Linear vs. Open World

Linear	Open World
Creating the vision (+) Generally a simpler planning process for the end-to-end experience that can be storyboarded, planned, communicated and pitched to executives and team before production begins. Achieving team buy-in and agreement on what you are going to make can make the production process a lot smoother. (-) While it makes the production process smoother, it can certainly be more monotonous and devoid of creative decisions later on.	Creating the vision (-) A lot harder to communicate non-linear structures since it is more about putting simple rules into place that when put altogether create unpredictable experiences depending on how the player is interacting with them.  It takes a lot more time to prototype and to achieve buy-in for the game vision. The pressure from the team and execs to prove the fun increases exponentially the longer this process takes. (+) Once the core game systems and architecture are in place, often production experiences a hyper rapid improvement on the quality of the fun factor due to the ability to adapt and iterate.
Core gameplay and validation (+) Easier to provide a high quality and consistent delivery of story, action and pacing. (-) Control can be a disadvantage as it is a lot harder to create and contain a player in a scripted environment without breaking the suspension of disbelief. Scripting can become overly complicated very quickly, leading to odd cases that you hadn’t considered (the more you try to control the player, the more events are likely to break). (+) Testing gameplay is more complete as it’s more about the minute-to-minute play-through and functionality. The ability to focus on one path makes it easier to validate the fun factor and design goals from beginning to end. (-) As the amount of gameplay hours offered increases, so does the amount of time for it to be validated.	Core gameplay and validation (-) Harder to write and create a cohesive narrative experience when player choice has a huge impact on the order of the content they receive. Often auxiliary systems need to be designed and put in place to achieve the desired behavior. Good pacing can be achieved, but with the additional challenge of player data collection and creating global managers.  (+) Generally more interesting to make from a system design perspective as the game features have more depth and breadth in the game mechanics and their interactions. Fun problems to solve and challenges to overcome.  (-) Open world games often provide so much gameplay that it becomes impractical or impossible to test every minute of the experience. (+) Since systems are designed more as rules to be interacted with, there is less minute-to-minute gameplay to validate, but instead simple global test cases that validate functionality and spot breakages.
Production (-) While planning offers a certain level of production security, when things aren’t working or are not fun, often the underlying systems and code are too rigid to change. Effectively painting the designer into a corner and making iterating costly or impractical. (+) Features and levels can be created with minimal dependencies that can be added or subtracted. If an idea or feature doesn’t work, it can be cut or replaced without compromising the project or deadlines. It also has a production advantage of being able to scale the team up/down with cheaper less experienced labor as needed to work on modules in parallel or even outsourced to another studio. (-) While it’s easier to outsource larger sections of the game, this also requires more management overhead for external communications, maintaining quality and integration of the work.	Production (+) Good systems and architected dependencies can make the data management for tuning and balancing the rules of the game world easier allowing improved iteration time and ultimately a more polished experience with a smaller design team. An additional benefit is the flexibility to change as the design requirements and scope evolve over the course of development. (+)/(-) The quality of the core game requires key highly experienced and technical leadership in order to make sure the systems are properly architected. Often if a key vision keeper or talent leaves in the middle of the project it can have a massive impact on the production time and vision. (-) Often impossible using traditional content production methods to create enough unique content that matches the amount gameplay hours that can be expected.
Player experience (+) When a goal is provided it’s easier for the player to understand and strive for it. Getting lost or falling off course is a lot harder due to the lack of options. In addition, minimalistic UI and game feedback lead to a more immersive and less gamey experience. (-) Linear experience often can alienate players that enjoy exploration and discovery. (-) Lack of choice and decisions made by the player can feel artificial and contrived as they are forced down a path that they personally wouldn’t take. (+) Less filler content required allows the development team to focus on more unique memorable moments where the player experiences significantly less repetitive gameplay. (-) Difficult to maintain an immersive experience as the player probes the boundaries of the space, the façade is easily revealed as a movie set.  (+)/(-) Linear games do not offer significant opportunity for replay-ability.  Once a player has completed the story, the motivation to return to the game is lost entirely.	Player experience (+)/(-) The abundance of side content that can be interacted with can distract a player from the core story experience. This distraction may be welcomed by the player, but may also have the side effect of making them lose their way if not properly managed. (+) An open world offers a massive playground to explore, giving the player control and ownership over their experiences and solutions to challenges. (+) Players have more decision making moments that not only define their character, but also impact the living world around them. (-) Unfortunately most open world games have levels that are inherently hard to navigate due to highly reused art and content, requiring the use of abundant UI and gamey navigational aids. (+) Because the rules of the world are not rigid, players often discover and enjoy unintended, emerging gameplay that were not intentionally designed. (+) Players can enjoy new adventures and their own unique stories within the same game, even after completing the story.

Containing Players in an Open World Game

The real interesting solutions to these problems lie within the specific contexts of the game, the behavior change you are looking for in the player, and their emotional response.  Here are some high-level methods with context-based examples for encouraging players to stay within a certain area of an open-world game:

Audio-visual feedback cues – Reinforce desired behaviors through music, sounds, loss of visibility due to environmental changes, directional arrows, etc.

EXAMPLE: In a zombie game during a day/night cycle, the simple use of light and dark can be used to effectively control player movement within a larger area. Additional cues can be utilized to invoke feelings of fear or horror by introducing sound cues outside of the light zones to indicate impending danger resulting in death.

Progression / difficulty – Creating a core progression system where a player cannot physically handle the difficulty beyond a certain point to encourage the player to stay in a zone until they progress

EXAMPLE: A level-based shooter where experience is earned and used to obtain progressively better equipment in order to overcome the challenges preventing the player from leaving the space.

Limitation in resources – A game system or temporary mechanic that physically limits the player’s range (eg. endurance, oxygen, fuel, ammo, etc.)

EXAMPLE: An exotic gameplay scenario that requires a player to hold their breath in a smoke-filled environment, physically limiting the range they can travel.  Combined with the right set of audio-visual feedback cues can effectively create a sense of anxiety and stress.  As a designer, you would obviously want to keep this tactic in limited durations so as not to cause player fatigue.

Breadcrumbs and carrots – Feedback cues that steer the player to the desired destination area

EXAMPLE: In a car combat game, a player may need to kill an objective in a certain area.  Players enjoy intense and compelling combat when they are inside the zone, and experience lulls when they deviate outside of it. Whenever the player leaves the area, new combat targets (ie. carrots) are spawned traveling towards the core objective to lead the player back into the action.

Anchoring / tethering – A specific location that missions/objectives require you to visit to either progress or get rewards that help you progress

EXAMPLE: Imagine a game where the player takes the role of a cop and is assigned to a specific HQ where he receives all of his dispatches and gear required to venture in the area.  Whenever it is time for the player to move on, he gets transferred to a new department or HQ.  This context makes sense, feels logical and maintains a suspension of disbelief for this kind of tethering model.

Attachment / investment – The player is given or earns a location that he can invest in. This doesn’t have to be stationary; it could be mobile if the context fits.

EXAMPLE: Imagine a game where the player can choose to build and upgrade a fort or lair with gameplay benefits as well as personalized cosmetic features that can be used for bragging rights.  This is a slight deviation from the anchoring/tethering mechanic where the player is forging an attachment to the anchor via the investment of time, emotionally through personal expression, or to use it as an edge in gameplay. A mobile example could be investing in a large ship that travels from island to island.