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

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Some of this thread depresses me.

If someone gets into their car while drunk and causes an accident, do we fault the alcohol companies or the car manufacturers? No, we rightfully blame the freakin' idiot who thought he was in a fit state to drive.

Not to mention it's hard to think of a way to fix the stripper issue without causing serious design problems or without solving the issue in question. Just make them KO'd when attacked? Welp, they can still be carried around and put into compromising positions, not a solution. Make them un-drag-around-able? Well, what if the player is accidentally caught in a situation where they need to take them out to stop them sounding the alarm and they're in a wide open hallway where the body will be discovered easily since it can no longer be moved? Ok, make them unkillable? ...Wait, no, what if the player is caught by one and thus can't stop an alarm from being sounded?

I see only 2 possible solutions, one being make this a "if you're caught by ANYONE you insta-fail" mission like that one "case the joint" mission in Thief 2, or (my personal favourite idea), make it so that after a mission, you see a mini-bio of everyone you killed, and make the innocent people and/or strippers have bios that make you feel like a fucking asshole for killing them ("Home was foreclosed was only doing it to feed her kids", "Was kidnapped as a kid and just wanted to escape", "Was actually going to invent the cure for cancer", etc). That or pissing off a certain faction by your actions, a la alpha protocol which discourages the behaviour even further. A true solution would be nice, but I can't quite see one that doesn't cause further problems.

If a player wants to deliberately go against the game's design to do shitty stuff that's technically possible in the game, but heavily discouraged, the fault is the player's alone. Again, you're not supposed to drive drunk, but if you do, it's YOUR ass in court and not the guys who made your car and/or the booze you were drinking.

 

[CaitSeith]

Don't forget that some players will take those options. And when they do, they expect them to be as good as the rest of the game.

 

[WindKnight]

Some of this thread depresses me.

If a player wants to deliberately go against the game's design to do shitty stuff that's technically possible in the game, but heavily discouraged, the fault is the player's alone. Again, you're not supposed to drive drunk, but if you do, it's YOUR ass in court and not the guys who made your car and/or the booze you were drinking.

You can only do these things because the dev allows you to. For your car analogy to work, you'd only be able to crash the car if the manufacturer allowed you too.

Simplest option is to just put the strippers in areas you have no access to them, and they can't see you, if your 'not supposed' to interfere with them.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Some of this thread depresses me.

If a player wants to deliberately go against the game's design to do shitty stuff that's technically possible in the game, but heavily discouraged, the fault is the player's alone. Again, you're not supposed to drive drunk, but if you do, it's YOUR ass in court and not the guys who made your car and/or the booze you were drinking.

You can only do these things because the dev allows you to. For your car analogy to work, you'd only be able to crash the car if the manufacturer allowed you too.

Simplest option is to just put the strippers in areas you have no access to them, and they can't see you, if your 'not supposed' to interfere with them.

Well, to the fair, the manufacturer DOES allow you to drive drunk, there's nothing in the average car that prevents you from driving it if you're drunk, so by your logic you should blame the car maker for not preventing you from doing it. The crashing the car is purely based on the mechanics of driving. If you want to blame someone other than the driver for crashing, send your complaints to the inventor of Physics.

Much in the same way, the game dev creates the rules of the game, and things follow from it. Being able to shoot strippers and pose them follows from the rules of "NPCs can be killed", "NPCs can bust you, thus giving you a reason to eliminate them" and "Bodies can be moved to hide them". Yes, they DO have more control than the auto-maker, but they still have to make the adjusted rules function within the confines of the other rules or the design starts to falls apart.

Simply removing the strippers isn't a bad idea in and of itself, but then you'll just attract cries of "they censored teh gaem". At that point the "no kill in this mission" rule seems like a better alternative.

 

[Imre Csete]

Well, take the TES: Oblivion age rating fiasco for example, they put explicit sexual content warning on it because of the possibility to mod it in. That's hillarious.

Bumping it up to Mature from Teen because of the Dark Brotherhood gore is somewhat valid, even if that one scene is merely a friction of the content offered in the game.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Bumping it up to Mature from Teen because of the Dark Brotherhood gore is somewhat valid, even if that one scene is merely a friction of the content offered in the game.

Well, if it's in the game and someone can see it, it should be factored in for the age rating. That just makes sense, no?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Some of this thread depresses me.

If a player wants to deliberately go against the game's design to do shitty stuff that's technically possible in the game, but heavily discouraged, the fault is the player's alone. Again, you're not supposed to drive drunk, but if you do, it's YOUR ass in court and not the guys who made your car and/or the booze you were drinking.

You can only do these things because the dev allows you to. For your car analogy to work, you'd only be able to crash the car if the manufacturer allowed you too.

Simplest option is to just put the strippers in areas you have no access to them, and they can't see you, if your 'not supposed' to interfere with them.

Cars have steering-wheels, ergo the manufacturers "allowed" you to crash it.

In any case, user habits isn't the responsibility of the designer.

If I make a sportscar (like say, the Caterham, with no tractioncontrol, and no power-steering), I'm not responsible if someone uses it as a battering ram. If I make a hunting rifle (say, a Remmington R700, with all the safety features you'd expect) I'm not responsible if some drunk twit blows the kneecaps off his mate. If I make an alcoholic beverage I'm not responsible if some idiot decides to get behind the wheel with a BAC of 0.05%.

 

[chikusho]

If I make a sportscar (like say, the Caterham, with no tractioncontrol, and no power-steering), I'm not responsible if someone uses it as a battering ram. If I make a hunting rifle (say, a Remmington R700, with all the safety features you'd expect) I'm not responsible if some drunk twit blows the kneecaps off his mate. If I make an alcoholic beverage I'm not responsible if some idiot decides to get behind the wheel with a BAC of 0.05%.

Well, you really are responsible if you have the power to controll in detail exactly what the car can be used for, who and what the hunting rifle can shoot, and exactly how drunk people will be able to get from drinking your beverage.
You know, the power that a game designer has in the world they create.

 

[MrFalconfly]

If I make a sportscar (like say, the Caterham, with no tractioncontrol, and no power-steering), I'm not responsible if someone uses it as a battering ram. If I make a hunting rifle (say, a Remmington R700, with all the safety features you'd expect) I'm not responsible if some drunk twit blows the kneecaps off his mate. If I make an alcoholic beverage I'm not responsible if some idiot decides to get behind the wheel with a BAC of 0.05%.

Well, you really are responsible if you have the power to controll in detail exactly what the car can be used for, who and what the hunting rifle can shoot, and exactly how drunk people will be able to get from drinking your beverage.
You know, the power that a game designer has in the world they create.

Hang on?

After the car is sold, I still control where the driver chose to drive it?
After the rifle leaves the plant, I can still control who it gets pointed at?!?
After the beverage leaves the bottling-plant I still control how many the guy drinks?

How the bloody hell does that work?

The responsibility lies with the user, not the manufacturer.

EDIT:

This also applies to Hitman.

If the dev makes all NPC equal, it's not the devs fault if the player decides to go postal.

 

[chikusho]

After the car is sold, I still control where the driver chose to drive it?
After the rifle leaves the plant, I can still control who it gets pointed at?!?
After the beverage leaves the bottling-plant I still control how many the guy drinks?

How the bloody hell does that work?

The responsibility lies with the user, not the manufacturer.

EDIT:

This also applies to Hitman.

If the dev makes all NPC equal, it's not the devs fault if the player decides to go postal.

Yes, a game designer can control where the driver can or cannot drive and what happens when he or she tries/does.
Yes, a game designer can control who the rifle can be pointed at and what happens when someone tries/does.
Yes, a game designer can control how many beverages a player can drink and what happens when he or she does.

This also applies to Hitman.

If the dev makes all NPC equal, they have created a world where a game element is the player going postal.

 

[9tailedflame]

If it's optional, i wouldn't be too harsh with the criticism. It's just extra content. That doesn't free it from all criticism, but nobody should loose sleep over a sidequest.

 

[MrFalconfly]

After the car is sold, I still control where the driver chose to drive it?
After the rifle leaves the plant, I can still control who it gets pointed at?!?
After the beverage leaves the bottling-plant I still control how many the guy drinks?

How the bloody hell does that work?

The responsibility lies with the user, not the manufacturer.

EDIT:

This also applies to Hitman.

If the dev makes all NPC equal, it's not the devs fault if the player decides to go postal.

Yes, a game designer can control where the driver can or cannot drive and what happens when he or she tries/does.
Yes, a game designer can control who the rifle can be pointed at and what happens when someone tries/does.
Yes, a game designer can control how many beverages a player can drink and what happens when he or she does.

This also applies to Hitman.

If the dev makes all NPC equal, they have created a world where a game element is the player going postal.

A car designer can't control what the user decides to do with his car.
A rifle designer can't control what the user decides to do with his rifle.
A brewer can't control what amount a person decides to drink.

And a game designer can't control what the user decides to do with the game (there's a thing called mods, mate).

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

 

[Pseudonym]

Of course it's fair to criticize or praise something that is optional. Being optional might mitigate the severity of the problems and it might not. If you think a certain sequence in a game is in poor taste I don't think it matters much that it's optional. If the problem is merely that the gameplay is annoying you might just skip it and not think much of it. In any case, a sidequest or optional objective or whatever is a part of the game, and it will be one part of what makes the game good or bad.

 

[WindKnight]

And a game designer can't control what the user decides to do with the game (there's a thing called mods, mate).

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

If the dev doesn't wasn't you to do it

YOU CANNOT DO IT

The dev has all the power.

You can only do something that the Dev allows, unless to hack, crack, break or mod the game.

If your 'not supposed to' he can make people invulnerable, take away your weapons, make you unable to attack, he can even make you sit there while the game makes you get knocked unconscious or taken prisoner or be killed.

If you can do something in a game without hacking it etc, the dev has consciously gone 'yeah, I'm ok with the player being able to do that'.

 

[Something Amyss]

What, just make the women literal window dressing then?

If you're "not supposed to," they pretty much already are.

 

[MrFalconfly]

And a game designer can't control what the user decides to do with the game (there's a thing called mods, mate).

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

If the dev doesn't wasn't you to do it

YOU CANNOT DO IT

The dev has all the power.

You can only do something that the Dev allows, unless to hack, crack, break or mod the game.

If your 'not supposed to' he can make people invulnerable, take away your weapons, make you unable to attack, he can even make you sit there while the game makes you get knocked unconscious or taken prisoner or be killed.

If you can do something in a game without hacking it etc, the dev has consciously gone 'yeah, I'm ok with the player being able to do that'.

Just like if a car manufacturer wanted a certain car to be "Naturally Aspirated", then I can't turbocharge it?

Mate.

The Dev only has power over how the product looks when it's on the shelf. The second it's in the users possession, the dev has zero power.

If certain NPC's happen to be invulnerable in the standard game, I can mod it so all NPC's are equal.

And just to hammer home the point.

THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE OWNER, NOT THE DESIGNER!!!!