The developers behind Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 recently revealed that all of the game's campaign missions will be available from the start without having to play them in the intended order. They called the traditional system of the next mission unlocking after you beat the previous one "archaic":

Jason Blundell said:

“The unlocking level system is an archaic mentality we’ve had since we did bedroom development back in the day—you do this, then go on to the next one. Consumers and game players in general are far more mature these days. There are so many things vying for our interests today. It’s about, how do they want to consume it? Maybe they put it down on level two, and then they’re in work the next day, and some guy says, ‘dude, you’ve got to check out level four!’ And he’s like, ‘okay, I’ll have a quick look.’ That’s totally fine. I think it’s their choice.”

This has led some Kotaku guy to argue that all games should be this way. Echoing the comedy bit above (which I took from the post), he points out that no other media gates off content the way that video games have always done. He makes some other points as well that you can read if you'd like.

What do you guys think? Does it go against everything video games stand for, is it a no brainer in the modern age of games, or somewhere in between?

URL to share (right click and copy)

@TriforceBun

I just said the developer should be able to make the game in any way he wants to. But once I own it, he has no say in how I experience it.

I haven't read everyone's responses here but I think about these things and at the core of the question to me is this...

Will unlocking all content from the start lead to a fundamentally better experience for most players?

We want freedom, but I wonder if freedom always makes the experience better. When you have an excellent developer they can craft an experience where point A leads to point B beautifully, and there is pacing and momentum and everything that is part of that package. Players may think they want freedom, but it may not actually make the experience better if it kills the pacing, maybe adds frustration because they are trying to take on stuff they aren't ready for yet, etc.

Of course, that comes off as condescending. These are adults (well, often adults), they're paying their own money, shouldn't they have the experience in whatever way they want?

On the other hand, developers need to create satisfied customers, and IF more freedom doesn't always lead to more satisfaction and can actually lead to less satisfaction, is it smart for developers to do something that customers think they want but ultimately makes them less satisfied with the product? Wouldn't the smartest thing be to figure out what actually makes players the most satisfied and go with that regardless of what they think they want?

But yeah, this all comes down to the question of whether having all of this freedom from the start can lead to a less satisfying experience or not. I think it can, and I feel like if every game did this I'd find them less satisfying overall, but it is tough to say how the general population would feel.

BTW, through conversations with a friend of mine big into tattoos I have found out that the tattoo industry has a very complicated view of "the customer is always right" because customers often think they want one thing, get it and regret it, and now you have a dissatisfied customer and that is bad for business. Serious tattoo artists will often refuse to do certain types of tattoos on first time customers (full sleeves, face tattoos, etc.), and refuse to do certain types of tattoos on customers period (names of current flings, etc.) because it ultimately serves their business better to second guess the customers a bit and make sure that they end up with something they are truly happy with longterm, and not just what they think they want at the moment. And there is this unspoken code of honor between serious artists that if one person turns someone down for a tattoo, their peers don't rush in to do it, so customers might find a stone wall when trying to run out and get their hastily thought out tattoo... well, unless they want to go to the local dive tattoo place that will do anything.

Of course, we as adults hate admitting that strangers might know what we want better than we do...

Most people have already said what I would have said, so I'm pretty much just agreeing with what's been brought up. As some people said, I like the feeling of progression, though I think the idea could work in a few games. I also agree that in many cases, games shouldn't be compared so much to other forms of media like movies and music; it's like suggesting all music should have visuals to be more like movies. These are all unique forms of media and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Further, I agree with whoever said that game design shouldn't have standards, there's no game design blueprint that people have to follow for each game. The only things that should be standard have to do with the technical side, like how controls should be responsive (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there argues against that too). I also usually find it silly when a certain aspect of game design is deemed "archaic," as if any idea that's been around for a while needs to be replaced. There is room for all kinds of design ideas, both old and new.

What I'm guessing is happening here is that most Call of Duty players just play the multiplayer and don't really touch the single player. So the devs are trying to find ways to get them to play single player, and they probably think this idea appeals to their short attention spans. And really, I could see this idea working for this game and that crowd, wouldn't surprise me at all if it gets more people to play the single player.

Mop it up said:

What I'm guessing is happening here is that most Call of Duty players just play the multiplayer and don't really touch the single player. So the devs are trying to find ways to get them to play single player, and they probably think this idea appeals to their short attention spans. And really, I could see this idea working for this game and that crowd, wouldn't surprise me at all if it gets more people to play the single player.

Yeah, and let's not forget the fact that they're pushing the 4 player co-op aspect of single player. Letting people jump into whatever level makes it easier to have 4 players play together online without worrying about who has beaten what. And they can just jump into a fun or cool level when they feel like it.

I just don't like how they're presenting it like they've had some revelation about game design. Kinda pretentious.

@gojira Ah, you can do the missions in co-op? That makes even more sense then.

I wonder if this guy's ever played a Mega Man game...

@Mop it up

I think so. I'm more into the online multiplayer aspect of Cod so I haven't payed too much attention to the campaign news. But I'm pretty sure it's all 4 player co-op in the campaign.

What's funny is that I'm dealing with this right now. I want to play the Ada parts of RE4, but I have to beat the main game first. Even with that, I'm not all that upset about the situation. But it got me thinking about how would choosing any chapter work in a game like this? Would the developer just choose your inventory and upgrades. Would it be set at a minimum? Would it be basically a small penalty for skipping ahead instead of finding/earning items, gold and secret stuff? Maybe you would start the level with a certain amount of money and you choose your upgrades (maybe missing out on some secret gear). And I don't even know how to approach a RPG with this in mind.

TriforceBun said:

@Jargon
@kriswright

Don't you guys believe that an artist has the right to have their work be experienced in the way they want? I feel that outweighs the consumer's right to selectively choose how to experience someone else's work against their wishes. And like I said before, I think the developer pretty frequently knows better than the player about how best to experience their game. Freedom of choice isn't an inherently good thing in every situation.

For the record, I strongly disagreed with the letter-writer then, and now.

I come from the "don't give a rat's ass" school of thought on the role of the creator - and I include my own creations in that. If someone has their own interpretation of what one of my songs means, I'm interested in hearing it. I don't think my intentions trumps their interpretation. If someone wants to take one of my songs and mix it up and create something new, I'm ok with that.

I mean, really, you sound kinda old-fashioned there, Bun. It's 2015 (har har, I know you hate that.). I think you're completely fetishing the role of the artist, to the detriment of the people who actually experience the work. Don't they matter, too? Isn't it kinda arrogant to say they don't? And we're not even talking about high art here - we're talking about commercial products. And expensive ones, no less. My role as a customer is to pay 60 bucks and then it's all up to some strangers in Kyoto how I'm allowed to interact with their software? (It's interesting how this dovetails nicely with our positions on Nintendo Land, btw.)

You're even saying it yourself: The choice is to do it the developer's way or don't participate at all. That's pretty much a my-way-or-the-highway point of view. That's not arrogant? Do it my way or I'm taking my ball and going home. But pay me 60 bucks, first.

Hey, man, we can take that further. Stop doing those Super Metroid speedruns, exploiting bugs in the code. No more Zelda without a sword. Your responsibility is now to experience the software in an extremely specific way, defined by the intentions of the developer, otherwise you're tripping on your own philosophical trip-wire, here.

And that's before we introduce the fact that hundreds of developers work on modern games, and there can't be much of a consensus on this even on a single game. So who gets to call the shot on this? Do you think some texture artist would hate the idea of more people seeing his best work, just because it's later in the game?

No. I think the creator of a work of art comes up with a framework in which they want the art to be experienced. That's fine. But once they release it into the wild, it's not in their control anymore and they shouldn't pretend they get eternal ownership of it. It's their Frankenstein's monster, doing whatever it wants. I've discovered new things about my own songs years after they were written and recorded. I invite anyone to approach a work of art their own way. Make it into something unique to them. Otherwise, we're just bowing to the tyranny of the author.

No, of course not. That seems to suggest that there should be no gated content, ever, and that notion just seems silly to me. Should Animal Crossing have all items unlocked from the start? Seems the same logic applies. I bought it, let me play it how I choose. That said, I have no problem with games that make levels unlocked an option.

kdub said:

But once they release it into the wild, it's not in their control anymore and they shouldn't pretend they get eternal ownership of it. It's their Frankenstein's monster, doing whatever it wants.

Yep and here there is a pretty well known example: George Lucas making edits to his movies. People hated that shit.

@kriswright
I am old-fashioned! I'm probably the most similar to an old man in all of NW, dagnabbit.

I don't think your examples really line-up with what I'm talking about though. Going swordless in TLoZ or speedrunning Super Metroid wouldn't be possible if the developers didn't design those games with the levels of freedom that they have. That's not to say that Miyamoto or Yokoi necessarily planned for people to play their games like that, but they gave them the tools to do so. And in that sense, I think that's a nifty variation on a way to experience art like you've mentioned (although I definitely wouldn't do that stuff the first time I played a game).

This topic is about something different though: it's adding in a feature that wasn't there before, regardless of whether the developer wants it in or not. I mean, it says right in the title "ALL VIDEO GAMES." We're not talking about people using existing in-game elements to find new enjoyment from it (like, I dunno, competitive Melee)--we're talking about making games completely open from the get-go. That's a pretty extreme shift and a big jump from things like speedrunning.

By and large, I really don't like blanket statements like "all video games should do" this or that. I regularly play my NES and think there's a lot of appeal in something being limited (like Castlevania 1's difficulty and requirement of precision, for instance). There's very little that I think "all games" should do beyond simply being entertaining in some way and successful at what they attempt. And if we're just talking about other people's enjoyment from skipping around, like I said earlier, I find the act of progress and unlocking things to be fun and rewarding. Having everything available from the get-go messes with my enjoyment of the game.

@TriforceBun

On that last point, as Jargon mentioned, it doesn't have to affect the way you play the game a single bit. You could continue to play it straight through as you would before. Are you really saying someone else's unrelated gaming habits have an effect on your gaming life? That's like saying... uh... that someone else's gay marriage cheapens your non-gay marriage.

Ok, not the least controversial example I could have used.

But, yeah, of course I don't agree that all games everywhere should offer this as a feature. We agree on that. I'll also sign on that I'm skeptical of any sweeping generality that says "All games should do X". But I feel that the current default setting for most games - that a level select feature would not be available - should be challenged more. I get no enjoyment out of simply unlocking things in games and it irritates me that so many games are built around that idea.

@TriforceBun

I've already clarified that I didn't really mean all video games. I mean, I thought the title itself made that pretty clear since not all games have levels. And if someone really thinks their experience is going to be destroyed by this concept, of course I'm not advocating that he be forced to incorporate it. But in a general way, I think this should be a feature, just like I think, generally, you shouldn't lose all your progress if you run out of lives in today's games.

I still don't get how this affects you. You're really saying that if a game's start menu had a Level Select option that you never had to click, that would somehow hurt your experience?

Eh, if Call of Duty is the future, then I would like to be stuck in the past forever. Actually, it IS the future, and I AM stuck in the past forever.

But, anyway, I can see how some games should ease up on the unlocks. Unlocking all of the special moves in Smash 4 is a huge pain in the ass. On the other hand, unlocking characters is fun!

In an actual single-player game, though? Unless the challenges are totally discrete, like in a puzzle game, that seems like it would interfere with the progression and learning curve. Never say never, but it doesn't generally seem like a good idea.

It's actually kind of amazing to think about how much of the original Super Mario Bros. you could skip, if you were in the know.

@kriswright
@Jargon

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, having stuff unlocked absolutely effects my enjoyment (like with Wrecking Crew). Opening things up in a game world feels rewarding to me. @gojira said he was less interested in Mario Maker after unlocking all the tools.

Something about "reaching" new elements in a game is rewarding in itself to me; it gives me a sense of accomplishment. If I were to play through all of Super Mario World's levels again, I'd much, much rather do so by starting a fresh file than by going to a completed file and just running around the map. The gameplay itself would still be fun, of course, but without that larger feeling of an immersive impact on the world present, it feels a little more pointless.

One of the things that makes games like Metroid, Zelda, and Dragon Quest satisfying is the growth from a puny warrior to a mighty hero who can crush those early enemies with ease. The element of growth and making a difference in the game world is an important (if sometimes subtle) element of immersion. Even in a Mario game, which lacks these adventure elements, the very act of progressing through worlds and opening up the map feels similarly empowering. Like you've conquered something. It's this primal element of being victorious, akin to being the first person to plant a flag on Everest's top rather than getting there to find it covered in flags already.

@TriforceBun

OK, I like all those things too. But when I played Sonic 1, knowing that I could enter a simple 6 button code to unlock a level select had literally no effect whatsoever on my sense of accomplishment. It's actually progressing through the game's challenges that is rewarding, and being able to skip ahead doesn't change that one way or the other.

PS: I suspect the reason you haven't beaten Wrecking Crew is because it sucks,

There's no one-size-fits-all answer, because "progression" in games can mean lots of things, and isn't so easy to pin-down as it is in other media. Generally I lead toward the side of, give players everything at the start but encourage them to play "the right way."


All I know is Smash 4 needs an "unlock everything" code at the very least. If I bring the game disc over to a friend's house, I'm playing a lesser game for the duration of that afternoon because half of the cast and a handful of stages are locked away. And I don't care what Sakurai "intended" when he locked all the custom special moves behind random singleplayer loot drops, because doing so severely damaged what could have been a central and interesting piece of the game and is now instead an afterthought at best for 99.9% of players.

@kriswright Well... it doesn't have to affect how you play it in theory, but that doesn't mean it won't affect it in actuality. In games where I can't skip, I stick with it and work hard to get to the next stage. In games where I can skip, I often do. And that feels less rewarding to me. You can say I should have more self control or whatever, but that's not really my point. From a developer standpoint if you know people will often choose a path that will be less rewarding to them, does it make sense to open that path? I dunno.

I think games are just told different from books in this regard. You'd want to skim a book to maybe see where the next chapter is, but I don't know if you'd want that with a game. It would be like peaking around the corner in a haunted house and know what's coming next, what decision to make, where to go.

@Zero

That is so paternal, though. "Hey, I'm not going to give you options you might want, but trust me it's for your own good."

That said, I mean of course there are situations where I agree. Some games thrive on the mystery of what's around the corner. But I don't think that's necessarily true for many games that don't currently offer this feature.

Here's a question for everyone: Would it matter to you if most games had this feature hidden behind a cheat code?

@kriswright I'm thinking less "for your own good" and more "I want to maximize the enjoyment of my product so it gets the best reviews and hype and word of mouth and ultimately makes the most people happy" yada yada.

I mean look, I don't even know if it would actually matter. Maybe giving everything to everyone makes more people happier. But maybe it doesn't? Developers have to think about these things. My personal view is that a well made difficulty curve with various difficulty options that ultimately allows players to skip something giving them too much trouble (like Nintendo's guide stuff in the recent Mario games) will probably lead to more satisfied players than just giving them everything straight up, but honestly I have no data to back this up. It's just a hunch.

I would probably make arguments for artistic vision too. Especially on the indie level. I've seen a lot of entitled gamers demand things from indie developers citing themselves as the market for the product but... to me selling my game is kind of secondary. I'm more interested in making something I really believe in, which may or may not include some limits on how the player experiences it. I do try to think about how to offer freedom as much as possible in areas where I don't think it could really get in the way of anything, like, in my current game the character is supposed to just be "you", so why not add gender / race options etc.?

Video games are sort of in a weird position where they theoretically can offer a lot of freedom, but creators also want to control things, so debates like this arise. But you know,novels, for instance, could theoretically add more freedom too. Choose Your Own Adventure books showed us that! But freedom has never really been a big part of that world, more a gimmick for children's books.

To answer your question, I think a cheat code barrier is an interesting idea, but personally I don't like the idea of anything that requires gamers to go outside of the game to get access because not everyone will know about this or how to find it or whatever.

I actually think Nintendo came up with a pretty good solution with the Player's Guide stuff or whatever they called it. Play a few times, get frustrated, unlock the way to just skip it... or watch how to do it so you can try it yourself.