Is it fair to criticize or praise a game because of the options players may not take?

[Burnouts3s3]

(Warning: Potential Spoilers for Heavy Rain, Broken Age, Dragon Age: Inquisition and Grand Theft Auto).

I believe I might have asked this question once before, but I can't seem to find it so I'm asking it again.

So, I was playing the remastered version of Heavy Rain (a laugh riot per second. Best 10 bucks I spent money on) and I got to the part of the game in which Madison Paige is alone in her apartment and takes a shower. Obviously, I don't need to go through the scene in order to progress the story but the option is there if you choose to. (I chose to, for the record).

This made me think of something. Is criticism or praise a game for an option not all players may choose valid? For example, in a scripted game such as Broken Age, you won't be able to advance the story unless you solve a puzzle in the correct fashion. (For example, Vella must give Dead Eye Dawn and Courtney a peach to pass through the door they are guarding). Since there's no other way around it, it is the only means of progression. However, in games that have choice or diverging as a main feature, the game may present options in order to progress through the game. such as the aforementioned example of Madison's shower. Then does it become 'fair' to criticize the game for presenting that option in the first place as exploitative or sexist? In another example, in many GTA titles, stealing a car, shooting pedestrians and causing mayhem, is usually an option but one that is not required (unless it's part of a story mission) but allows players who wish want to have that option.

On the same coin, can you fairly praise a game for having options people deem 'positive' but players may not take? For example, in Dragon Age: Inquisition, the game allows you to have a gay relationship with Dorian or Iron Bull and many praise the game for allowing you to do that even though many players stated they would not romance them with their male Inquisitor/avatar.

I would argue that it would be fair to praise and criticize since games have only a finite space and resources to allow only so much and the game developers end up usually cutting out or editing and thus they added that scene in whereas other scenes had to be edited out.

What do you think? In addition, do you believe certain choices or options are encouraged over others? What about the way games are marketed that state they have a non-violent option even though the majority of the marketing shows progression through violence?

 

[Fappy]

Everything the developers intended for some number of players to experience should be considered when judging a game. If the option is deliberately offered then it's part of the intended experience, regardless as to whether or not it is a secret or an unpopular choice.

 

[CritialGaming]

It is fair to talk about anything that you experience in the game. Sure the story or gameplay may feel like it is steering you towards a given choice, but really that feeling is a culmination of all the things you have been experiencing thus far. The way you felt when you had to send some characters to their death's (maybe) in Mass Effect 2, or the way you choose your Pok?mon party. It is all because of how you have been feeling about your experience with the game. And that is great to talk about.

However I do feel like you cannot condemn a game for the choices you didn't take. For example you have no right to talk shit about the choice to have gay sex with Iron Bull. You can say you would never take such a choice, but you cannot belittle for it. You haven't had the experience and therefore have no right to say if that experience is good or bad.

 

[NPC009]

In both cases, we're talking about things the developer thought added something to the game. Optional or not, they thought it was important enough to put it in there, meaning it's there of a reason. It's part of the game. So yes, I think it's fair to critise or praise optional content.

In addition, do you believe certain choices or options are encouraged over others? What about the way games are marketed that state they have a non-violent option even though the majority of the marketing shows progression through violence?

It varies from game to game, but yes, sometimes certain playstyles/choices are encouraged by marketing mooks. Personally, I'm not too interested in what the publisher has to say. More often than not they're just promoting something they think players will like. I'm more interested in what critics and players think, as they're the ones actually playing the game and trying different things.

"The sex scene in Heavy Rain is out of place and weirdly unsexy. Don't bother."
"You've got to go genocidal in Undertale, it's insane!"
"Bravely Defaults second half is kinda repetitive. It's better if you... wait, is it okay if I spoil this?"
"If you want Tactics Ogre to be challenging, leave the ninjas at home."

Well, you know how it goes.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I think it's a balancing act. If the game offers a ton of choices, but all of them allow for a roughly equal experience, and the choice tree allows for interesting replays, then everything's fine. If the game is stretched so wide that the overall depth of the game is diminished (I think this eventually happened to the Mass Effect series), or the choices make different play throughs result in wildly different experiences in terms of quality, then yes, I think that's a valid criticism.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I think so. One of the major reasons i've never exactly gotten onboard with Persona 4 Golden is because there's an ending where you say "fuck my friends in a game about friendship lol" and help the murderer get away with it. What? Why? Why is that even remotely an option?

The way I explain it is that if the original Persona 4 was a house, an absolutely amazing, perfect house. Then you decide to add on a conservatory or some new windows and y'know you think the house looked better without the conservatory slammed into the side of it. That ending comes off to me as Atlus just spamming out more content regardless of how that content works in context to the game and in this instance it makes the game weaker thematically.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Any content a dev puts in a game costs them time, money and manpower to create, so unless one individual sneaks something in there without the others knowing about it, all of it is intentionally put there for players to experience[footnote]And even if one person sneaks something unpalatable or subpar in, it's still the responsibility of the rest of the team to ensure that doesn't happen. Quality control and such.[/footnote].

As such, should anyone feel the need to criticize or praise the game for that content, they have the right to do so as consumers. Whether that criticism/praise is valid or justified is an entirely different discussion.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Depends on the criticism, if you criticize how an optional thing was handled then it's legitimate (Dorian's god aweful character quest), if you criticize an optional thing because it exists (sexy customes) then it's wrong.

How about criticizing a game for having the possibility of going absolutely postal at the NPC's?

Like a certain "Feminist Media Critic who shalt not be named", who said that, apparently Hitman Absolution was "sexist", because you could kill some strippers in a certain mission and arrange their ragdolled bodies however you want (penalties to your final score is aparantly not taken into account in this assessment).

 

[StatusNil]

Depends on the criticism, if you criticize how an optional thing was handled then it's legitimate (Dorian's god aweful character quest), if you criticize an optional thing because it exists (sexy customes) then it's wrong.

How about criticizing a game for having the possibility of going absolutely postal at the NPC's?

Like a certain "Feminist Media Critic who shalt not be named", who said that, apparently Hitman Absolution was "sexist", because you could kill some strippers in a certain mission and arrange their ragdolled bodies however you want (penalties to your final score is aparantly not taken into account in this assessment).

An option to kill NPCs is an option NOT to kill NPCs, that's what I always say. It's nice to have that option.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

snip

Thing is that the game even deducted points for going postal.

And apparently that wasn't enough to ward of the criticism that players were invited to go postal, on "dis-empowered female strippers".

EDIT:

I mean, it was a Hitman game. The whole point of those are to kill the target with as little collateral as possible.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

snip

Thing is that the game even deducted points for going postal.

And apparently that wasn't enough to ward of the criticism that players were invited to go postal, on "dis-empowered female strippers".

EDIT:

I mean, it was a Hitman game. The whole point of those are to kill the target with as little collateral as possible.

You are kinda preaching to the converted here, but just in this case, if the only way to go forward in the game was to kill a stripper then a criticism might have been valid (though in my opinion, having murdering strippers be worse then murdering anyone else is pretty sexist in itself).

It was just an example which seemed relevant to the discussion, and I thought it showcased my stance on the matter (which is: if what you're criticising is an optional feature, like watching a certain scene, or playing a non-essential level, then it isn't a valid criticism).

 

[Cryselle]

I think context of the options is also critical.

In a game like Dragon Age, the ability to gay-date Dorian is something that was explicitly put in the game by the developers. You can have whatever opinion you want on the decision to add that, I may or may not respect your opinion, but it's still fair game.

In a game like Hitman, they didn't actually explicitly put in the ability to murder strippers. You can kill pretty much /anyone/ in Hitman if you're determined enough. And it would have been VERY jarring and weird to have given them some form of random special immunity. It's fair to criticize players that choose to engage in that activity, but I think going off on the developers on that one is an extremely weak argument. Not only are you not required to do it, but the game pretty much outright tells you you're bad at your job if you choose that option.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If those options are handled badly, yes.

All those options for Madison Paige in Heavy Rain, for example, all revolve around her being naked or being in some creepy rape scenario.

 

[DemomanHusband]

snip

snip

Thing is that the game even deducted points for going postal.

And apparently that wasn't enough to ward of the criticism that players were invited to go postal, on "dis-empowered female strippers".

EDIT:

I mean, it was a Hitman game. The whole point of those are to kill the target with as little collateral as possible.

Losing a few points? aw didums, SUCH a serious and BIG penalty. I mean, its not like some games actualy make you fail a level if you kill someone you shouldn't have, is there?

I think context of the options is also critical.
In a game like Hitman, they didn't actually explicitly put in the ability to murder strippers. You can kill pretty much /anyone/ in Hitman if you're determined enough. And it would have been VERY jarring and weird to have given them some form of random special immunity. It's fair to criticize players that choose to engage in that activity, but I think going off on the developers on that one is an extremely weak argument. Not only are you not required to do it, but the game pretty much outright tells you you're bad at your job if you choose that option.

The point is that sex workers are disempowered people - their often victims of drug dealers, sex trafficking abuse, and even if what they do is something they've chosen for their own reasons, society as a whole treats them like crap, and acts like if something horrible happens to them they deserved it. Heck, if they are the victims of crime, going to the police is likely just going to get them mistreated by the police, and thats without going into the police force that made use of prostitutes and then arrested them for prostitution to get out of paying.

Devs kinda need to think carefully about they handle that kind of baggage, and they just aren't.

Wait, you're the kind of person who thinks that actions performed in the world of video games indicate actions one wishes to perform to the letter in the real world, yeah? I bet Grand Theft Auto is one of your favorite series. The point with their inclusion in a Hitman game is the point of inclusion of any non-critical NPC in any game. They populate the setting, they add immersion to what otherwise would be a very short romp through some objectives. They aren't interested in your character's mission, they don't need to be killed or even interacted with. In GTA especially (mostly IV and V) just about every NPC has something going on. A phone call, a car accident, a police chase, literally anything that might catch the player's attention and make them think "Huh, I guess this map doesn't feel so lifeless after all.*"

*:[sub]Warning, this observation does not apply to Blaine County outside of actual populated areas, thanks to it being the worst, content-thin area in just about any video game ever.[/sub]

Then you've got Hitman, where the presence of non-target NPCs can add a layer of challenge. Anyone could be a potential witness, but part of your job is to make sure nobody but the target dies. Sure, if you get sloppy you might kill a person or two, but going on a rampage will mark you as a poor assassin. With all this in mind, why does the presence of a sex worker in a video game of all thing bundle up your trousers?

Sure, you can talk about baggage of the people who fall into that group in real life but if you're going to go out and say that certain people shouldn't be in a video game because you can't understand the difference between coded, modeled bits of programming walking down the street and a person with a likely rough life, maybe video games aren't for you. While we're at it, where's the uproar over the depictions of the homeless in games? What about gangsters, surely we shouldn't be romanticizing them so much. Agent 47 would be a nice point of contention as well, since he basically isn't allowed to feel and has the hardest life of all; A contract killer who can do his job without so much as blinking. That's the real baggage there, isn't it?

 

[Zhukov]

It's fair to criticize the quality of optional content.

Legit:
"This romance subplot has inconsistent characterization and corny dialogue."
"This stealth/shooter hybrid game had clumsy shooting controls."

It's bullshit to criticize a game for making you do something when other options are provided.

Bullshit:
"This game makes me have gay sex."
"This game forces me to shoot people."

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

snip

Thing is that the game even deducted points for going postal.

And apparently that wasn't enough to ward of the criticism that players were invited to go postal, on "dis-empowered female strippers".

EDIT:

I mean, it was a Hitman game. The whole point of those are to kill the target with as little collateral as possible.

Losing a few points? aw didums, SUCH a serious and BIG penalty. I mean, its not like some games actualy make you fail a level if you kill someone you shouldn't have, is there?

Right, let's turn this on its head.

What possible reason would a player have to go postal on random NPC's?!?

Because we're talking about going completely off the rails.

The objective in that map was clear. Go in, unseen, with as little collateral casualties as possible, and take out the target. Why would I start popping caps in random characters? Couple that with the fact that I loose cash because of "cleanup", which I could've used on upgrading my equipment, and I loose points, which I know is gonna drive me mad every time I look at the Character screen.

Just take a look at all the Let's Plays of Hitman Absolution, and see how many (or rather, how few) have a tendency of going postal for no reason.