Toggles and options for gameplay.

[BentSea]

Wow.. I completely disagree. Toggles are not about anti game design, they are not even about appeasing the audience. They're about diversifying a gaming experience by making the clockwork underneath somewhat transparent on a scale that lets people get more out of their experience. A core balanced gaming experience is completely subjective of a term, and in the context of arguing against toggles is pretty useless.

Toggles and options broaden the experience, and as much as they make the game available to people they otherwise would not be available they extend the core experience for gamers who can find more than one way to play the game. They are good game design when thoughtfully implemented and they are an acknowledgement that the fundamental systems that make a game great have a broader application that can be approached on multiple levels, vastly increasing the scope of a game with little effort.

Only a "normal" mode is meant to be "balanced" from the perspective of the core audience. Things like hard difficulty and easy difficulty imply in their very name that they are unbalanced toward the player or against the player.

Variables like those and other toggles in games today are not appeasement, they are progress toward better game design and adding value to the players.

[Color Blotch]

But for chrissake, it's just a game!

Yes, and people here are concerned what kind of just a game it's going to be: just a good game, or just a bad one. Adding every feature that sounds nice and then putting it on the player to make sense of this terrible mess has proven to be an excellent way to make just a very bad game indeed.

[TheEmissary]

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."

First of all throwing out "gamer entitlement" is like saying the gamer's are spoiled brats or whining for no reason. I have seen that term thrown out far too much that it could mean anything. One could argue the whole point of Kickstarter was to allow the developer to not only get directly funded but to get more in tune with what the community wants. By your definition you could argue the whole concept of the forums is gamer entitlement.

If you want to say they shouldn't be added because they would introduce additional bugs then that may be a fair argument against. I don't for one moment agree with the idea that they interfere with the design of the game in any major way.

[BentSea]

First of all throwing out "gamer entitlement" is like saying the gamer's are spoiled brats or whining for no reason. I have seen that term thrown out far too much that it could mean anything. One could argue the whole point of Kickstarter was to allow the developer to not only get directly funded but to get more in tune with what the community wants. By your definition you could argue the whole concept of the forums is gamer entitlement.

Excellent point. It's an attitude that one person likes playing their games the "right" way and another doesn't. It's counter to the meaning and purpose of playing games. It's dead wrong. Gaming is about playing with interconnected systems in ways that inspire and challenge.

I'm also getting tired of hearing people wave the budget of the game around as a shield against ideas. We, from the outside, do not have access to the budget, we do not know what everything costs, or the methods. If inXile can't afford it, they wont implement it, this space is about debating ideas for other merits. If it's used as a given limiting factor in a question of say, "Would you rather have voice acting or three new cities and you could only have one" it means something, but to just say that a feature isn't worth thinking about off hand and claiming scarce resources for a reason is not in the spirit of generating ideas and opinions about what people feel they want to see.

inXile said what type of game they wanted to make, and they said they wanted to listen to their backer base about what they wanted in broad strokes for the game. They want to deliver a game that meets the general desires of as many backers as possible, and as many people on top of that as possible. It's cool that they're listening to ideas. It's even cooler that they may decide to implement some ideas.

I generally feel that the "avoid" forum is for people to say what they don't want to see because they don't like it on a core experience level. Like, "I hate boss fights that don't let me deal with them through the characters that I've created to deal with the environment in alternative ways. Deus Ex: HR did that, and it let me create a character that was very good at dealing with the rest of the world, but then couldn't beat the bosses and I did not like that feeling at all." Alternately, the "include" forum is for things that people specifically like.. "I liked hardcore mode in NV, it let me approach the game in a whole new way that I found a TON of fun, and I want to experience that again in another game that shares some world building ideas"

This feels like, "I don't like the way other people want to play the game," to me.

[Color Blotch]

Toggles and options broaden the experience, and as much as they make the game available to people they otherwise would not be available they extend the core experience for gamers who can find more than one way to play the game. They are good game design when thoughtfully implemented and they are an acknowledgement that the fundamental systems that make a game great have a broader application that can be approached on multiple levels, vastly increasing the scope of a game with little effort.

True. Now, the actual question is - how much does it cost to "thoughtfully" implement n gameplay toggles. A thoughtful implementation means that developer takes an obligation to make sure that game plays properly with every setting in every possible combination. With 1 toggle there is twice as much testing and fixing. With 3 toggles - 8 times as much. With 10 toggles - 1024 times the testing and fixing work. And that even disregarding the kind of situation in which a particular game mechanic becomes completely broken with certain combination of toggles and needs to be completely reworked to accommodate for this. Does it sound particularly cost efficient?

[BentSea]

True. Now, the actual question is - how much does it cost to "thoughtfully" implement n gameplay toggles. A thoughtful implementation means that developer takes an obligation to make sure that game plays properly with every setting in every possible combination. With 1 toggle there is twice as much testing and fixing. With 3 toggles - 8 times as much. With 10 toggles - 1024 times the testing and fixing work. And that even disregarding the kind of situation in which a particular game mechanic becomes completely broken with certain combination of toggles and needs to be completely reworked to accommodate for this. Does it sound particularly cost efficient?

That depends 100% on the toggle. That logic is linear and it assumes that all toggles stack and affect the game world in similar ways, and moreover that they aren't mechanics that are already in the game and have been adjusted for balance. In that case, they already exist and have already been tested functional and are at a default setting for the specific purposes of keeping the difficulty approachable.

Take survival mode... if a core feature set of the gameplay is being able to eat food, and being able to sleep(for whatever set of side effects it produces), drink irradiated water, and healing over time instead of not healing over time, and all those effects are already kept track of, and how often you do them are tallied, in a world that is already populated with the items and sleep locations for purposes of world immersion, then the programming to create a survival mode might be as simple as writing a function that takes a few hours or days. Maybe it takes months, but who knows... you'd have to know how the code works at a fundamental level. WE(that is to say you and I) don't know. You'd be surprised what incredibly complex changes come from just adjusting different systems and seeing how they interact together. Your argument makes fallacious assumptions and reasoning. Moreover it discourages the discussion of ideas.

A lot of people want things that you can't get a whole lot of places, but all have some common roots with a game like this, it's not unreasonable to ask for it to try and give as many of them as possible the game that they want.

I have faith that inXile knows where to draw the line. THey are creating a detailed design document, they have their core set of game philosophies. If they can't put it in, and if it's not a good value, then I trust they wont waste time and financing on it.

[Harpo]

I would like some toggles. Especially for supply scarcity and similar stuff. Yes, it will affect game balance - that's the point! I don't toggle on _scarce resources_ because I want a balanced experience - I toggle it on because I think it will enhance my gaming experience or because I think the _normal_ mode is the one that is unbalanced (too easy in this case).

And no, I am not convinced that InXile will be able to deliver a balanced gaming experience. For instance, I think there's a great risk that you end up with an abundance of ammo, money and medical supplies huge enough to completely spoil the difficulty of the game, making the end game a boring nobody-can-hurt-me-ever-run-through. They didn't get that right in any of the other post-apoc games, so why the high faith now all of a sudden?

[Color Blotch]

you'd have to know how the code works at a fundamental level. WE(that is to say you and I) don't know.

It just so happens that I do know how code works, it's what I do for living.

You'd be surprised what incredibly complex changes come from just adjusting different systems and seeing how they interact together.

Aren't you kind of shooting your argument in the foot here?

Your argument makes fallacious assumptions and reasoning.

Me mentioning that you need to test your software or it's not going to work properly is fallacious? Well, ok.

[Color Blotch]

I would like some toggles. Especially for supply scarcity and similar stuff. Yes, it will affect game balance - that's the point! I don't toggle on _scarce resources_ because I want a balanced experience - I toggle it on because I think it will enhance my gaming experience or because I think the _normal_ mode is the one that is unbalanced (too easy in this case).

And no, I am not convinced that InXile will be able to deliver a balanced gaming experience. For instance, I think there's a great risk that you end up with an abundance of ammo, money and medical supplies huge enough to completely spoil the difficulty of the game, making the end game a boring nobody-can-hurt-me-ever-run-through. They didn't get that right in any of the other post-apoc games, so why the high faith now all of a sudden?

What you ask can easily be fixed with a mod. And no, I don't realistically expect the game to be perfectly balanced, but somewhat balanced, for as long as developers focus on polishing core gameplay, is perfectly achievable. And somewhat balanced beats completely off-the-wall broken any day.

[suz]

you'd have to know how the code works at a fundamental level. WE(that is to say you and I) don't know.

It just so happens that I do know how code works, it's what I do for living.

Might want to look up what unit testing is then, it'll get your living a levelup

[Color Blotch]

you'd have to know how the code works at a fundamental level. WE(that is to say you and I) don't know.

It just so happens that I do know how code works, it's what I do for living.

Might want to look up what unit testing is then, it'll get your living a levelup

Might want to invent unit testing for gameplay balance, it'll get you a Nobel prize

[suz]

Might want to invent unit testing for gameplay balance, it'll get you a Nobel prize

That's not the point of unit testing. It would cover the permutations you've posted earlier.

But do go on, I'm interrupting your highly intellectual discussion with offtopic

[BentSea]

you'd have to know how the code works at a fundamental level. WE(that is to say you and I) don't know.

It just so happens that I do know how code works, it's what I do for living.

The code. Not just code. THIS code. It's completely dependent on how they implemented it in this particular game. Not how coding works in general from an understanding of how code works. I emphasize one more time, THIS CODE. Not ALL CODE.

I never assumed or implied or stated that you had to understand how code works, or that you personally did not understand how it works or how to code.

My argument is that a large number of toggles will be functionally working with no excess functionality testing and will have their settings picked based on a desired normal balance, and that being a given, that assuming that all toggles increase dev time to assure basic functionality is a fallacy. And incorrectly addressing an argument is another serious fallacy.

[Color Blotch]

Might want to invent unit testing for gameplay balance, it'll get you a Nobel prize

That's not the point of unit testing. It would cover the permutations you've posted earlier.

Of course it isn't. That's why suggesting unit testing as a way to deal with unexpected problems that too many gameplay toggles can cause for gameplay was such a random nonsense on your part.

My argument is that a large number of toggles will be functionally working with no excess functionality testing and will have their settings picked based on a desired normal balance, and that being a given, that assuming that all toggles increase dev time to assure basic functionality is a fallacy.

"That" is never given. Unless you can guarantee that a certain setting has no side effects that propagate any further in the gameplay you cannot know it has no effects on balance. And with exception of some trivial minigames you cannot guarantee that. I never actually said anything about "basic functionality". Basic functionality is the easiest thing to make right. But then there are "incredibly complex changes come from just adjusting different systems and seeing how they interact together." If you happen to tie such an adjustment to a gameplay toggle, and then you have several of these, this is where you know you got yourself into serious trouble.

[BentSea]

"That" is never given. Unless you can guarantee that a certain setting has no side effects that propagates any further in the gameplay you cannot know it has no effects on balance. And with exception of some trivial minigames you cannot guarantee that. I never actually said anything about "basic functionality". Basic functionality is the easiest thing to make right. But then there are "incredibly complex changes come from just adjusting different systems and seeing how they interact together." If you happen to tie such an adjustment to a gameplay toggle, and then you have several of these, this is where you know you got yourself into serious trouble.

*sigh* Affecting the balance is the POINT. Additional testing isn't required for creating my own game balance via toggles. That's the idea. If you're not arguing about basic functionality, then you're only arguing about balance, and some people like a game breakingly hard experience, and some people like a game breakingly easy one, and no additional testing is required if the basic functionality is there. I like all three, I like a well tested balanced experience, I like an experience where I can just walk through like a living god and destroy everything and just experience the story without investing any time or energy in combat, and I like going back and playing with all the crazy hard settings turned on and things like permadeath so that I can't play with the same characters again..

If the point is to let the player play a non optimized experience, and you're not arguing about basic functionality, then what exactly are you arguing needs to be tested? That my unbalanced gameplay experience is unbalanced just right?

You're a little all over the map on this. People are not asking for the game to be balanced for every level of player, here, they're asking for systems and the chance to change the way they interact together to find the balance that they like for themselves. "I like playing the game with enemy health cranked to 200% and permadeath turned off so I don't have to restart the whole game every time I slip up in a really intense and dramatically difficult fight, that's how I love it. " or "I like playing with enemy health at 50% cause I don't like the game to be hard, but with permadeath and survival mode turned on, I really love the immersive experience I get and the way the game forces me to play differently."

You may have had a point when you were arguing for basic functionality(an unproveable one that would be up for a developer to decide on a per toggle basis), but you lose it completely when you shift your argument to only argue that they need to test for balance issues in every case and not only in the "normal" case.

[paultakeda]

First of all throwing out "gamer entitlement" is like saying the gamer's are spoiled brats or whining for no reason.

I have explained what I mean in using that term: the automatic assumption that certain toggles, modes and/or other customization are present. We do not know this to be the case, yet many threads assume it to be the case. That's entitlement.

I have also stated my position regarding toggles, modes and/or other customization: they must be carefully designed to fit the game. If it's in there, it is there by design and receive a fair amount of resources assigned to it, which can be substantial as described by ColorBlotch.

It's ridiculous to accuse me of demanding a perfect game with no options at all when that does not match either of the above statements. So BentSea, I have no issue with toggles that diversify experience as they are part of the game design; my issue is with having toggles that break game play. Hence what I originally wrote:

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.

[Color Blotch]

*sigh* Affecting the balance is the POINT. Additional testing isn't required for creating my own game balance via toggles. That's the idea. If you're not arguing about basic functionality, then you're only arguing about balance, and some people like a game breakingly hard experience, and some people like a game breakingly easy one, and no additional testing is required if the basic functionality is there. I like all three, I like a well tested balanced experience, I like an experience where I can just walk through like a living god and destroy everything and just experience the story without investing any time or energy in combat, and I like going back and playing with all the crazy hard settings turned on and things like permadeath so that I can't play with the same characters again..

If the point is to let the player play a non optimized experience, and you're not arguing about basic functionality, then what exactly are you arguing needs to be tested? That my unbalanced gameplay experience is unbalanced just right?

You're a little all over the map on this. People are not asking for the game to be balanced for every level of player, here, they're asking for systems and the chance to change the way they interact together to find the balance that they like for themselves. "I like playing the game with enemy health cranked to 200% and permadeath turned off so I don't have to restart the whole game every time I slip up in a really intense and dramatically difficult fight, that's how I love it. " or "I like playing with enemy health at 50% cause I don't like the game to be hard, but with permadeath and survival mode turned on, I really love the immersive experience I get and the way the game forces me to play differently."

You may have had a point when you were arguing for basic functionality(an unproveable one that would be up for a developer to decide on a per toggle basis), but you lose it completely when you shift your argument to only argue that they need to test for balance issues in every case and not only in the "normal" case.

By unbalanced I don't mean "harder" or "easier". Unbalanced is when it's murderously hard, then you suddenly kill everybody with one click, then get to the point where you die instantly and cannot do anything about it, or stuck and cannot finish the game because developers didn't account for how many food you need to get from point A to point B, since there was no food in the original design.

And if you say keep features broken and don't test them, then suddenly all the argument about it being "good game design when thoughtfully implemented" goes out the window. It isn't thoughtfully implemented anymore, it's bad design now.

But it doesn't mean I don't respect your desire to get stuck somewhere in the game because it's the way you want it. Read the OP. You can get all the imbalance in the world, all the checks and all the toggles. Just use mods, and let the developers focus on delivering a game that is playable with all the possible settings they themselves incorporate into it (a responsibility of any honest software developer), and considering the limited budget, the key to achieve it is to keep the number of gameplay toggles to a minimum.

[Harpo]

I would like some toggles. Especially for supply scarcity and similar stuff. Yes, it will affect game balance - that's the point! I don't toggle on _scarce resources_ because I want a balanced experience - I toggle it on because I think it will enhance my gaming experience or because I think the _normal_ mode is the one that is unbalanced (too easy in this case).

And no, I am not convinced that InXile will be able to deliver a balanced gaming experience. For instance, I think there's a great risk that you end up with an abundance of ammo, money and medical supplies huge enough to completely spoil the difficulty of the game, making the end game a boring nobody-can-hurt-me-ever-run-through. They didn't get that right in any of the other post-apoc games, so why the high faith now all of a sudden?

What you ask can easily be fixed with a mod. And no, I don't realistically expect the game to be perfectly balanced, but somewhat balanced, for as long as developers focus on polishing core gameplay, is perfectly achievable. And somewhat balanced beats completely off-the-wall broken any day.

I'd prefer if they didn't deliver a half-done flawed game and rather decided to include the toggles. I think leaving essential options for a mod is a big mistake and also a weak argument. Why? Because the argument can be made for everything! The argument could also be easily turned around: "the toggles can easily be removed in a future mod"

[Color Blotch]

I'd prefer if they didn't deliver a half-done flawed game and rather decided to include the toggles.

And I'd prefer they didn't deliver a half-done flawed game period.

I think leaving essential options for a mod is a big mistake and also a weak argument. Why? Because the argument can be made for everything! The argument could also be easily turned around: "the toggles can easily be removed in a future mod"

This argument isn't quite symmetrical: removing already included features doesn't take the developer's time back. But I agree that essential options shouldn't be left for a mod. The question is though, which options are essential. For example I'm not in favor of having no difficulty setting. Maybe there's a room for forcing hardcore save mechanics for those who want it (it's not really a gameplay toggle anyway). But for the rest of it, mods seem like a perfect fit.

[WCG]

Or in short: Please implement only ONE difficulty setting.

Apparently, we'll just have to agree to disagree. No problem. But I must admit that I don't understand your argument at all. If you don't want to change the difficulty, don't change the difficulty. There. It's all fixed for you, isn't it?

With different settings, people who want to change it can, while people who don't want to change it don't have to. So where's the problem? Both groups get what they want, don't they?

Oh, well. The developers will do whatever they want, I'm sure.