The other week I was at a university ‘Game Dev Club’ workshop where I found myself in a discussion about how to direct players to progress through your game. At some point during the conversation, a comment was made that:

“You can never really know what a player will do. If you design a level directing a player one way, they’ll go another. You will never get it right!”

Whilst there was a hint of humor and exaggeration in this person’s voice, it was an interesting point.

I responded by saying that’s why I have an irrefutable and undisputed respect for games like Super Mario Odyssey, which embrace this idea and construct a game where there are far more objectives scattered around the open map than there are a number of objectives that need to be completed to progress to the next stage (or world). This allows said player to go in any direction they like, complete any amount of these objectives as they desire, and create an experience completely unique from any other player playing the same game!

Game: Super Mario Odyssey

But then, I was kind of shocked to hear a wave of resistance and disagreement within the room. Comments like “why would you create more content than a single player will actually consume?” and “why spend time on stuff that not everyone will play?” were shot back at me.

And this got me really thinking.

These people weren’t wrong, no. But I really didn’t think that I was necessarily wrong either. It’s also worth noting that some of these people had far more experience and industry knowledge than I do, but even still I couldn’t shake this feeling of stubbornness and skepticism.

You could call me a devil’s advocate because today I’m gonna tell you exactly why these people weren’t correct! — well… not exactly.

Again, they weren’t wrong. Coming from a background of hands-on experience with the industry I can imagine would make you oppositional to having to do more work than is required for a game, especially because of the ‘SCRUM’ / ‘sprint’ industry standard of work where developers are expected to work their asses off for many more hours than a normal 9–5.

So I get it. Or, at least I think I do.

So then why the hell would so many AAA companies bother making extra content that not everyone will play through? I mean, that’s basically a large part of the whole gimmick behind ‘Open World’ games. What the hell are these devs thinking?! Are these people just masochists?! Do they enjoy killing themselves on parts of a game that they don’t even know if people will ever see?

Game: Final Fantasy XV

Well, maybe; after all, game devs are a bunch of beautifully crazy people.

But that’s not the only reason.

You see, here we have two samples of industry developers with two very different attitudes towards design. On the one hand, there’s the efficient, waste-less attitude of those at the workshop, but on the other, we have the open world model.

While the first outclasses the second in terms of logic, it’s important to understand that logic doesn’t sell games. What sells games? Demand. And as demand increases so does supply.

Open world games are all the rage at the moment. So many franchises are breaking into the genre, saturating the market with open-ended exploration games. So since there is such a supply, there’s clearly a demand for it. People don’t just make games that people don’t want to buy.

The number of open world games that have been made in the last decade has seemingly trumped every other game genre in terms of sheer quantity.

Days Gone, Metro Exodus, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Rage 2, Fallout 4, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption 2, Far Cry 5, Far Cry New Dawn, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Metal Gear Solid V, The Witcher 3, GTA5, No Man’s Sky, Watch Dogs 2, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, The Division 2, Just Cause 4, Mad Max (2015), Borderlands 2, Saints Row IV, the list goes on!

Game: Xenoblade Chronicles 2

Okay, you get it. There’s clearly a demand for these games otherwise there wouldn’t be such a colossal supply. If people bought games that are more linear nearly as much as open world games then I’m sure developers would favor making the linear games due to how incredibly more easy they are to make. And so, open world games are clearly highly sought after. So why the hell do people buy these games over linear games?

Because they’re not buying a game anymore. They’re buying an experience.

Let’s play a game, shall we? You tell me if the following sounds more like a game or an experience.

A lady has been captured by a monkey. You can jump and move forward. The monkey is on top of some scaffolding. The monkey is throwing barrels down at you. Dodge the barrels and climb the scaffolding to save the lady. There is one ball on the field. There are two goals and two teams. You must get the ball into their goal whilst protecting your own, but cannot use your hands. You are dropped in an endless landscape. You start with nothing. You can hear a waterfall to your left, maybe the water is drinkable? You can hear shouting to your right, seemingly behind these oddly shaped trees. You see the sun setting in front of you behind the rigid mountain peaks, and you can see a smooth dirt pass that leads in the direction behind you. What do you want to do?

To me, the first two sound much more like games, and the last sounds way more like an experience. Sure, these are all types of video games, but they are two very different types of products.

I feel like the main difference between these two types of games is that ‘games’ typically tell you what to do (to beat it), whereas ‘experiences’ ask you “what would you like to do?”

Game: Borderlands 2

“The advent of modern open-world games provided new opportunities for gamers not just to explore environments but also to interact with them. The platform inspired play that was limitless in both landscape as well as the playable character’s actions. Depth of software capabilities has allowed for more immersive experiences.” — Lauren Hall-Stigerts

Open world ‘experiences’ achieves something that linear games simply cannot do: immersing the player into the game and giving them the choice of doing whatever they like. When making a game, designers try their best to create levels that will appeal to their entire player-base which is no easy feat. Open world games forfeit this responsibility and rather create a world of which encapsulates every player’s preferred route of choice.

There’s no need to try and accommodate each type of player’s tastes in the one level if there isn’t a level — there’s just an endless abyss waiting for any type of player to explore in their own unique fashion.

“…With their more naturally paced, non-linear play and explorative flow, as well as their often simulative nature with regard to presentation and construction, I have always lovingly held them in very high regard. Looking back to my favorite titles over the years, I can see in them all, shades and elements of open world design that detail and give life to, if not outright steer, what it is like to truly be within their environs.” — Noah Berry

Game: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Sure, if you decide to make an open world game you’re immediately investing an incredibly large amount of extra time into your project.

But the pure power of inclusivity and accessibility is a factor that is arguably well worth the extra development time for the increased sales and critical acclamation.

When a player begins a linear game there is usually a learning curve at the start that might prove too daunting for new players — however open world games can be tackled in any form or fashion the player desires.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is simply this:

Creating extra content that everyone may not all see is definitely worth the trouble if it means that the player can be free within the game. This is an incredibly valuable trait for a game to have in my opinion.

There’s no escaping that you HAVE to jump on top of goombas or run from ghosts, but in an open world game there aren’t as many things you HAVE to do,

There are only things you CAN do.