In telling a story the flow is essential as in more open world games players can travel at their own pace while more linear based games allow the different continuities to prescribe certain emotional moments for the player.
Flow, uh, is an -- is an interesting, uh, thing that we try to struggle with in some of our games, because some of the franchises and genres we've worked with, especially with regards to the tool sets we've been given for actually building the game, they don't necessarily lend themselves to the best forms of flow. And what I mean by that is, um, when we're doing a game - when we're doing an open world-style game like Fallout or like, you know, games similar to Skyrim and Oblivion, um I think that the strength of those games, and correctly so, is that they let the player establish their own flow and their own pace, which I think is the best option. Like let the player take on the world the way they want to at the speed that they want. If they want to go on the main quest, main storyline, great. But otherwise, if they do want to go exploring over that hill or check out that dungeon, even if it may distract them from quote - quote-unquote like the, the main -- the main spine of the plot, that's their choice, and they're empowered to do it. And therefore that flow is correct for them. Um, the only drawback to that is I think the strength of games of like, you know, Call of Duty or more linear-based games is, because they know what the specific level pacing is going to be, they can create some more impactful like, uh, vistas or, uh, emotional vista moments, where a open world game might suffer a bit because it's allowing the player to do detours. But I think that's a good thing for the player. So, I think there's room for both. And I do prefer open world experiences and letting the player set their own pace. But I -- but I do see the strengths in a more sort of linear, um, level-to-level progression too.