I think Anchorhead is an incredible accomplishment, and my complaints about it notwithstanding, any IF author should consider themselves proud to make a game that good.
As for the point of this thread, I could imagine someone complaining about Anchorhead that it’s “too linear,” but that’s not my complaint.
Anchorhead combined three factors that I claim don’t combine well together:
- Big, branchy map: You can explore anywhere at any time.
- Linear puzzle progression: You can only work on one puzzle at a time.
- No guidance: There’s no way to know where the current puzzle is; you just have to guess.
I think these three combine badly, but it’s fine to pick any two of these.
-
You can have a linear puzzle progression in a simple, linear map. No need to guide people toward the current puzzle, because it’s right there in front of you.
-
You can have a big, branchy map with a big, branchy puzzle-dependency chart. (That way, you can trust that if you’re facing a puzzle, you can probably solve it.)
-
You can have a linear puzzle progression in a big, branchy map, but then, I think you should provide the player clear hints about what to work on next. For Anchorhead, earlier in the linked thread, I suggested that the dream you have each night should tell you the primary objective for the following day, instead of containing random clues applicable only on later days.
I decided to solve this problem on my own, by creating Invisiclues for Anchorhead.