Hiding the Rails.

Recently, a thought occurred to me regarding the nature of linearity in games and, by extension, some of the current dissatisfaction with game design. The notion went that since video games came into existence, they have been linear experiences. Mainly due to the limitations of the medium, however, that did not stop developers from making games that felt non-linear. A feat achieved by making games focused on a single line of thinking rather than creating a play space that is susceptible to anything the player can imagine. This then became the norm for a while, with games picking a specific playstyle to center themselves around, then building options for the player to fight back against the limitations set by the game. Games like the original Doom, Half-Life, Portal 1 &2, and Chrono Trigger, each A to B stories and experiences focused on a single mechanic or playstyle but modular enough within that mechanic to give more of a sense of freedom.

However, now the trick is unintrusively communicating the play space's bounds to the player. Take Half-Life, for example; while the Black Mesa Facility is massive, filled with various labs, hallways, and conference rooms, the game only ever shows us thin slices of the facility. Yes, fully exploring Black Mesa would be interesting, even exciting, but at the time, Valve did not have the resources to achieve such an undertaking. So they had to center their experience around something opened ended where the player could experiment. But with firm boundaries to let them know when they are getting out of bounds—choosing to make their game about surviving a catastrophic failure in the labs resulting in an alien invasion and subsequent Government cover-up.

This way, Valve had a framework. Now they could say, "if it doesn't have to do with Black Masa being invaded, then shelve it." So now they no longer have to build an entire facility, only the rooms and corridors Freeman has to run through. A decision we accept due to Valve's excellent communication of limitations, gameplay variety, and immersion.

Breaking each of those down as listed, with communication of limitations, is Valve saying where the player can and can not go, what options are available to them, and how the player should approach the game. Valve controls the path forward with a combination of lighting, hazards, and color. So if you ever see an unlit, white door with no handle behind a fire, don't even bother trying to open it. See a red, well-lit door with a handle at the end of a clear hall, and either you will go through that door now or open it back up later to loop around. As for the options players have, 9/10 times the answer is, shoot it – with what is up to them; as long as something gets filled with lead, you've done good. Smashing obstacles also fall under this category; for example, to get to a ladder in Office Complex, you need to break some ceiling tiles to climb it properly. Which sense all the game has taught you is to shoot and smash; doing either yields results—further teaching players how they should be approaching problems in the game. See a block; try breaking it. Not breaking, find another way around. Alien throwing lighting at you, sidestep, and shotgun. Alien do lots of scatter damage and has Health to boot; blow it up. Problems have a best solution, but it's not the only solution, and the fun of the game is figuring out these solutions.

Variety doesn't always mean a multitude of different things; sometimes, it can mean different variations of the same. So again, problems in Half-Life will end with a firearm being discharged, but the variety here is in what kind goes off. If you stick to long-range, you're relying on your pistols and crossbow, using the heavier magnum to floor opponents quickly while using the handgun for suppressing fire to get to proper crossbow distance. Or stick to short-range, running and gunning with the assault rifle, popping frags out with the alt-fire, and blowing Aliens away with the shotgun at close range. Or any combination of the former because gunplay is a part of the tentpole Valve built the game around. This is what the game wants you to focus on, as this is the most varied part of the game. Here is where Valve wants you thinking on your feet; here is where they want you to go wild. There are still rules and boundaries in combat, but those boundaries elevate the gameplay. This is where you need to juggle the various weapons and play styles, adapting to the situation as you see fit—putting you in the driver's seat of the action to make choices that will define the rest of the experience. All going towards giving you that sense of freedom Valve wanted you to have in order to better draw you into this world of scientific mishap and alien horror.

A world that the developers need to draw you into for any of the above to land home effectively. While Valve is creating a linear experience, they are doing so in a reactive world. Therefore, the world needs to be interactable within the realm of believability to help guide the player into the thinking Valve wants them to be. The whole opening is an excellent example of this. The tram ride shows the vast network of tunnels you're about to run through, teaming with science and security personnel. The breakroom with operable vending machines and a microwave. The muffled conversations from a board room that closes the blinds when they see you watching. The heads-up display in the H.E.V suit foreshadowing what's to come and the measures Black Mesa has already taken. These little, almost invisible details make the world come alive and help put the player in the mindset of a scientist just trying to survive what should have been another boring day at work. Without them, the game is still playable but hollower in comparison and shines more of a light on the rail system we're hooked up to.

Now, if you recall the statement that began this piece 1,033 words ago, I mentioned this linearity being the cause of today's dissatisfaction with games. Because we've reached the point technologically where we can model and process the entire Black Mesa facility – all the way down to the smallest detail, however, at this point, we have to start asking ourselves the same question posed in Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

See, we're reaching a point where our wildest dreams can become a reality and have to some extent, with such games as Skyrim, Breath of the Wild, and Elden Ring. However, these games are still, at their core, linear experiences. Sure, you can go anywhere and explore anything in vanilla Skyrim, but what if you want to hang the whole adventuring thing and become a trader in Solitude? Working your way up the ranks of the established merchant guilds until you're supplying the Emperor himself - No, what I just described is mechanically impossible in an unmodified Skyrim. Because Skyrim is a game about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters at the end of the day, all its extra features are tied around those two systems: you explore to find more dungeons that yield more loot/ EXP so that you can fight stronger and stronger monsters. Which, to reiterate, is a good thing; by doing so, Bethesda centered the experience around a simple linear mindset, get loot ->get stronger ->Repeat, allowing them to craft more engaging dungeons and playstyles for the player to experiment with. Even games that appear opened ended, like Breath of the Wild, are still built around a handful of versatile but straightforward systems. Fire creates updrafts, burns wood & grass, and melts ice; Lighting is drawn to metal, disarms monsters, and spreads in water.

However, most are not seeing this linear design model under the hood of these games. They hear that a game is an open world and think they can go anywhere and do anything when that is not the case. End of the day, Elden Ring is still an Action RPG based around combat and stamina management that starts in a graveyard and ends with a dead God. Everything in between, however, is up to the player to decide. Their build, what bosses they fight and in what order, the quests they complete, the gear they use. What I am trying to say, scattered as it is, is that a game needs to set limitations on itself to be a good experience.

Just take a look at the Assassin's Creed series if you want a downward-trending example of this. It started with A.C one, setting up the standard trailing and parkouring assassination missions. Then the Ezio trilogy added more gadgets and expanded on the core idea with unique challenges and loot. Then the graph flatlined with three, spiked with Black Flag, and began its descent Unity onward. Why? Because it dropped that core assassination format to better branch out to a larger audience. In doing so, the devs allowed the game to spread out without taking the time to refine or focus on a single central element of the game. Like Stealth in A.C one or the ship combat in Black Flag, instead, it has a multitude of side objectives to distract the player from the fact that they have very little structure to their game.

That's actually a good word for it that we should probably be using rather than linear - structure. A structured game centers around a solid, robust core that all else is built out or on top of; the structure is Half-Life is its gunplay and its shifting between survival shooter and action shooter. The structure of Skyrim is the dungeons and the more extensive adventures the player embarks on. The structure of Elden Ring is the bosses that block your forward progression and exploring to get stronger. Structure is what gives a game life, gives it focus. A game without structure is not a game worth playing. For you can be as open and expansive as you want, with as many rooms and quests as you can stuff into the play space. However, if players go through a game without a clue how it all glues together, their overall goal, or if the path set before them is not fun, you need to revisit and strengthen your structure.