Don't cater to individual neuroses

[rakenan]

I've seen a fair number of cases where people want features avoided, not because they are bad for the game, but because the player making the suggestion does not want to be responsible for controlling his own actions. In the save game thread, you get people asking for saving to be heavily restricted because if they aren't, then those people will abuse the save game feature to reload after every imperfect outcome. In the new item glow thread, you have people asking for new items you pick up to not be highlighted because they feel compelled to check every highlighted item. People want to avoid achievements because they cannot resist being "spoiled" by reading achievements they have not completed yet. I'm sure there's more, that's just the ones that I remember off the top of my head.

Don't completely ignore these people, but please - if you are going to pay attention to them, do it as an option in the game settings, and don't saddle the rest of us with restrictions we don't need because some people want the game to prevent them from doing what they don't want to do anyway.

[TΛPETRVE]

Hehe, I believe that has less to do with "neuroses" and more with cheap, everyday elitism. Like "I don't want my precious be played by CoD-lovin' n00b fags, so keep them away at all costs!", y'know.

[ffordesoon]

I do agree with you in spirit, but your use of my thread as an example confuses me, because I honestly do not know who likes the item glow I'm talking about.

Not to turn this thread into that thread, but how does item glow improve the game? I mean, even leaving aside my OCD, I see no reason for it to flash every time I pick up a health potion. Who is that for? I'm perfectly fine with there being some sort of mark that points out new items when I open my inventory; I just don't want the game to yell at me about it until I check my inventory. That's really not a lot to ask, is it? For the game to not whisper "Stop what you're doing and check your inventory!" into my ear every two seconds until I check my inventory and find that I just got my five hundredth stimpak? Even if you're not afflicted with OCD, that's got to be tremendously irritating after a while, right?

Also, I suggested in my own original post that it be a toggle, since presumably there's someone who enjoys that feature. So I don't really see why I got singled out. I don't think it's particularly elitist to ask that something I've seen even so-called "n00bs" complain about be an optional feature, is it? That's a bit different to reading achievements on the in-game achievement screen and then asking that achievements be removed entirely from the game because that one dude can't control himself, isn't it? It is the same type of complaint, I'll give you that, but mine is a pretty reasonable one of that type, I think.

I mean, I would say that, obviously. But still.

And, for the record, I have absolutely no problem with quality-of-life improvements like a quest journal and a well-done quest marker system. I just think the glow is one of those features that the makers of new games include because it's theoretically more accessible, but all it really does is annoy people, and people like me in particular. I do like having new items highlighted for me on occasion, just so I can tell at a glance that it's different, but why can't it be, like, a checkmark next to the new item when I open the inventory or something? It's the fly-buzzing-in-my-ear way it's often done that drives me bananas, not the idea of highlighting new items.

Oh, and FYI? I do not care if a "CoD-loving n00b" is able to play the game, because I'm not a fucking seven-year-old with a "No Girls Allowed" sign on his treehouse. I'd love for as many people as possible to be able to play this game, as long as the game isn't compromised at all in the name of accessibility. An intuitive interface benefits everyone, no matter what some people here claim.

Sorry if I sound somewhat irritated, but the fact that you singled out my thread as one of your three examples really does bother me, because while it is the same type of request, I don't think it's nearly as unreasonable as the other two.

[paultakeda]

Don't completely ignore these people, but please - if you are going to pay attention to them, do it as an option in the game settings, and don't saddle the rest of us with restrictions we don't need because some people want the game to prevent them from doing what they don't want to do anyway.

I'd rather the feature either be yes/no at the design phase. Options waste resources and multiplies testing time. If there's an option for something, it's important to the game design, not to please everyone through infinite customization.

[Zombra]

Disclaimer: I'm a neurotic, so my opinion may be biased

I feel that games should be designed to reward the intended behavior and punish or prevent unintended behavior. If quickloading after every missed shot isn't intended, then the player shouldn't be able to do it. If the player isn't intended to dig through 100 trash cans looking for loot, then trash cans should either be rare or unlootable. And so forth.

The natural rebuttal to this is that a game should be designed as openly as possible, so the player can play it however they want. My answer to this may be controversial: no, it shouldn't. When a designer has an idea about what the game experience should be like, the mechanics need to be built ground-up around that experience. Players are not designers, and they tend to use all options available to them, often even if those options are not fun. You see lists of exploits and farming strategies everywhere, and every player is guilty of self-spoiling to some degree. The drive to "win" makes people metagame and break things however they can, and games are ruined for it. The fewer tools we have to ruin our experience, the better.*

I have made and will continue to make suggestions on how the design should be handled, but when I get the game, I want it to provide the experience inXile intended. I hope they listen to our ideas and give them due consideration, but they are better designers than me and probably any other amateur on this board. Options to break the game should be nowhere near our fingertips.

This has been one zebra's opinion.

[Zombra]

*Note that mods are a different story. If a player finds some aspect of a game so not-fun that they're willing to go to the trouble to mod it out, more power to them. But the vanilla game should always stay on target.

[GodComplex]

Hehe, I believe that has less to do with "neuroses" and more with cheap, everyday elitism. Like "I don't want my precious be played by CoD-lovin' n00b fags, so keep them away at all costs!", y'know.

Well to be fair, the CoD loving noob fags do need to be kept at bay. Or in the bay, whichever isolates them from society the most.

[Fed]

Saves and achievements are options that don't force themselves on you. It's easy to ignore them and use them the way you like.
Flashing "new item glow" - does force itself on you. It is designed to draw attention. And it keeps doing it untill you do what it "wants" you to do. And then it "wants" you to do it again and again and again...

You should not put them in one row.

[TΛPETRVE]

Sorry if I sound somewhat irritated, but the fact that you singled out my thread as one of your three examples really does bother me, because while it is the same type of request, I don't think it's nearly as unreasonable as the other two.

Don't go through the roof, mate . I didn't choose your thread as a specific example, I just made a broad observation (to be fair, it reads more like a flat-out generalisation).

[tuluse]

I feel that games should be designed to reward the intended behavior and punish or prevent unintended behavior. If quickloading after every missed shot isn't intended, then the player shouldn't be able to do it. If the player isn't intended to dig through 100 trash cans looking for loot, then trash cans should either be rare or unlootable. And so forth.

I think a lot of the appeal of Fallout and Wasteland was that there were many ways of accomplishing tasks and there was no "intended behavior." You could literally go anywhere and try to do anything in the game using the tools at your disposal.

[Zombra]

I feel that games should be designed to reward the intended behavior and punish or prevent unintended behavior.

I think a lot of the appeal of Fallout and Wasteland was that there were many ways of accomplishing tasks and there was no "intended behavior." You could literally go anywhere and try to do anything in the game using the tools at your disposal.

Totally agreed. I may have expressed myself poorly. An open world with lots of tools available to the character is a great basis for a design. In Fallout and Wasteland, the "intended behavior", again, for the character, was pretty much "anything goes". Having tools that the player can use to ruin the game's challenge are not so great. E.g. a save system that has quicksave/load in combat means that you never have to suffer a hit if you don't want to, which in turn means you don't have to really plan or use tactics. NOTE that it isn't my intention to debate the save system here; it's just an example of the negative impact that metagame tools can have on a design. It's not OK to have an "instant win" button in a game just because a "non-neurotic" player can opt not to use it. It's just bad design.

At the very least, if you are putting metagame systems in like this, you have to assume that the typical player will exploit them as much as possible, and then look at the experience that that produces. If that is not the experience you hoped to create, go back to the drawing board.

In other words: even the path of least resistance should be a good, fun, challenging game.

[tuluse]

I think we're in agreement then. I'm fine with a system where you can't save while in combat or even near enemies.