"players should get to decide how to approach the way they enjoy a game"
clone01
If you're vision is to make a game with multiple approaches, then yes I'd agree. However, I don't think that has to be THE vision driving your experience. You could just want to tell a good, but somewhat interactive story, recognizing that interactivity can enrich a story, but also recognizing the need for structure in any well told story. Or you could have a very clear set of emotions and reactions you want to trigger in your player, and giving the player too much freedom potentially DESTROYS that experience.
To liken it to Fine Art...some art let's you draw your own associations and some art hits you over the head with its message.Some art guides the veiwer, but insists on nothing.Some art is made to please and some art is not.Some art is strictly personal, and the viewer has nothing to do with the process aside from their own voyeurism.Some art tells a story and some art does not.
The relationship of artist to viewer, developer to player, musician to listener, or writer to reader should not have a single philosophy in my opinion, as almost every approach has yielded great work. If all creative processes can be likened to a desire to express something (even if that something is simply a reflection of a plurality of consumer's desires in order to maximize profit), which I think is pretty much the case, then we must accept that the BEST way to express a particular vision may not always be the most pleasant one for every bent at the moment.
Speaking strictly as a consumer the answer is no, I don't always want freedom to be at the core of my game-playing experience. I like variety, and not just variety of locale, characters, mechanics, and plot, but variety of direction and intention. Sometimes I want to explore and sometimes I want to be along for a good ride.
Log in to comment