For a choice to be meaningful, for the making of it to be worth consideration at all, requires that it be an informed one. We need to have an idea of the consequences of any choice, there needs to be a discernible difference between taking one action over another. An uninformed choice isn’t really a choice at all. When random chance is as likely to give you a desired outcome as any act of intent then there is no decision to make and the term choice is a misleading one.
Is clarity of consequence alone enough to make a choice meaningful?
In strictly logical terms having two different choices with near identical outcomes means you don’t really have two choices at all. If both possibilities lead to the same result what is the purpose of selecting one over the other? Redundant choices provide multiple means of attaining the same outcome, so why offer redundant choices?
Removing redundant choices improves the clarity of those that remain. Free of redundancy there is a one to one relationship between actions and consequences. From a logical perspective this feels like a sensible design decision, prune away all non-meaningful, uninformed, or redundant choices.
Of course there is a problem here, one I would hope is obvious, life is rarely logical. Life is full of redundancy, multiple different types of objects that all perform the same basic function, multiple different brands of baked beans or washing powder that all serve the same purpose and cost approximately the same. Why is it important that we have this ability to choose between functional similar but superficially different options? It helps us to define our identity, our character.
Our selection of one particular choice over another is not necessarily about the objective worth of the product we are choosing so much as what it means to us in a subjective sense. We choose because we can, and what we choose says much about our character.
Redundant choices reduce clarity and complicate the logical relationships between choices and consequences. On the other hand such choices serve to aid characterisation, and improve verisimilitude.
So which is better characterisation or clarity? Is it possible to have both? Most games seem to settle for allowing redundant choices but this can lead to a sensation that all choices are fundamentally superficial.
One game that attempted a reduction in redundant options and a focus on clarity over variety was Deus Ex: Invisible War. Unfortunately it’s very difficult to analyse those specific elements in isolation given the provocative nature of that title.
A case of Reductio ad Invisible War? If it was in that game it must be a failure? Or is the general consensus an indication of what happens when you strip away redundant options, a game loses its sense of character, of nuance, and becomes instead mechanical and artificial?
Regardless, the character defining benefits of redundant choices shouldn’t be overlooked.
2 replies on “Redundant?”
Redundant choices can still be there if you make the connection between the non-reduncant choices and the consequences very very clear.
IMO the reductionism of basic mechanics in DX:IW greatly improved the intuitiveness and comfort of gameplay (with a number of exceptions, like universal ammo), but was very contraproductive in areas such as level design, interactivity and (sometimes) balance. Reduction of redundant elements in favor of useful ones would help many games, especially RPGs, where there is often little appeal in sub-optimal progress (that is apparent through imbalance, like having rifle skill and unicycle-mounted bazooka skill in the same category). Designers must be careful in the implementation though..