Two ways to structure a game
Level structure answers a basic question: how much choice does the player have about where to go and in what order? At one end is the linear level, where the designer controls the sequence. At the other is the open world, where the player decides much of the order. Most games sit somewhere in between, and neither end is better in general. They solve different problems and cost different things.
Linear levels: authored pacing
In a linear level, the player moves along a path that the designer has planned. The path may twist, branch briefly or include side rooms, but there is a clear forward direction.
What linear design does well
- Controlled pacing. The designer knows what the player will encounter and in what order, so they can build tension, relief and surprise deliberately. This is close to the idea of level flow.
- Reliable teaching. Because mechanics can be introduced in a fixed order, implicit tutorials are easier to build.
- Cinematic moments. A set-piece, such as a collapsing bridge or a dramatic reveal, can be staged because the player will be in the right place.
- Focused testing. With fewer paths, it is easier to check that everyone sees what the designer intended.
What it costs
- Less player agency. Players may feel they are being led, and replay value can be lower.
- Content consumption. A carefully authored hour of play may be quickly finished, so the team must keep producing new material.
- Pressure on every moment. Since the player’s path is narrow, any weak section affects everyone.
Open worlds: freedom and discovery
In an open world, the player can usually travel in many directions, choose between activities and approach goals in different orders. The appeal is a sense of freedom and personal discovery.
What open design does well
- Player choice. Players can pursue what interests them, whether that is exploration, combat, collecting or story.
- Emergent stories. Because events are not fully scripted, players tell stories about what happened to them.
- Hidden secrets. Large spaces suit optional discoveries, which are rewarding when well hinted.
- Longevity. There is often a lot to do, which suits players who want long sessions.
What it costs
- Pacing is harder to control. A player may arrive at a hard area too early or wander around without a clear goal. The designer must handle the difficulty curve across many possible routes.
- Orientation challenges. A large space needs strong visual landmarks and good guidance, or players get lost.
- Content volume. A large map has to be filled with something worth finding. Without enough variety, the world can feel empty or repetitive.
- Testing complexity. With so many paths and combinations, bugs hide more easily, and checking every route is hard.
- Story coordination. If players can do things in any order, story events must still make sense whenever they happen.
How designers manage the trade-offs
Few games choose a pure extreme, and there are common middle paths.
- Hub-and-spoke structures let players choose among several linear levels from a central area.
- Open areas with gated progress give freedom within limits, using locked doors, required abilities or enemy strength to steer order.
- Linear spine with side content keeps a main story path and surrounds it with optional detours.
- Open maps with guided chapters let players roam but pace the main story by region.
Gates need not be walls. A dangerous area can discourage early visits through its enemies, or a visible but unreachable location can invite a return trip. These soft barriers tend to feel more natural than invisible ones.
Cost, scope and team size
For small teams, scope is a major factor. Linear design usually allows a smaller, more polished game, since every part of the content is likely to be seen. Open design can multiply the amount of content needed, and for a small group it can threaten the schedule. Many first projects benefit from tight scoping, as discussed in advice on project scope, and a short linear game is often easier to finish than a large open one.
Open worlds may also require more technical work, such as loading areas as the player moves, handling many characters at once and making sure they can find routes through the terrain, which draws on character pathfinding. These systems add work for programmers as well as designers.
Production costs overall depend on many factors, and the real numbers vary widely between projects, so it is wise to treat any claim about how much one structure costs compared with another with caution.
Genre and player expectations
Structure often follows genre. Many shooter games lean linear because tightly staged fights suit authored pacing. Role-playing games frequently use open or semi-open structures because exploration and side quests are part of their appeal. Platformer games can go either way: some use sequences of fixed stages, while others offer interconnected worlds to explore.
Player expectations matter as well. Some people want to be guided and enjoy a well-told experience, while others are happiest with a map and no instructions. The right structure depends on the audience and on what the game wants to be.
Choosing a structure
When deciding, designers often ask:
- What experience do we want the player to have: a crafted story or personal discovery?
- Can we fill the space with enough varied content?
- How will we guide players who need direction?
- What can the team realistically build and test?
There is no universal answer, but asking these questions early helps avoid choosing a structure for the wrong reasons.