and look, on his next playthrough. People don't like thinking they have unexplored options. There is a thing as too much choice. The trick is giving players real choices (because they are going to go back and check on you), but not to make them feel like they missed something. One trick for solving this dilemma is choosing when to give choice and when to take it away.

When you put cool stuff in the nooks and crannies, some players will want to check every single flippin cranny in the entire game. For games like Doom and Quake, that works. For a narrative-heavy game like Half-Life, I think it's a detriment.

Build up a pattern language. Advertise the big stuff, so that the player is focused on an objective that you have control over. If you want to hide something, show it to the player first. That is, show them the object, but hide the path to it. Give them time to explore nooks and crannies when they're not under pressure. When the heat is on, make the path clear. Players love thinking that they're smart, so make it obvious what they should be doing. The fact that they have choice is enough. It's a bit like the Forer effect; in this case, show a player two choices, where one is obviously better, and he'll choose the better one and feel happy about it.

I think this is a good thing. It's a survival trait. Show someone a snake-filled pit and a banana on table, and he'll go for the banana and be happy that he avoided the snake. The 'danger' is almost illusory! But almost. It is real danger. People look for patterns. When there's a blank in the puzzle, their active imaginations will fill it in. Players like using their imagination. Give them a chance to.