Expensive modern cars have an adaptive suspension: you let the driver decide what kind of suspension they want and there is inherent value in that.
The goal of a game usually is to entertain and give the players a great experience. This of course means also you design to avoid certain player strategies like repetitive grinding or things that are most certainly no fun, but for some reason work all the time (think of a fighting game where you can win by smashing the same attack all the time).
However if you only allow for one playstyle without real reasons, you create a game that works well for one kind of player, while everybody else will feel that the game forces them into actions they don't really want to do that way. The game feels off for them.
So if a game designer can allow multiple playstyles at once without big downsides to the main intended one, there is literally no reason not to do it. You can find ways to allow multiple playstyles without sacrificing anything in a game, just like there are films that work for multiple target audiences at once, because everybody sees something else in it they like.
I think these dichotomies are way to present in many forms of design – we think we have to choose one or the other, while we could achieve both if we really tried.
I think the suspension idea fails here, because in the case of run-and-gun vs. cautious, a player that prefers one style will always prefer that style, whereas a driver will sometimes want comfort and sometimes want performance.
> So if a game designer can allow multiple playstyles at once without big downsides to the main intended one, there is literally no reason not to do it.
There's always the downside of extra work, at the very least. Sometimes 'multiple playstyles' is a design decision, but that needs to be the case from the very beginning. And sometimes, the design decision is 'run-and-gun,' and everything follows from there. Games that try to do everything tend to do nothing well.
There's another disadvantage of allowing cautious play: Even players who would be having more fun running-and-gunning may identify (or misidentify) cautious play as optimal play. As a result, you've designed a game that works against itself by incentivizing players to have less fun.
Don't you find that just run-and-gun gets boring, you want a change of pace, to choose sometimes to do a section of a [FPS] game stealthily, sometimes dynamic, and sometimes just tank it?
For me, it's good to force a certain style of play sometimes. One of the things I really liked about Deus Ex was that run-and-gun just left you overwhelmed at times, resources or floorplan could force stealth in some sections of the game.
To quote myself:
> Sometimes 'multiple playstyles' is a design decision
That's Deus Ex. But it doesn't have to be Doom.
A game forcing you to change tacks doesn't mean the same thing as it giving you options.
And no, I don't necessarily think run-and-gun always gets boring, and you need to add stealth segments, or a car chase, or whatnot. You can keep it fresh without changing the premise, I don't think 'run-and-gun' is so narrow a definition that you need to change the pace entirely in order to keep it fresh. No-one ever levels this criticism at racing games, platformers, Tetris, etc.
I get a bit frustrated when I'm forced to play a stealth section in an action game. They usually feel slow, forced, obviously scripted, and a lazy way of cleansing the player's palate. For it to feel any good, it needs to be a core design principle (see, for example, Metal Gear Solid), not a tedious half-level (before some inevitable scripted scene allows and forces you to exit stealth mode).
The goal of a game usually is to entertain and give the players a great experience. This of course means also you design to avoid certain player strategies like repetitive grinding or things that are most certainly no fun, but for some reason work all the time (think of a fighting game where you can win by smashing the same attack all the time).
However if you only allow for one playstyle without real reasons, you create a game that works well for one kind of player, while everybody else will feel that the game forces them into actions they don't really want to do that way. The game feels off for them.
So if a game designer can allow multiple playstyles at once without big downsides to the main intended one, there is literally no reason not to do it. You can find ways to allow multiple playstyles without sacrificing anything in a game, just like there are films that work for multiple target audiences at once, because everybody sees something else in it they like.
I think these dichotomies are way to present in many forms of design – we think we have to choose one or the other, while we could achieve both if we really tried.