Toggles and options for gameplay.

[paultakeda]

Rabid discussions end up with the "Can't we just get along" post, "How about it be a toggle/option/NG+/mode?"

This era of gamer entitlement has led to the automatic assumption that there are modes, that there are toggles. This attitude of accommodating everyone and pleasing no one is pretty much why so many games today feel so thin. Too much time is spent on all the ways a gamer wants to play the game that the design of the game doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Wasteland 2 is going to bring back a classic genre of RPG. I want the devs to concentrate on as balanced a game as they can get. That means no options or toggles or modes that significantly alter a balance established by the game design or significantly affect the division of resources for game development.

Besides, we hit the $3 million mark, the stretch goal of a mod kit is achieved. Design that well and all sorts of alternative forms of play can be created by both the devs and by the fans.

Design a great game system, design a comprehensive mod/construction tool set. Release the game as intended to be played and let us play it, then release the mod kit and have those that want all these options and toggles and even harder combat modes, etc. have their fun.

Win-win.

[Lucius]

I'm not necessarily opposed to options but I'd like a setting that the developers "intends" for the game to be played and for the game to be designed with this setting solely in mind. However, all these options could be just modded it in later for those that want them. I guess the developers really should weigh the difficulty of implementing toggles and leave out those that would take the most dev time.

[suz]

That's a good idea. However some things can't be implemented as mods. Stealth, weapon improvements, crafting, procedural NPCs. and that's just a few topics I visited recently, none can be implemented as a mod.

[Color Blotch]

Agreed. "Everything optional" is one of typical design anti patterns. It's a crutch used to substitute for proper design decision on developer's part. One great example was X-COM:Apocalypse. It was a fairly good game, but also hated by many. And the reason for that was because developers couldn't decide whether they want real time combat or turn based combat. They ended up having both, but only did one part right, so all the unlucky ones who tried playing it turn based had some of the worst playing experiences ever and were not happy about it at all. Plus a lot of stuff about that game felt incomplete, which most likely had to do with limited time and resources being spread over too many routes.

However some things can't be implemented as mods. Stealth, weapon improvements, crafting, procedural NPCs. and that's just a few topics I visited recently, none can be implemented as a mod.

Everything that can't be implemented as a mod will have to go. The options here are either we want the game not to contain some of the features some people (sometimes unrealistically) want, or is it going to be broken for everyone.

However most of this stuff is just developer's 101. It might be a matter of discussion for us, but nothing new for Wasteland 2 development team. I believe we have ourselves covered here.

[Drool]

That's a good idea. However some things can't be implemented as mods. Stealth, weapon improvements, crafting, procedural NPCs. and that's just a few topics I visited recently, none can be implemented as a mod.

Rather depends on how extensive the tools are. Using the Elder Scrolls Construction Kit, people have done full conversions of the games, especially Morrowind.

[suz]

Plus a lot of stuff about that game felt incomplete, which most likely had to do with limited time and resources being spread over too many routes.

I'm not advocating for spreading resources throughout all kinds of endeavors.
What I'm advocating for is implementing moderate amount of game mechanics.
A huge amount of quests with little game mechanics would resemble at best - a point and click adventure at worst a book with pictures.

There's lots of stuff that's best to be left for modders, but if the core isn't there then you can't mod it. However good the kit is. Modding increases game lifespan a few times, morrowind was still alive a couple of year ago when I checked it and it was decently replayable.

Rather depends on how extensive the tools are. Using the Elder Scrolls Construction Kit, people have done full conversions of the games, especially Morrowind.

IIRC that was mostly a mesh/texture/shader upgrade, not really core mechanics modding. While the mwse/obse did enhance the modding toolkit, they were still very limited.

[Color Blotch]

Plus a lot of stuff about that game felt incomplete, which most likely had to do with limited time and resources being spread over too many routes.

I'm not advocating for spreading resources throughout all kinds of endeavors.
What I'm advocating for is implementing moderate amount of game mechanics.
A huge amount of quests with little game mechanics would resemble at best - a point and click adventure at worst a book with pictures.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The point isn't whether this or that feature should make it into the game and how complex the game mechanics should be as result. Maybe we should incorporate every suggestion on this board, I don't know and it's not for me to decide. The point is that for each and every such feature there should be a concrete decision - it either makes it into the game or it doesn't.

[paultakeda]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The point isn't whether this or that feature should make it into the game and how complex the game mechanics should be as result. Maybe we should incorporate every suggestion on this board, I don't know and it's not for me to decide. The point is that for each and every such feature there should be a concrete decision - it either makes it into the game or it doesn't.

A reasonably comprehensive mod/construction kit would allow you to modify the attribute/stat charts globally, either to decrease or increase the saving throw requirement. You could also individually modify the stats of a particular quest or character, friendly or not. New skills and new environmental variables could also be introduced provided they operate within the scope of the RPG mechanic.

I can see survivalist modes where items need to be consumed to keep health and extra hardcore modes where combat difficulty is ramped being easily modded. I can even see someone gimping the save mechanic to just a single auto-save slot.

What I think is out of scope for the mod kit is provide tools that fundamentally change the game. For instance, to convert turn-based into realtime based combat or adding more tactical movement may not be possible as this involves more than just tweaking. Perhaps the camera is fixed to two or three views and that can't be altered so no FPV or maximum bird's eye can be achieved.

Basically, any major, fundamental aspect of the game that is heatedly discussed on the boards (and perhaps within the dev team) will end up with an either/or decision by inXile and the mod kit is not an option for the loser. A total conversion kit, maybe, but that's not in the cards for the allocated funds.

[jonny_p66]

I would actually want the opposite of this.

Always in games it annoys me that I can't customize it just the way I want.

IMO there should be as many easy to access options as possible, all with default settings and a big reset button.

Plenty of options is potentially one of the best ways to fix nit-picking problems that could plague the game.

I can see the idea behind artistic integrity and delivering a fixed experience, but at the end of the day it's just a game, and touch on wood it'll be classic, but, if it turns out to be a mediocre experience, a complete lack of options and customizability could kill it stone dead *cough rage cough*

[abyss]

I would actually want the opposite of this.

Always in games it annoys me that I can't customize it just the way I want.

IMO there should be as many easy to access options as possible, all with default settings and a big reset button.

Plenty of options is potentially one of the best ways to fix nit-picking problems that could plague the game.

I can see the idea behind artistic integrity and delivering a fixed experience, but at the end of the day it's just a game, and touch on wood it'll be classic, but, if it turns out to be a mediocre experience, a complete lack of options and customizability could kill it stone dead *cough rage cough*

No need to worry.

" The aim for Wasteland 2 is to create an entirely customizable experience: 'the entire experience in itself is one big customizable feature.'"

-Brian Fargo

[Ronin73]

In general I like options when setting up a game. What I don't like is the ability to change it after the fact. For me, that just defeats the purpose of offering the options in the first place.

I'm more than happy to live with the choices as long as they are made by me and not forced upon me.

As far as playing the game as it was intended is concerned, I have always considered (perhaps incorrectly) the default settings as intended and it's always been the way I have judged games.

[paultakeda]

No need to worry.

" The aim for Wasteland 2 is to create an entirely customizable experience: 'the entire experience in itself is one big customizable feature.'"

-Brian Fargo

Yes, because the party system is conducive to changing how you play the game, not because you want to tweak the game mechanics.

I support that. I do not support needlessly changing the rules of the game.

[abyss]

What I don't like is the ability to change it after the fact. For me, that just defeats the purpose of offering the options in the first place.

Agreed. Being able to toggle difficulty on the fly often means the mechanics shallow. I appreciate the roguelike mentality - set up your game, live with all your choices.

In Fallout 1/2/T, enemies did more targeted attacks and used more consumables on higher difficulties, as well as getting better rolls to everything. Personally, I'd like it better if enemies used more abilities and tactics, more than straight damage/to-hit boosts.

Yes, because the party system is conducive to changing how you play the game, not because you want to tweak the game mechanics.

I support that. I do not support needlessly changing the rules of the game.

When you have Brian Fargo emphasizing in interviews that the "entire experience" is "entirely customizable", it means that you can expect more than just basic party creation.

Many players find default difficulty unchallenging and boring. Just as many struggle with default, or hate dying. Not including difficulty options would be suicide, and going by their track record, the reformed Black Isle team understands that.

It's a bit silly to pretend options and toggles haven't been around for-fucking-ever (Pool of Radiance says hi), only expected by gamers from a new era of "entitlement" (my God, if "entitlement" isn't becoming the most randomly bandied, overused meme on the internet). Classic RPGs originate from PnP games run by DMs, experiences that were custom tailored to the party playing.

However, if Wasteland 2 somehow ends up only having one sadistic, ball-busting, Dark Souls difficulty, where you have to plan for everything, discovering and refining new tactics through numerous deaths, I'd be for that too

[paultakeda]

When you have Brian Fargo emphasizing in interviews that the "entire experience" is "entirely customizable", it means that you can expect more than just basic party creation.

Aside from character creation and UI picks, here is what he said:

the entire experience in itself is one big customizable feature

That just sounds like playing the game the way you want to in a sandbox environment, not using options to change table values.

It's a bit silly to pretend options and toggles haven't been around for-fucking-ever (Pool of Radiance says hi), only expected by gamers from a new era of "entitlement" (my God, if "entitlement" isn't becoming the most randomly bandied, overused meme on the internet). Classic RPGs originate from PnP games run by DMs, experiences that were custom tailored to the party playing.

Sure. I'm not pretending options and toggles did not exist in the past. I just don't want "options or toggles or modes that significantly alter a balance established by the game design or significantly affect the division of resources for game development."

However, if Wasteland 2 somehow ends up only having one sadistic, ball-busting, Dark Souls difficulty, where you have to plan for everything, discovering and refining new tactics through numerous deaths, I'd be for that too

So would I.

[Psychochink_]

However, if Wasteland 2 somehow ends up only having one sadistic, ball-busting, Dark Souls difficulty, where you have to plan for everything, discovering and refining new tactics through numerous deaths, I'd be for that too

So would I.

Whereas I, and I'd wager the majority of other people, would be pissed. It's one of the reasons that I've never given Dark Souls a look, despite the many glowing reviews.

Given the average age of backers is probably even older than me, I'd wager most of us just don't have the time to spend countless hours on trial and error to get things right. We're all grown up these days.

What with work, household chores, spending quality time with the wife, etc. I can maybe grab about 5-8 hours a week to play games (and that's on a decent week, total time spent gaming last week = 0.0 hours). And I don't even have kids.

Frankly, a ball-busting game with a set difficulty is never going to get played in my house. Just like I no longer have the luxury of even considering starting a Civilisation campaign, unless I want to be at it for the next year. Give me difficulty toggles/sliders, so I can actually tailor what I'm playing to my available resources. If the wife travels interstate for work one weekend, I can crank it up. If I'm grabbing a desperate hour in the evening before having to go to bed for work the next day, I probably just want to progress the game a bit.

And I really don't want to have to waste my valuable time screwing around with the mod kit so I can play the game the way I want to play it, just because it's been designed to cater to the 'hardcore' market.

Edit: Now you kids get off my lawn.

[SniperHF]

Having optional changes to the game do not preclude a true balanced mode where the gameplay was developed and tested in. Just notify the player of which mode is the best one in the strongest words possible. Also bury the options and don't have them pop up during the *new game* phase.

Options aren't just for those who want to break balance ya know. They are also for people who hate something specific and want to remove it, or want to increase challenge from the menus. Most people aren't going to whip out a mod kit to do it so that's not even relevant. One of the most famous options is area of effect spells in D&D. In the true mode they should damage your own party. However in the case of the real time D&D games like Baldurs gate or NWN2 you can end up accidentally killing your own party pretty easily. So it's off by default. But those who want to play with friendly damage can turn it on. It just works.

I think the OP is just taking the idea of optional difficulty changes negatively altering balance a few steps too far. In most situations where there are difficulty options developers work with a standard set in mind and those end up defaults.

[paultakeda]

And I really don't want to have to waste my valuable time screwing around with the mod kit so I can play the game the way I want to play it, just because it's been designed to cater to the 'hardcore' market.

Edit: Now you kids get off my lawn.

The game I want to play is the game inXile designs, not a bunch of sliders that compromise the balance of gameplay, sacrificed in an attempt to please everyone, which to me has just gotten worse over time and turned modern gaming into a wasteland of mediocre games.

So, really, you get off MY lawn.

[Psychochink_]

So do you refuse to play Fallout 1 & 2, because they have difficulty sliders and that offends you?

[paultakeda]

So do you refuse to play Fallout 1 & 2, because they have difficulty sliders and that offends you?

Not at all. This is not a black and white topic:

I want the devs to concentrate on as balanced a game as they can get. That means no options or toggles or modes that significantly alter a balance established by the game design or significantly affect the division of resources for game development.

The second sentence is my gray area. 1) no sliders that compromise game design and 2) no sliders that cause more dev time.

Having the ability to customize the game completely with a multitude of sliders is a far cry from choosing between Easy, Normal, and Hard.

I still lean toward there just being a Normal and that it is fairly hard (not stupid hard where combat with rats becomes a grind), but that's more because I want a bigger world with more content over difficulty modes. That's my priority.

[Psychochink_]

So if you're not objecting (in a big way) to difficulty sliders, what kinds of things are you talking about, i.e. when you say "customise the game completely", to what extent are we talking, here?

The other thing to keep in mind is that it shouldn't take away from game resources to have the option to turn certain features off, instead of enabling them.

So, for example, if the default game includes the need to keep track of perishable food and water resources (to use something that I've seen mentioned on these forums), then simply enabling the player to switch that option off does not take any particular effort. If, on the other hand, the default game does not include the need to do that, then obviously it would take development time to include an option to turn it on.

[Sure, it would have the side effect of decreasing the game difficulty. However, particularly for controversial aspects of the game such as the above, there's no practical reason not to give the option.]