Linearity and the Open World

Let me tell you a story.
It was a cold night, and John Marston was in the pursuit of violence. He was tracking a man called Dakota. Dakota had caused enough trouble to put a significant bounty on his head. And Marston, an increasingly desperate man, needed that money. The sheriff had told him two things: that Dakota had held up with a group of around 5 men up in the mountains due west of Blackwater, and that he was wanted alive. Marston was not the type to deny the sheriff his wish. So, there he had rode. His map had lead him true, to a small winding road up a mountain. He was now riding up it, and waiting for signs of life. The rocky, mountainous ground was covered in a light layer of snow. It was the first snow he had seen in a while, after the oppressive heat of Mexico. It was quiet, but he felt the heavy atmosphere before a fire fight. Part of him thrilled at the knowledge of coming violence, and the other part of him grimaced at the lives to be lost, but both parts strode up the mountain. He was coming close to the cave where Dakota was said to be hiding, and dismounted his horse just as one of Dakota's posse strolled over the top of the ridge. Marston crouched behind his horse, and quietly snatched a small knife from his back pocket. He took a deep breath, crept out slowly from behind his horse, and threw his knife with perfect aim at the henchman's head. Instead of the silent kill Marston had expected, the man cried out, and two more of Dakota's men ran out from behind the first. Marston, hit one of them with another knife, and then, realizing a stealthy approach was helpless, rapidly took his revolver and shot the second. He ran up the hill, expecting the men to come barreling down on him any moment. The top of the hill held a small campsite that was pushed up against the mountain. Two more of Dakota's henchmen were waiting for him, while Dakota took cover behind a bunch of rocks to the side. Marston quickly aimed for the henchmen's heads. One shot shattered a skull, but the other merely hit the henchman's shoulder. Marston panicked, firing off a series of shots. Enough of them hit to leave the man dead. Dakota put up a good fight, hitting Marston in the shoulder, but Marston expertly whipped out his lasso, and hogtied him. Marston called his horse, and put Dakota on its back. He rode off speedily, knowing that Dakota would have more men coming. Marston was not half way to Blackwater before three men on horseback caught up to him. Marston took care of one easily, but a combination of his wounded shoulder and his growing fatigue lead to an incredibly clumsy firefight. Eventually, Marston was backed up against a cluster of trees with two men coming at him. In a couple desperate shots Marston finished the group off. He took a deep breath, and was suddenly knocked off his horse. Dizzy, but still conscious, he steadily sat up. And saw a huge grizzly bear standing over him. He stood up in a frenzy, pulling out a shotgun from his back holster. He got off a couple shots before the bear beat him down and the darkness of death overtook him.

This more or less happened to me during a session of Red Dead Redemption. This is a moment that encapsulates what makes Open World games appealing and special. They are alive. Games are essentially exercises in cause and effect, but more complex games are rulesets. A series of elements that interact with each other. Open world games are a space to interact with that ruleset. To poke and prod and kick and kiss it until its mysteries open up to you. Most rulesets are focused on mastery. But, the open world is about possibilities. This is so expertly shown by the random events that occur in Red Dead. For those unfamiliar, these events create events that occur around in the game world. Robbers may pop up by the side of the road or someone may call for help and then attempt to steal your horse. They provide a space to react to and create narratives within the game's mechanics. Even the more regulated side quests(Strangers, Bounties etc.) only appear when you come close to them. This lends the events of the those missions a sense of discovery. One of the big problems I had with Assassin's Creed III was that it didn't understand the power that emergence has. The world in AC3 feels regimented and programmed. Rockstar understands that experience is meaningless without discovery. It brings an experience that is alive.

But, if this is all true than why are Red Dead Redemption's main missions so linear?
It has a very good reason. Red Dead Redemption is less about freedom and exploration, than it is about the experience of being in a western. The freedom and world feeds into the "western experience" rather than the other way round. The missions often act as a way of providing the western in a more contained manner. They also serve to introduce the primary mechanics of the open world. Another example of this goal at work is the deadeye mechanic. You want to feel like a Clint Eastwood style badass, so the game give you an ability to slow down time to more expertly lineup shots.

But, that really only answers the question for Red Dead Redemption. The deeper question at work here is, why do open world games have main quests? Why not have just a sandbox?

It could be because the player wouldn't be motivated enough to continue the adventure with more of an emotional hook to push them forward. Or throwing the players into the game's world without any basic tutorial or set-up might lead to frustration. Main quests can also serve to introduce each "section" of the game world to the player, and give them an initial investment in the exploration of that world. But, main quests often come with an problem: they can create a hefty amount of dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative. Red Dead Redemption has this problem in a big way. You can go rob people or go on a murderous rampage one minute, and the next you're earnestly trying to help a struggling family in a main quest. They also can destroy a game's flow. The openness of the game world in ACIII is in great contrast to the linear, set-piece laded main missions that the game feels scrambled together. Narrative is also hindered by the nature of open world games. When you can spend hours doing side quests, without touching the main narrative, it can be very difficult to get emotionally invested in something that seems so distant. Particularly since the exploration get in the way of any sense of emotional urgency.

So, if main quests are problematic, should we get rid of them? Are they a good thing overall? Are they a necessary evil? If so, how do we make them less evil?

I think the key depends on what exactly you are trying to do with your game. If you need a main quest, if you feel that it is important to your game, then make that quest rooted in exploration or in the elements that make your sandbox engaging. Super Metroid and Legend of Zelda 1 are both fantastic examples of this. While the games have a main goals, they force you to explore and engage with the game's world to accomplish that goal. Rather than having the goal pointed out to you on a minimap, you have to find or ask the inhabitants of the world to help, or simply use the tools available to find the way forward. The linear moments in Zelda (i.e. the dungeons) also have exploration as a heavy element, thus not alienating the rest of the game from the overworld. And Metroid has that framework worked into the design of the overworld. So the difference between the more straightforward moments and sheer exploration is not explicitly felt. Particularly, since Zebes feels ripe with mystery. I'm not sure if this would work for every game all the time, Red Dead needs some more linear moments for its narrative, but it would certainly lead to a more cohesive design.

If your game is more about exploration and existing in a particular world,  then create a series of quest that tie direct to the player's past, but are totally optional. It would deepen the tie between character and player and let the game breath to become something special. Skyrim kind of does this, but since that quest involves an ancient epic destiny and the potential end of the world, it doesn't make much sense for the player to run off and do whatever he wants. It also leads to one of the clumsiest openings in recent memory. An open world game like Skyrim, that puts such a heavy emphasis on self-expression, really would benefit from the feeling of total freedom.

I don't think main quests are a bad thing, just that their design can be at odds with the game they exist in. Until I got about 3 hours into Red Dead Redemption I felt like the overworld was just a way to funnel me from mission to mission in pretty landscapes. I changed my mind as the quests became both more interesting and more involved in the world, but the fact that the game didn't feel open and free right away tells you something about the flaws of quest design. Thinking more about the relationship between quests or missions and the open world would lead to games that are more cohesive and better designed.

But, anyway have you got any great gaming stories? Do agree with me or am I just talking crap? Sound off in the comments.