(Image source: SCEA.)

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Pong when the only choices to be made were going up or, if it struck our fancy, going down. However, gamers are still restricted to far too few real choices these days. (Real choices are genuine alternatives and not simply choosing between killing something with a warhammer or a ninja sword.) It still feels like we’re only picking up breadcrumbs on pre-determined paths in order to find the next hoop we’re meant to jump through.

The exasperating thing about this is there’s generally only a few paths to be taken even in big-budget titles. Some games may boast of freedom of exploration and non-linear gameplay but often as not there’s only one method of solving a problem in those games: the method the designers’ thought of. As the joke goes, if said method doesn’t involve killing or sneaking, it’s an extraordinary game and should be given a Special Achievement Award.

Martin Cirulis railed against this in one of his classic Computer Gaming World columns. He wondered why he needed to find a key for the door in an FPS when he was toting a BFG. Shouldn’t he be able to blast the door to smithereens or blow a hole in the wall?

That was a decade ago yet the problem persists.

The Gamers With Jobs crew, in their most recent podcast, discussed The Bourne Identity, a game that straightjacketed players so tightly that it would actually remove weapons out of the player character’s hands when the designers insisted on a hand-to-hand fight.
Continued…