I was reading Peter Pears’ recent review of Across the Stars, which includes this:
There’s an optional part of this game, which you can skip altogether – but if you do, you’ll miss out on what makes this game rich and fun.
Personally, when I played the game in question, I did (unintentionally!) skip the “rich and fun” part of the game, without ever knowing it was there. And in the present comp, I’ve already run across several games that made it possible to skip important events; to miss facts about the protagonists that fundamentally shape their stories; to stumble on an easy but monotonous puzzle solution when there exists a subtler and more interesting one; or to find out information in an order that completely destroys the best-path unfolding of the plot.
So here’s the hint: any time your game has a better path and a worse path — where worse means not “the player is losing” but “the player accidentally, and probably without realizing it, has wound up on a path that makes the game less fun or less effective” — it’s time to edit the design.
That might seem to go against the whole principle of significant choice and multilinear design in games. We are seeing a lot more games lately that have multiple endings or significant variations in the way the story plays out. Which is cool. Some of those (including some in this comp) handle that variability with aplomb. Still, that approach only works so long as the player is guaranteed an equally strong experience regardless of how he exercises his freedom.
This is why, in turn, sometimes it’s worth stepping back and asking yourself, well, what is the cool thing about my game? What is key to the story? to the narrative pacing? to the interaction? And how can I make sure that those things are preserved, regardless of the choices the player makes?