Toggles and options for gameplay.

[paultakeda]

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?
[...]
So, for example, if the default game includes the need to keep track of perishable food and water resources

Actually, the toggle you mention, to me, alters the game significantly. In one you have a resource management aspect that takes away from the experience of sandbox exploration. Having to take care of food and water at that level introduces a different type of gameplay that makes accomplishing certain quests more difficult. If designed that way, great. But if you toggle it off then suddenly that quest just got a whole heck of a lot easier. Game designers, in order to create a good balance for all quests, would have to account for these two scenarios to create an enjoyable experience for both. Often that means compromise and neither is the ideal. That's what I mean by compromising gameplay and taking away dev resources.

Having toggles for types of damage, whether or not there is friendly fire, etc. all change the game design. Yes, you customize the game to the way you want to play it, but in having all these options the vision of the game becomes diluted in an effort to please everyone. This is an accommodate everyone and please no one scenario that I want to avoid.

Turning off blood and gore effects? No issue. Any sort of customization dealing with the UI is not an issue. Even auto-censoring text so words get bleeped or obscured is fine as I don't think any of this affects the gameplay or mood of the game. It's still gritty and dark without blood and cursing.

Also, I think you can have better options via character creation and NPC recruitment. The Fallout perk for making it easier to find ammo to me is a good example of introducing an option via gameplay. It makes the game easier for someone who wants to use guns, but you trade off a point in perk/trait/whatever for it.

[SniperHF]

But if you toggle it off then suddenly that quest just got a whole heck of a lot easier. Game designers, in order to create a good balance for all quests, would have to account for these two scenarios to create an enjoyable experience for both.

Having toggles for types of damage, whether or not there is friendly fire, etc. all change the game design. Yes, you customize the game to the way you want to play it, but in having all these options the vision of the game becomes diluted in an effort to please everyone. This is an accommodate everyone and please no one scenario that I want to avoid.

They DO NOT have to create an enjoyable environment for someone who wants to change all these settings.

And you still haven't explained how it dilutes anything if you do as I suggest, bury the options and make the defaults STRONGLY suggested. Just a player wants to break his game doesn't mean it will affect you necessarily.

Your main issue seems to be the testing and balancing of several different options taking away from the one "true" game mode. But that's not necessarily the case. InXile doesn't have to test these options extensively or take time away from important tasks just because they are included. They can be at the players own risk.

Sports games are the best example of this. MVP baseball 05 has so many toggles you can make it so every player hits like Barry Bonds and every pitcher is worse than the crappiest a ball pitcher. But players aren't openly given this option when playing they have to dig through the menus to mess with these settings. EA didn't try and balance the game at all for the guy who plays with fastball speeds at 1 and contact at 100. But the option is there anyway.

[SDF121]

They DO NOT have to create an enjoyable environment for someone who wants to change all these settings.

And you still haven't explained how it dilutes anything if you do as I suggest, bury the options and make the defaults STRONGLY suggested. Just a player wants to break his game doesn't mean it will affect you necessarily.

Your main issue seems to be the testing and balancing of several different options taking away from the one "true" game mode. But that's not necessarily the case. InXile doesn't have to test these options extensively or take time away from important tasks just because they are included. They can be at the players own risk.

My thoughts exactly. By the way, a few of us were discussing a similar mechanic in the following thread,

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1806

[paultakeda]

They DO NOT have to create an enjoyable environment for someone who wants to change all these settings.

And you still haven't explained how it dilutes anything if you do as I suggest, bury the options and make the defaults STRONGLY suggested. Just a player wants to break his game doesn't mean it will affect you necessarily.

You are describing things that best go with the mod kit. The game is already designed to be a customizable experience simply in the game mechanic of a party system CRPG. All quests and the environment will be designed and intended for this mechanic. If I were a game designer I would not release a game with multiple option toggles and sliders without considering how these options and sliders affect game play. Saying it is at user peril is mod kit thinking, so leave it to the mod kit to expose these changes.

Sports games are the best example of this.

Different game genre. Strategy games also benefit from difficulty settings, particularly where it comes to the AI. A CRPG is a very complex beast, comparatively. Unlike sports or strategy games a CRPG has multiple game modes, from exploration to interaction to combat, that are strung together by a series of narratives. All these sliders and options can typically only affect one or two aspects of the game, which can significantly affect game play as intended.

I get it. You want to play the game you want to play and to have the dev team let you mess with it any way you want. I'm telling you that that's the very definition of gamer entitlement and that I want to play the game inXile wants to make and that any toggle or option that compromises design and/or resources should either be discarded or relegated to the mod kit.

I stress that I object to any that compromises design and/or resources. That means if it's part of the intent then by all means have it in there. Painting my statement as black and white is getting tiresome to correct.

[SniperHF]

They DO NOT have to create an enjoyable environment for someone who wants to change all these settings.

And you still haven't explained how it dilutes anything if you do as I suggest, bury the options and make the defaults STRONGLY suggested. Just a player wants to break his game doesn't mean it will affect you necessarily.

You are describing things that best go with the mod kit. The game is already designed to be a customizable experience simply in the game mechanic of a party system CRPG. All quests and the environment will be designed and intended for this mechanic. If I were a game designer I would not release a game with multiple option toggles and sliders without considering how these options and sliders affect game play. Saying it is at user peril is mod kit thinking, so leave it to the mod kit to expose these changes.

Sports games are the best example of this.

Different game genre. Strategy games also benefit from difficulty settings, particularly where it comes to the AI. A CRPG is a very complex beast, comparatively. Unlike sports or strategy games a CRPG has multiple game modes, from exploration to interaction to combat, that are strung together by a series of narratives. All these sliders and options can typically only affect one or two aspects of the game, which can significantly affect game play as intended.

I get it. You want to play the game you want to play and to have the dev team let you mess with it any way you want. I'm telling you that that's the very definition of gamer entitlement and that I want to play the game inXile wants to make and that any toggle or option that compromises design and/or resources should either be discarded or relegated to the mod kit.

How will it hurt design? you can't prove that at all.
Give a default set of options, then a laundry list of tweaks doesn't hurt you at all. You can't say that it does. It only compromises design if you use them. I could include a slider in Fallout that has enemy damage go from 1-100 just like a sports game. You don't have to use it, but it's there for others.

You just said this effort is allowable in your idea under a mod kit. Well if its in the mod kit then the effort is already there so time is not being wasted. Thus including it in a menu as opposed to a separate kit doesn't change a damn thing.

I fail to see how you have proved your case. You simply keep re-stating it. And not only that but you seem to want the default options foisted on everyone else. Why? I also completely disagree with your assertion that the model in a sports or strategy game can't be used in a CRPG. Just because YOU don't think it will be beneficial does not mean others think so. And by its very nature you don't have to use it. Yet you keep insisting it will affect you in some unknown way by changing design.

And stop calling people who disagree with you entitled.

[SniperHF]

My thoughts exactly. By the way, a few of us were discussing a similar mechanic in the following thread,

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1806

Ya know the thing Is, I'm almost the last guy to use these type of options. But I'm absolutely in favor of them because I know lots of people like to use them. I actually want to play the game InXile created in the best most balanced way possible. I just don't see how including options for other people to break/improve their game as they see fit affects me at all.

[Drool]

How will it hurt design? you can't prove that at all.
Give a default set of options, then a laundry list of tweaks doesn't hurt you at all.

I think Paul's point is that simple tweaks won't hurt game design. A blood/gore option has no effect on gameplay. A difficulty slider that just does an old school 50%/75%/100%/125%/150% foe HP doesn't really effect design (you design at 100% and let the rest fall where they may). Where it hurts game design is when you do a New Vegas style Hardcore mode.

Instead of designing the game, you're now designing two games, because the addition of survivalist elements and the addition of weight to many previously weightless things and the addition of slow-acting consumables changes the balance of the game in wide ranging ways. Focusing just on the survival elements for here, take a look at the original Wasteland (or the original Fallout). They didn't have consumables (aside from Fallout's iguana-on-a-stick and Nuka cola, which were more jokes than anything), but if you add a hardcore survivalist mode, you'd need to add all these items. You'd also need to add hunger and thirst meters. You'd need to spend time balancing the food and water returns of various new items. You'd also need to rebalance the game, as a whole, so that it isn't exceptionally easy without Hardcore but also not exceptionally difficult with it.

A game without those elements -- or with those elements that you can't turn off -- is much easier to balance and design around. And while New Vegas did it (to greater or lesser success), Wasteland 2 has a much smaller budget and a much tighter development schedule. Each additional playstyle added via toggle requires additional design and balance and QA time. Time that can be better spent in other ways. The budget and time pie is a fixed size; the more slices you cut, the less everyone has.

It's like the fable of the old man, his son, and the donkey: Those who try to please everyone please no one.

[SniperHF]

How will it hurt design? you can't prove that at all.
Give a default set of options, then a laundry list of tweaks doesn't hurt you at all.

I think Paul's point is that simple tweaks won't hurt game design. A blood/gore option has no effect on gameplay. A difficulty slider that just does an old school 50%/75%/100%/125%/150% foe HP doesn't really effect design (you design at 100% and let the rest fall where they may). Where it hurts game design is when you do a New Vegas style Hardcore mode.

Instead of designing the game, you're now designing two games, because the addition of survivalist elements and the addition of weight to many previously weightless things and the addition of slow-acting consumables changes the balance of the game in wide ranging ways. Focusing just on the survival elements for here, take a look at the original Wasteland (or the original Fallout). They didn't have consumables (aside from Fallout's iguana-on-a-stick and Nuka cola, which were more jokes than anything), but if you add a hardcore survivalist mode, you'd need to add all these items. You'd also need to add hunger and thirst meters. You'd need to spend time balancing the food and water returns of various new items. You'd also need to rebalance the game, as a whole, so that it isn't exceptionally easy without Hardcore but also not exceptionally difficult with it.

A game without those elements -- or with those elements that you can't turn off -- is much easier to balance and design around. And while New Vegas did it (to greater or lesser success), Wasteland 2 has a much smaller budget and a much tighter development schedule. Each additional playstyle added via toggle requires additional design and balance and QA time. Time that can be better spent in other ways. The budget and time pie is a fixed size; the more slices you cut, the less everyone has.

It's like the fable of the old man, his son, and the donkey: Those who try to please everyone please no one.

I'm not advocating creating entire game modes though, and while Paul may be talking about those too, he's also talking about tweaks.

I say give me a damage slider.
I say have a toggle for friendly fire.
If guns can break, let me shut that off.
If Food/water is part of the default game, let me shut that off.

All of these things certainly can affect balance and Paul seems to be against giving players a menu option to change these things for whatever reason. All of those things can be applied to the same area you mentioned for HP, balance @ 100% and let the chips fall where they may on the rest. You can do the same for those other options.

[paultakeda]

How will it hurt design? you can't prove that at all.

And you can't prove it won't. I'm not foisting anything on everyone else. This game is on a lean budget. If it can accommodate, it can accommodate. But the accommodation of a feature should always be evaluated by looking at how it affects the game.

Think of a toggle that was debated in another thread, where someone wanted to toggle character death. That is a seriously imbalance in how a quest can run if this toggle existed.

It only compromises design if you use them.

Yes, and that's something I would think a game designer would spend time making sure it does not. This is not our sandbox, it is inXile's.

You just said this effort is allowable in your idea under a mod kit. Well if its in the mod kit then the effort is already there so time is not being wasted. Thus including it in a menu as opposed to a separate kit doesn't change a damn thing.

Anything added to the game must be tested. Your statement discounts what I see as integral in game design: making sure all toggles and sliders existing on game release are compatible with the overall game play.

I fail to see how you have proved your case. You simply keep re-stating it.

Mostly because I'm trying to find the right way of stating it so you stop misundestanding it as a black and white issue. Speaking of which:

And not only that but you seem to want the default options foisted on everyone else. Why?

I'm not. I'm saying there are options that work and there are options that fall out of scope and there are options that can be relegated to the mod kit where changes are caveat emptor.

I also completely disagree with your assertion that the model in a sports or strategy game can't be used in a CRPG.

What model? I'm saying difficulty settings are par for the course in games where the game is straightforward. A sports game has sports rules. You are always playing that game. A strategy game even more so. A CRPG has elements in it that are hard to quantify as optional settings. The example above where a toggle for allowing character death is one where in allowing it you would need to make sure, in good game design, that the toggle is compatible with all quests that are in the game.

Just because YOU don't think it will be beneficial does not mean others think so. And by its very nature you don't have to use it. Yet you keep insisting it will affect you in some unknown way by changing design.

I'm not sure where you're getting such an absolute statement from anything I've written.

And stop calling people who disagree with you entitled.

If that's how it read to you then that was not my intent. This is my intent:
Providing toggles and sliders simply so a gamer can change the game play any way they want without regard for game balance or developer intent is gamer entitlement.
Providing toggles and sliders in the game as part of the game design and intent, where the developer wants you to be able to modify these parameters and the game is designed to take them into account, is not gamer entitlement.

I opt for option 2 on game release and option 1 for the mod kit. The reason is straightforward: game development resource management.

How does that in any way, shape or form mean I'm preventing someone from having the game the way they want it?

I say give me a damage slider.
I say have a toggle for friendly fire.
If guns can break, let me shut that off.
If Food/water is part of the default game, let me shut that off.

I say you can have a damage slider and it can even be tied to XP (a la Curse of the Azure Bonds), but within a prescribed range that doesn't break quests.
I say friendly fire on/off is something I'd lean towards having on. This isn't an FPS or RTS. You can sit and think very carefully about AOE damage and line of fire issues, so if you decide to go for it, it's on your head.
I say guns should jam like in WL1 but not break, and if someone wants to deal with repair and maintenance like Fallout 3/NV that's out of scope for the game but in scope for the mod kit.
Food and water should operate on the WL1 canteen mechanic: items are modifiers/nullifiers on environmental effects and skill/attribute checks.

These are what I think. All I care about for the devs is that they make these choices to keep design focus and anything that can go to the mod kit should go to the mod kit. Anything else means more dev time and this game just doesn't have the budget for that. Thankfully, it has the budget to allow us to mess with it post-release; we have the best of both worlds.

[Drool]

Damage and friendly fire would be pretty minor in my mind. Gun breaking would be bigger, as weapons would be balanced with breakage in mind. You could make the Ultimate Pistol Of Universal Annihilation and balance it by making it so fragile that a stiff breeze breaks it. But if you remove weapon breaking, you've now got an insane weapon with its only limitation removed. Imaging if the Euclid thingie from New Vegas that called in orbital strikes had the one-per-day limit removed. Or if it could be used indoors.

And while I called friendly fire minor, I think that a general rule of thumb is that binary toggles are more likely to cause difficulty than actual sliders. Starvation is binary; foe toughness slides.

[SniperHF]

Why should the gamer care about balance or developer intent?
You are using "gamer entitlement" as a pejorative whether you intend to or not. Knock it off.

I agree with you that there is a line where a setting or option does become intrusive.
I'm not familiar with the discussion regarding Character death. If you are talking about NPCs, party members, player created characters that makes a difference. But the line is where my issue is. Developers simply get that wrong a lot and I'd much rather lean toward the player making that decision in every instance possible than having it perma locked. And leaving something for a mod kit is just as good as leaving it permanently locked. Mods are not the norm for most players.

Let me break the game if I want to. They don't have to play test a toggle for allowing deaths of characters if they don't want to other than that it works or not. Whether it breaks quests, makes the game un-winnable, or even just significantly harder is of no consequence to the person not using that toggle. Warning the player of those consequences is more than sufficient IMO. I think the fallacy here is assuming the game has to work in every instance. It doesn't. That was exactly my point with the sliders in MVP 05. None of them changed the rules as you put it, but all of them could significantly alter the game to the point of making it un-winnable. I don't see why you can't extend that same courtesy to the actual rules.

[paultakeda]

You are using "gamer entitlement" as a pejorative whether you intend to or not.

It is intended.

Let me break the game if I want to.

This is where we disagree. I want my best foot forward. No matter how many disclaimers you put, if the game is breakable via built-in menus it is going to reflect badly on the developer.

I think the fallacy here is assuming the game has to work in every instance. It doesn't.

If I create something, I want to make sure anything I willingly allow to be altered must work in every instance. Modding/hacking is different and welcome, but I'm not going to introduce an options menu that can break the game. To me, that's bad design.

[WCG]

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.

I agree. I don't give a damn how anyone else wants to play a game, and I don't want anyone - even the game developers - telling me how I have to play it.

Oh, sure, it's their vision. No problem. But where you can include options, do it. (And when it comes to difficulty settings, let me change them during the game, if it's too tough or too easy for me.) After all, if a player doesn't want to change the options, he doesn't have to. Anyone can just leave them on the default setting, if they wish.

But for chrissake, it's just a game! Are you really that concerned how someone else is playing it? If so, I might suggest getting a life.

[Drool]

I agree. I don't give a damn how anyone else wants to play a game, and I don't want anyone - even the game developers - telling me how I have to play it.

At what point are there too many options? What if someone wants an FPS? Should there be an option to switch to FPS? After all, what right does anyone have to tell them they're playing it wrong?

[Krisko1974]

I agree to most people here about difficulty-sliders:

Like in old times, there should only be ONE difficulty. No easy mode, no nightmare mode, no choice for the player to change the balance of the game.

Difficulty-settings are a plague to modern games. Frankly, I never know what to chose...chose an easy setting to enjoy the plot? But then maybe the game gets boring. Or chose a hard one? But then maybe I might get frustrated and discontinue playing.
And I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks like this.

So, go back to the roots and present the game like YOU - the developers - intended for it to be.
And that means: YOU chose the difficulty and the balance for the game.

Or in short: Please implement only ONE difficulty setting.

[Mandemon]

Difficult settings are there to offer players the experience they want. Easy for those who want to skim trough the game, hard for those are in for challenge. You want blend? Play normal. Because I always take normal as "Developer intended". If you feel game is too easy, change difficult to harder.

Single difficult setting makes game static, always offering the same challenge, or less as you get better.

[Krisko1974]

Single difficult setting makes game static, always offering the same challenge, or less as you get better.

Sorry, I disagree.
For many years, games only had one difficulty, and it didn't make them static because the difficulty increased in the course of the game because the developer know that the player gets better over time, thus he makes later levels etc. more difficult.

The old Wasteland is a good example. Even for rookies, it was easy to "clear" Quartz or Camp Highpool. The more you come around in the game, the more difficult everything will get. Needles being difficult, after that Las Vegas, even more, and so on.

I'd like to compare games to movies: the best experience is (generally) always to consume it the way the game- or movie makers intended it.

Sure, you can switch to "Easy" and lose some fun - and on a DVD, you can skip 10 minutes that you think are boring, but it kinda ruins the whole picture if you understand what I mean.

IMO, difficulty settings are one of the biggest steps towards casualisation of games.

[Mandemon]

Then we have to agree to disagree. I think difficult settings are good. You don't. We can argue this as much as we want, never reaching consensus. I fail so see how games becoming casual is bad in itself, would you rather have games as niche market, forever laughed and insulted? Or would you rather have them rise to same position books and movies are hold these days?

BTW, you are also self-evidently and irredeemably wrong. I know this because I am right.

[TheEmissary]

I think some elements should be set as on or off by default. I agree there should be a base mode for the game be designed around and one that gives the player a good experience. Things like the Damage multipliers, NPC/Party friendly fire, or drop rates could be instead altered to make the game harder not easier. The game should be balanced to its base mode not the other harder modes.

I am not sure how Toggles and Options are "Gamer Entitlement" features as they have been around as long as most CRPG. Everyone approaches or plays a game differently and there is no pefect one size fits all. The options try to give the player the challenge they want.

[paultakeda]

I am not sure how Toggles and Options are "Gamer Entitlement" features

When a toggle or options is put in the game when it does not fit the game design but rather is put in to try and please the audience. What I wrote was, "This era of gamer entitlement has led to the automatic assumption that there are modes, that there are toggles."