Please note some minor spoilers for Watch Dogs are included in this piece

About a third of the way through Watch Dogs you receive a phone call from Yolanda, the woman who is caring for your nephew Jackson, telling you that he has run off. After the call ends a text comes in from Jackson telling you that he is surrounded by armed men and Aiden’s response is that he is on his way. At this point a new icon appears on the mini-map pointing out Jackson’s location and the next mission. Just a few moments before this sequence you are also told that you have leads on a human trafficking ring. Again a series of icons show up on the map pointing out the locations of suspected buyers. You are left with a choice; go and save your nephew from the armed men hunting him or explore Chicago and do any number of side activities. I ended up solving the human trafficking case and coming back to save my nephew later.

These moments are fairly common throughout the story in Watch Dogs. The first mission after the game’s opening is teased with a phone call from Jackson’s mother Nicole, reminding you that you are running late for his birthday party. At the same time the game also allows you to begin tackling side missions and collectibles throughout the first district of the city. I spent three or four hours doing all the side content available before actually stepping into the story. Each time I loaded the game back up I got the same phone call reminding me that I the party was almost over. Later on most of the second act revolves around saving your kidnapped sister. Again the dialog and cut scenes stressed the urgency of the situation while the game invited you to spend time playing chess or scanning QR codes.

These types of pacing issues are inherent amongst open world games. Mass Effect 2 makes it very clear that you need to reach Horizon right away so you are present when the Collectors strike. Of course Horizon and the Collectors will be patiently waiting if you decide to explore the galaxy first. The Elder Scrolls series is lauded for the degree of freedom given to the player. The “main” plot is only one of the several stories that the game tells and it lets you move between them at will. These traits are part of the draw for an open world game but the pacing of the main story arc is often a casualty of that freedom.

While open world games have existed for decades the modern open world action game can be considered a direct descendant of Grand Theft Auto III. When breaking down the major elements that make up an open world action game most, if not all, of them were featured in GTA3. The mission based structure, NPC population, drivable vehicles and the concept of a wanted level or legal system were all reasons why GTA3 was critically acclaimed. The game also presented these very same pacing issues. After each mission the game placed the player back into the world with multiple available activities. There was no concession to the story arc being advanced by the missions. While the cut scene may argue that the next mission requires immediate attention the gameplay doesn’t make similar demands.

Fast forward 12 years and Grand Theft Auto V is one of the biggest entertainment launches ever. The days of soulless GTA clones have passed and the open world action game is no longer synonymous with Grand Theft Auto. While a decade ago open world action games were almost always crime games now they range from the Wild West of Red Dead Redemption to the historical periods of the Assassin’s Creed series. The genre has advanced mechanically and technologically but throughout this entire process the same pacing problems present in 2001 still rear their head today. In fact the argument could be made that the pacing issues are even worse as more and more side content has been added over the years.

Breaking down the world

In an open world game so much of the success hinges on creating a living world. The best games in the genre give you the impression that even when you aren’t there to witness it there are still things happening. Whether it’s giving the NPCs a daily schedule like in Skyrim or allowing you to see a small detail about every person you pass on the street in Watch Dogs, the ultimate goal is to make the game world feel alive and believable. With all the effort that goes into building the world it’s disappointing to see much of it undone due to these pacing issues. The open world pacing problem lowers the stakes while also showcasing how dependent the world is on the player.

The best stories in games create a strong emotional investment in the player. As a player you understand and feel the gravity of the situation and fear the consequences. Telltale’s work on The Walking Dead stands out as one of the finest examples of creating an emotional connection with the player. While every game isn’t going to achieve (or necessarily try for) that same connection it still matters. Most of us can think of a game where we suffered through gameplay we didn’t enjoy because of a story that kept us coming back.

The pacing problem makes it more difficult for the player to feel these connections. In the first Watch Dogs example there is no fear for Jackson’s safety. As a player I know that the mission will still be available once I am done engaging in the side content. An argument can be made that the knowledge I have as the player is different than the knowledge of Aiden, the player character. While that is true, the game also doesn’t give me any reason to discount that knowledge. It plainly marks on my map these different diversions and will draw a direct line to them with the touch of a button. Over the course of a game these incidents continue to happen until the player is conditioned to ignore the tone of the narrative. While the characters are stressing that I need to help Jackson now the gameplay has taught me that there is no consequence for ignoring the story mission.

The second area these pacing problems affect is the believability of the world. As discussed previously, the NPCs are an integral part in creating the living world. In Watch Dogs’s Chicago you will witness car accidents, conversations and street crimes that all happen regardless of player interference. The ultimate goal is to create a world where the player can believe that things are still happening, even in the parts of the game world that are being observed. The pacing problems shine a spotlight on the reality that events only happen in the game world when the player is involved.

Again, using the same example from Watch Dogs, Jackson is trapped in a room surrounded by armed men who are ostensibly searching for him. However these enemies are more than happy to wait around until you are ready to deal with them. They exist only to give you something to do, not as living inhabitants of this world. Again, as these incidents add up they paint a picture of a world that revolves around the player rather than a world the player interacts with. Villains have plots that they only advance when you decide it is time to go to the next mission and friends and family have extremely important things to tell you but only when you decide you want to see them. The credibility the world has built is cast into doubt during these moments.

Attempting to solve the problem

It seems obvious that the easiest way to solve the pacing problem would be in writing a better story. It would stand to reason that if you created a strong enough narrative players would be compelled to continue along the critical path rather than get sidetracked. The problem with this “solution” is that it’s abstract and subjective. While there are general concepts of good and bad storytelling it is still not a science. There are going to be several views on what a good story is and isn’t. A bad story won’t help keep players engaged but the greatest story ever still doesn’t mean that people will follow the critical path all of the time.

A potentially valid solution is to do nothing. Ultimately the player is the one deciding to ignore the narrative. You could argue that if played in sequence the main missions form a well-paced story. At the same time the nature of the game gives the player options on how to proceed. This solution asserts that the pacing issues are not a flaw of the game but rather the result of a choice the player is making. I am not a fan of placing the blame on the player for a flaw in the game, especially one so narratively focused. I believe it is possible to have a subtle and more active approach while still maintaining a large degree of player freedom.

One option is to tweak the mission structure slightly to lessen the instances of pacing issues like the ones already mentioned. In mission based games it is generally accepted that you are on one mission at a time. While on that mission other missions and side content are unavailable until the current one is completed. Going back to the previous example the text message from Jackson occurs between missions. After completing a story mission and unlocking new side content the game uses that text as a teaser for the next mission. Instead of using that conversation and text as the teaser a small line from Aiden about needing to check up on Jackson would do the trick. You can then have the mission begin with Yolanda telling Aiden that Jackson is missing and then receiving the text. As the player has started a mission the other side content would be unavailable, encouraging them to focus on the task at hand. This isn’t a perfect solution but having Aiden neglect to visit Jackson seems less preposterous (and maybe more in character) than having him ignore his nephew when he is in immediate danger.

Restricting side content at certain points is another option. Bethesda has used this technique in the most recent Fallout games creating a “point of no return” where you are placed on the critical path from that point on and cannot access other content. Using Watch Dogs as an example, you could make the side content unavailable starting with the prior mission and continuing through the mission where you need to save Jackson. This retains all the benefits of ending a mission; the player can do things such as save the game or buy supplies, without also presenting all of the distractions available outside of missions. Many open world games do this during the early stages and tutorial missions but abandon it after the world opens up.

The downside to restricting side content is that it runs against what many players look for in an open world game. A large part of the appeal of an open world game is all of the content on the periphery. When done well it can enhance the world being presented as well as provide extra entertainment beyond the main story. There will even be some players who may never see the main story and instead focus on the side content and playing around within the world. While it may strengthen pacing, constantly opening up and then closing the content available may also alienate players.

Another potential solution is to create alternate mission paths. If the player takes too long to respond to Jackson’s cry for help the next mission could involve him saving Jackson after he was captured. In this case the game is no longer waiting on the player, after a predetermined interval (elapsed game time, completed side missions, etc.) the game would move on. In this case Jackson’s kidnapper could call you from his phone demanding a ransom; at that point you trace the call and hunt down the kidnappers. Players can still ignore this second mission but the game has established that there are consequences for their actions.

There are two major hurdles with this approach. The first is that content creation is expensive. Each alternate path will likely require new dialog to be recorded and maybe even new cut scenes. Additionally depending on how drastic a change, new objectives and environments may even be needed. If this approach is used across multiple missions it can generate a significant amount of new content, and along with it costs. The second issue is with branching paths. As more and more branches are introduced it becomes harder to reconcile them and provide closure. As the ending of Mass Effect 3 showed it can be almost impossible to create a satisfactory conclusion with so many potential paths for the story to take. Especially with a more linear story it can become difficult to tell that story while also accounting for multiple different outcomes at key points along the way.

At this point the open world pacing problem has become expected. Reviews rarely mention it and it is just assumed to be a part of this type of game. As the technology and hardware improves it has made it possible to create more fully realized worlds. As the technical side continues to evolve it also makes sense to look at improving the ways these stories are told. Part of that improvement involves solving this pacing problem. While these solutions may not be perfect it also isn’t something that we should just accept as a deep rooted and unchangeable part of the genre.