The Future of Single-Player Games (part 4)

Open-world games are often extremely successful when compared with more static, linear experiences. When I've played through a linear singleplayer story campaign in a game and finished the story, there is seldom any reason for me to go back and play the game again. Gamers often sell their games back to the store after solving them. The video game retailer, Gamestop, buys used games and a large portion of their returned inventory are singleplayer, linear, story-driven games. Developers have been figuring out how to keep players engaged long after the story is over by investing more in the open-world environments and side-quests, but how is this affecting the stories being told through the game? Pacing changes a great deal if players are allowed to pursue the story arc at their leisure—a distracting side-quest here, a few item collection runs there, and suddenly the urgency of the story fades from memory. It's interesting how the story can eventually become a reason to keep playing the game after a player has gotten the wanderlust out of his system in the open-world. At least, until a new environment is unlocked through the story—then the story is often put on hold as the player is off to explore again. Story is crucial to a game, but locking players into the story without giving them the freedom to experience the game world on their own terms is starting to look like a bad game-design choice. What do you think?