Key takeaways
- Control: Resonant removes yellow paint and explicit markers, instead using lighting, architecture, and environmental design to communicate with players.
- Director Kasurinen argues that explicit guidance removes player autonomy, and he prioritizes letting players feel they discovered solutions themselves.
- The approach risks initial frustration but aims to create emotional stickiness through doubt and discovery, encouraging players to return and question their choices.
Control: Resonant represents a philosophical stance on a seemingly small detail: the absence of yellow paint. The open-world sequel to 2019’s Control, now available on consoles and PC, deliberately avoids the bright markers that guide players toward climbable ledges, doorways, and collectibles. Director Mikael Kasurinen recently explained this choice on the Dropping Frames podcast, reframing what many developers treat as an accessibility feature into a question about player autonomy and game design itself.
The Yellow Paint Debate in Modern Design
Yellow paint has become the industry standard for waypoints and interactive elements. The practice accelerated on console generations where resolution and button mapping required extra clarity. Developers reasoned that clear guidance improved pacing and reduced frustration. The method works, which is why it persists.
Industry Standard vs. Remedy’s Approach
Control: Resonant breaks with this convention entirely. Instead of paint, the game uses lighting, architectural cues, and environmental props to suggest where players should explore. Kasurinen called this “a conscious decision, obviously,” meaning the absence of markers was not an oversight or a result of resource constraints. It was deliberate philosophy made concrete in design.
The first thing to notice is scale. Control: Resonant is Remedy’s biggest game, with a map far larger than its 2019 predecessor. Conventional wisdom suggests bigger open worlds need more guidance, not less. Kasurinen moved in the opposite direction.
The Wolverine Comparison
Kasurinen directly referenced Wolverine as a cautionary example. That game uses what he called “fart trails”—visual guidance so explicit that it removes any question about where to go. The comparison isn’t flattering to Wolverine, but it’s instructive. Kasurinen sees Wolverine as the logical endpoint of guidance taken too far. At that extreme, player choice evaporates.
Kasurinen’s Design Philosophy
The director frames his approach around a specific theory of what makes games engaging. He identifies three essential components: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Every successful game combines all three, but they can be balanced differently. Control: Resonant prioritizes autonomy above the others.
Three Pillars of Game Design
Competence means players feel capable of performing actions. A well-designed control scheme, responsive input, and gradual difficulty curve all support competence. In most modern games, yellow paint serves competence—it makes sure players know which surfaces are interactive.
Relatedness means emotional connection to characters and world. It’s the narrative and atmosphere layer.
Autonomy is the sense that the player’s choices matter and that those choices are genuinely theirs to make. This is where yellow paint becomes problematic.
Autonomy as Priority
“It’s so important that the players feel like they’re the ones figuring it out,” Kasurinen said. He argues that a crafted world—one designed by developers with intention—already constrains player choice heavily. Walls, obstacles, locked doors, and gravity all create a predetermined possibility space. What matters is whether the player feels like they’re navigating that space according to their own reasoning or following instructions.
“If it feels like ‘go here,’ it’s not anymore a decision for the player,” he explained. “Somebody already decided for you.” The yellow paint literalizes this. It transforms navigation from interpretation into compliance. The player isn’t solving a puzzle about where to climb; they’re following a marking system. The designer made the decision. The player executes it.
Player Agency and Decision Making
This framework shapes Resonant’s entire design language. The absence of paint forces players into an active relationship with the world rather than a passive one.
The Cost of Over-Guidance
Kasurinen acknowledged that this approach will frustrate some players. Control: Resonant will feel “impenetrable” initially. Players won’t immediately know where to climb or which doors lead somewhere important. The learning curve exists and is steep for some. This alienates people quickly. Kasurinen knows it and accepts it as the cost of maintaining autonomy.
His rationale is simple: a game designed for maximum accessibility and minimum friction is not the same as a good game. One approach optimizes for completion rate; the other optimizes for depth and meaning. The two can coexist but require different philosophies.
Emotional Weight and Replayability
Kasurinen argues that player agency creates emotional investment. A player who discovers a path through exploration feels different from a player who followed a marker. The first one thinks, “Did I make the right choice?” That doubt, that second-guessing, is valuable. It makes the player want to return, to explore again, to see what they might have done differently.
“There’s nothing fucking better than it feels like I found my way to do it,” he said. A game where the designer has already decided the path doesn’t create that feeling. It creates completion. Resonant aims for something stickier: the memory of having made your own decisions and the curiosity about what alternatives existed.
“People will be coming back to this game, exploring, trying to kind of find out things,” Kasurinen explained. The replayability isn’t enforced by multiple endings or hidden content locked behind divergent choices. It emerges naturally from doubt. Did I understand the world correctly? Are there other paths I missed? What if I had gone a different direction?
Environmental Design as Language
Rather than markers, Control: Resonant uses the visual language of spaces themselves. Lighting draws eyes. Architectural placement suggests routes. Props serve as environmental hints. These elements communicate without explicit instruction, requiring players to develop their own understanding of the world.
This strategy assumes that visual design communicates clearly without explicit markers. Light sources, architectural forms, and object placement can all signal where attention should go. The approach requires players to develop interpretive skills, but Kasurinen argues it’s achievable in a well-designed world.
The Risk and The Reward
Kasurinen sums up his philosophy in a final statement: “If you want to get the most out of this world, you have to participate. That’s the key thing.”
This is not a demand for intellectual effort in specific tasks. It’s a demand that players engage with the world on its own terms rather than on terms the designer dictates through visual markers. It’s a high-wire act. Games that trust players this much risk alienating people. But Kasurinen believes the payoff justifies the risk.
“That’s the thing that will truly, at the end of the day, stand the test of time,” he said of this approach. A game you complete following instructions eventually fades. A game where you made choices lingers.
Source: Kotaku
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Control: Resonant's director choose to avoid yellow paint?
Director Mikael Kasurinen made the choice to prioritize player autonomy. He believes explicit direction removes the sense of making meaningful decisions and wants players to feel like they're figuring out the world rather than following instructions.
What does Kasurinen use instead of yellow paint to guide players?
The game uses lighting, architectural placement, and environmental props to suggest where players should explore. These cues require interpretation rather than explicit instruction.
Does Kasurinen acknowledge this approach might frustrate some players?
Yes, he acknowledged that Control: Resonant will feel "impenetrable" initially and can "alienate a lot of people really quickly." However, he believes the resulting emotional investment and replayability justify the risk.
