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

[MrFalconfly]

And here's where your analogy collapses.

The game designer is only god while he codes the game.

If the user decides to modify it themselves, then they become the "god" of the game universe.

Also. Why the bloody hell are you trying to shift the responsibility of the player, onto the developer?!?

It's the player who's doing the things, not the developer.

EDIT:
Hell, it says more about you guys, than it does about me, given that you think you aren't responsible for going postal on two strippers who didn't do anything other than talk amongst themselves about what a monumental swine the guy you're sent to kill is, because the developers made it possible to aim and fire, with the logical conclusion that they die.

You actually answered your own question (and confirmed my explanation) in the same post. If a player chooses to modify the game, THEY become the "god" of the game universe. From that point on, the player who modifies the game is the one responsible for the content. Thus, the responsibility of the content is removed from the original designer.

Who are "you guys"? I don't care about what you can or cannot do with strippers in the Hitman games. I'm just trying to explain why your analogy is not fitting for the issue discussed, and how creators are responsible for what they create and how they choose to create it. The Hitman developers could have made it impossible to go postal on strippers if they did not want players to go postal on strippers. They chose to allow players to go postal on strippers. They created the world and the rules where that was a valid, functional choice to make. Wether or not that's something players choose to do or not is besides the point entirely. It's still a fundamental part of the thing they designed.

Point being, that it is the owner, not the original designer who holds ALL responsibility for any unsavory usage of the product.

EDIT:
As for "killing strippers is a fundamental part of the thing they designed". At the most it's a consequency of a set of rules.

Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Killing civilian NPC's can stop your cover from being blown.

 

[chikusho]

Point being, that it is the owner, not the original designer who holds ALL responsibility for any unsavory usage of the product.

EDIT:
As for "killing strippers is a fundamental part of the thing they designed". At the most it's a consequency of a set of rules.

Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Killing civilian NPC's can stop your cover from being blown.

Point being, that it is original designer, not owner, who holds ALL responsibility for allowing unsavory usage of the product. That is, if the original designer does not want their product used in a certain way, it is completely and solely within their power to stop that unsavory behavior. In this case, the original designer made a conscious decision to allow this particular kind of unsavory behavior, and it is completely and solely within their power whether or not that behavior is possible. If the designer made the choice to not allow that behavior, users would not be able to do it.

Rules are not set in stone, and you can design games by writing the rules in an infinite number of ways. For instance:

Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Getting your cover blown / killing a civilian NPC triggers a fail-state

Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be knocked out (not killed)

Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can't blow your cover and can't be killed

Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's don't exist

In this case, the designers chose not to use any of the above combination of rules: they made a conscious decision to use a combination of rules which allows this "unsavory behavior", and thus it is a fundamental element of the game they designed.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm really amused by this whole Hitman debate. From what I've gathered - murdering many people for a shadowy global conspiracy-type organisation is completely fine. In fact killing civilians is not a problem unless those civilians happen to be strippers. Anybody else - fine, but strippers should be unkillable. In the game because...it would encourage killing of strippers in the real life or something? Again, killing anybody else is apparently fine - it's only the strippers that has this sort of mind bending thing that makes the players commit something wrong in real life.

It less "killing strippers are bad" and more "the only people in the game that are sexualized are women, plus that cheevo for shooting that lady in the window".

I know Sarkeesian isn't a fan of the violence in general, but for most people, I figure most of these sorts of arguments could be assuaged by having male prostitutes or strippers or what not instead of them being exclusively female.

You know, some tiny semblance of parity. There's a reason why, say, GTA 5 gets called out while Saints Row 3/4 doesn't.

OT EDIT: Of course it's fair for game to be criticized or praised for something the player has an option of doing. The player may not take the option of playing the game after all. I mean, we would still critique Super Mario Brothers on its level design and such even if the player didn't use the jump button.

Okay, admittedly, that was funnier in my head.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Point being, that it is the owner, not the original designer who holds ALL responsibility for any unsavory usage of the product.

EDIT:
As for "killing strippers is a fundamental part of the thing they designed". At the most it's a consequency of a set of rules.

Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Killing civilian NPC's can stop your cover from being blown.

Point being, that it is original designer, not owner, who holds ALL responsibility for allowing unsavory usage of the product. That is, if the original designer does not want their product used in a certain way, it is completely and solely within their power to stop that unsavory behavior. In this case, the original designer made a conscious decision to allow this particular kind of unsavory behavior, and it is completely and solely within their power whether or not that behavior is possible. If the designer made the choice to not allow that behavior, users would not be able to do it.

Rules are not set in stone, and you can design games by writing the rules in an infinite number of ways. For instance:

Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Getting your cover blown / killing a civilian NPC triggers a fail-state

Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be knocked out (not killed)

Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can't blow your cover and can't be killed

Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's don't exist

In this case, the designers chose not to use any of the above combination of rules: they made a conscious decision to use a combination of rules which allows this "unsavory behavior", and thus it is a fundamental element of the game they designed.

Right, let's look at your different scenarios separately.

Scenario 1:
Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Getting your cover blown / killing a civilian NPC triggers a fail-state

That'd result in frustrating gameplay, since you'd end up with either doing it perfectly, or else you fail unconditionally.

Scenario 2:
Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can't blow your cover and can't be killed

Why have civilians then? Just to hide? Why not just use bushes then?

Scenario 3:
Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's don't exist

That'd make the game boring. You've effectively degenerated the game into a mundane Third Person Shooter.

As for "they made a conscious decision to use a combination of rules which allows this "unsavory behavior", and thus it is a fundamental element of the game they designed."

They weren't a target, ergo the game designers weren't responsible for the actions of the player.

 

[chikusho]

Right, let's look at your different scenarios separately.

Scenario 1:
Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can blow your cover
Rule 2: Civilian NPC's can be killed
Rule 3: Getting your cover blown / killing a civilian NPC triggers a fail-state

That'd result in frustrating gameplay, since you'd end up with either doing it perfectly, or else you fail unconditionally.

Scenario 2:
Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's can't blow your cover and can't be killed

Why have civilians then? Just to hide? Why not just use bushes then?

Scenario 3:
Or Rule 1: Civilian NPC's don't exist

That'd make the game boring. You've effectively degenerated the game into a mundane Third Person Shooter.

Whether or not it's good (which is 1. subjective, 2. entirely reliant on overall game design, and 3. there are plenty of examples of games with the above mentioned rules that are of very high quality) is entirely irrelevant. Your argument here boils down to "the only way to make a good game is to allow the player to kill civilians". That is patently false. Your, or the game designers, lack of imagination or design-skill is not an excuse for what they ultimately decide to put into their game. They are still wholly and unequivocally responsible for the content of their game.
The only thing that matters is what the designers, by design, allow the player to do or not do. This is extremely straight-forward.

As for "they made a conscious decision to use a combination of rules which allows this "unsavory behavior", and thus it is a fundamental element of the game they designed."

They weren't a target, ergo the game designers weren't responsible for the actions of the player.

It doesn't matter whether or not the story contextualized them as a target. What matters is that the games rules make them a valid target. That is what makes it a fundamental element of the game they designed. Again, this is extremely straigt-forward.

 

[MrFalconfly]

It doesn't matter whether or not the story contextualized them as a target. What matters is that the games rules make them a valid target. That is what makes it a fundamental element of the game they designed. Again, this is extremely straigt-forward.

It absolutely matters, because that is the difference on who has the responsibility.

If the game (and therefore the game designer) said explicitly that you should kill the strippers, then it's the game designers "fault". If the player does it on a whim then it's only the player who is at "fault".

Just like if I design a rifle for soldiers, and some psycho decides to shoot up a school with it.

I simply cannot begin to understand the kind of mind who apparently thinks they don't have responsibility for their actions because, said actions were possible.

EDIT:
"Oh it's the game designer's fault because he made it a possibility for the player to shoot the strippers"

What?!? And it's Ford's fault that some dullard plowed his Ford Pickup truck into a concrete block because Ford fitted a steering wheel?!?

 

[chikusho]

It absolutely matters, because that is the difference on who has the responsibility.

If the game (and therefore the game designer) said explicitly that you should kill the strippers, then it's the game designers "fault". If the player does it on a whim then it's only the player who is at "fault".

Just like if I design a rifle for soldiers, and some psycho decides to shoot up a school with it.

I simply cannot begin to understand the kind of mind who apparently thinks they don't have responsibility for their actions because, said actions were possible.

EDIT:
"Oh it's the game designer's fault because he made it a possibility for the player to shoot the strippers"

What?!? And it's Ford's fault that some dullard plowed his Ford Pickup truck into a concrete block because Ford fitted a steering wheel?!?

It doesn't matter whether or not a game designer says you should or should not do something. What matters is that the game designer provides the player with a world containing certain valid choices. If the designer makes any choice a valid choice, the designer is also responsible for that being possible in the game.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I've never said that doing or not doing something is anyones 'fault'. I'm saying exactly one thing: those who make something are the ones responsible for what it contains. Please show me what is wrong with that statement instead of arguing against a strawman.

Again, your real world analogy has exactly nothing to do with games. Allow me to explain again:
Yes, if you design a rifle and have the ability to control every rule of the universe where that rifle is used (just like a game designer has) you are also the one responsible for allowing a psycho to shoot up a school with it, since you made that a valid option within the universe where it exists. Had you chosen not to allow the rifle to be used to shoot up schools (which you can, if you are a game designer and the rifle exists in your game world) you could make it an invalid act.

Yes, if Ford had the ability to control every rule of the universe where their car is being used (just like a game designer has), if someone drives that ford into a concrete block and dies it's exclusively because Ford allowed that to be a possible thing to do.

 

[The Wooster]

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?

As a rule developers shouldn't be criticized for what players do with game systems, but I think it's fair to criticize the features, even if they're optional.

Example: GTA games let you use prostitutes then murder them to get your money back (but only female ones, oddly enough). That isn't emergent gameplay, that's a feature included by the dev. They chose to implement that feature instead of something else or polishing the game more. Someone went out of their way to make a system that rewards you for murdering sex workers. That's an artistic decision and it warrants discussion and criticism.

Also, there's cases where "optional" features can still have a negative impact on a game. Non-lethal is an "option" in Dishonored, but the narrative and resource system makes it the best option. It's also the most boring way to play the game.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Taking the shower scene as the example, I think there would have been more "critiquing" if the scene were compulsory.

It's nice that games have options, to do or say things differently, but if the choice is meaningless *cough* Telltale *cough*, then I would think that having the option is pointless and it should be considered, for all intents and purposes, compulsory.

 

[MrFalconfly]

It absolutely matters, because that is the difference on who has the responsibility.

If the game (and therefore the game designer) said explicitly that you should kill the strippers, then it's the game designers "fault". If the player does it on a whim then it's only the player who is at "fault".

Just like if I design a rifle for soldiers, and some psycho decides to shoot up a school with it.

I simply cannot begin to understand the kind of mind who apparently thinks they don't have responsibility for their actions because, said actions were possible.

EDIT:
"Oh it's the game designer's fault because he made it a possibility for the player to shoot the strippers"

What?!? And it's Ford's fault that some dullard plowed his Ford Pickup truck into a concrete block because Ford fitted a steering wheel?!?

It doesn't matter whether or not a game designer says you should or should not do something. What matters is that the game designer provides the player with a world containing certain valid choices. If the designer makes any choice a valid choice, the designer is also responsible for that being possible in the game.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I've never said that doing or not doing something is anyones 'fault'. I'm saying exactly one thing: those who make something are the ones responsible for what it contains. Please show me what is wrong with that statement instead of arguing against a strawman.

Again, your real world analogy has exactly nothing to do with games. Allow me to explain again:
Yes, if you design a rifle and have the ability to control every rule of the universe where that rifle is used (just like a game designer has) you are also the one responsible for allowing a psycho to shoot up a school with it, since you made that a valid option within the universe where it exists. Had you chosen not to allow the rifle to be used to shoot up schools (which you can, if you are a game designer and the rifle exists in your game world) you could make it an invalid act.

Yes, if Ford had the ability to control every rule of the universe where their car is being used (just like a game designer has), if someone drives that ford into a concrete block and dies it's exclusively because Ford allowed that to be a possible thing to do.

Self-driving cars is a thing, so Ford absolutely have the ability to control whether their cars unconditionally follow the traffic-laws. And still they make manually driven cars. Is Ford then responsible for traffic accidents? Or is it irresponsible drivers who are responsible for the traffic accidents?

EDIT:
IFF systems also exist. They prevent a weapon being fired on "blue" forces (usually only mounted on Aircraft, and they work by sending out a coded signal, in order to distinguish between firend or foe).

So why isn't civilian aircraft fitted with IFF systems (so military SAM's and Fighterjets can't shoot them down. That could've saved the lives of MH17, or KAL007)? Or why aren't rifles fitted with a camera system which could determine whether the weapon was aimed at a person or a target/animal, and prevent any discharge against people?

 

[chikusho]

Self-driving cars is a thing, so Ford absolutely have the ability to control whether their cars unconditionally follow the traffic-laws. And still they make manually driven cars. Is Ford then responsible for traffic accidents? Or is it irresponsible drivers who are responsible for the traffic accidents?

I'm sorry, but I have a really hard time understanding how you can not get this. Ford is a company within the real world, and in the real world, no company can control the fabric of creation. Since they cannot control what is or is not possible in the real world, there is no logical way to connect that reality to the action and consequence in a fake world, where the designer has ultimate control over every single thing that is possible and not possible.

A game designer designs a fake world, and they control everything that is possible and not possible within that world. If they want to allow players to crash a car into a wall, they have to 1) design a car, 2) give the player free control over that car 3) design a wall 4) allow the player to crash into that wall, and 5) design the consequences for crashing the car into the wall. Nothing exists within a game that the designer did not put there. Everything in a game follows a clear, intentional sequence of events. In the real world, the entirity of reality exists and continues to exist whether or not Ford designs a car.

In the case of Hitman, the game developer has had to work for years to code, create, animate and design the specific action and consequence of killing a stripper. It's a conscious intentional design choice and a fundamental part of the experience they have created. They could just as easily have chosen NOT to do that. Since they have worked laboriously to make that a valid action within the game, it is a part of the content which they ultimately are responsible for. There is no physical law that required them to put that action into the game. The choice to give the player that option is a choice from the developer, not a choice from the player. A player has to follow the rules presented within a game (and if they mod it, they are the new designer and thus responsible for what they put in it).

For example, no player can choose to use a Call of Duty rifle to shoot up a school. Why? Because the developer did not design a school for the player to shoot up. If the developer designed a school that can be shot up with a rifle they designed, and chose to make 'shooting up schools' a valid action within the game, they are responsible for making school shootings a valid action in the Call of Duty games. In one Call of Duty game, they made it a valid option to shoot up an airport, and they ARE responsible for making that a valid option.

A game designer is responsible for every single action that a player can make within a game. For example, a designer can choose to give a player the freedom to move freely within an area. But they can also decide to entirely control movement for the player. They can also decide to only allow a player to move forward, but not backward, or turn left but not right.

Please tell me which part of what I just described that you disagree with.


EDIT

IFF systems also exist. They prevent a weapon being fired on "blue" forces (usually only mounted on Aircraft, and they work by sending out a coded signal, in order to distinguish between firend or foe).

So why isn't civilian aircraft fitted with IFF systems (so military SAM's and Fighterjets can't shoot them down. That could've saved the lives of MH17, or KAL007)? Or why aren't rifles fitted with a camera system which could determine whether the weapon was aimed at a person or a target/animal, and prevent any discharge against people?

Those sound like two GREAT inventions that have nothing whatsoever to do with games.

 

[DoPo]

As a rule developers shouldn't be criticized for what players do with game systems

I wouldn't use that as a blanket statement. If a developer makes an imbalanced system then they can be criticised for it as long as one of the points of the system is to not be imbalanced. In D&D 3.5 some character choices are immediately and immensely more powerful than others, there also the choices that are less powerful than the norm, as well (such as the infamous trap feats which only look good on paper). In that case, it's the player's decision whether they go with the more or less powerful choices - even if not guided by exactly that. A player my choose option A over option B purely because they think it sounds better without analysing the mechanical implications. That can then end up trivialising encounters or making them more trouble than normal[footnote]monsters have a Challenge Rating (CR) which is a number representing the average level that adventurers should be taking it on. Bad choices may lead to a 12th level party being overwhelmed by CR 11 encounter or an optimised party demolishing CR 15 encounters.[/footnote].

So, in that case it is player's choices, however, I'd put the blame on the system and by extension the people who made it. This would be because the game strives to have a unified power level, hence the CR ratings. The CR ratings cannot exist without a having firm basis to stand on. Their inclusion means that the developers counted on that firm basis being there, when in reality, it isn't, hence the developers warrant criticism.

Also, there's cases where "optional" features can still have a negative impact on a game. Non-lethal is an "option" in Dishonored, but the narrative and resource system makes it the best option. It's also the most boring way to play the game.

I love Dishonored. It actually does a lot more under the hood than I've seen it given merit for. The game is set in a very bleak world with pretty much black and grey morality. The "good" paths mostly end up just being "a bit better than the bad path" by limiting the amount of damage Corvo does. So, in-game you are facing the option of going the easy but "evil" path or going the harder but "good"[footnote]in reality "a bit better"[/footnote] path. This is an actual choice that not many games do. Sure, the ones with morality system love to boast the good/evil paths have different rewards - KOTOR and other BioWare games do that a lot. Finish a quest and the neutral option is to accept the payment, evil option is to extort more money and the good option is to say "keep the reward". This is supposed to illustrate that evil is the "easier and better" choice and hence the more lucrative but it's...not. Money tends to be plentiful and we're talking about rewards in the region of 100-300 credits/gold/whatever which is a really pitiful sum when several hours later you start getting thousands just by playing.

Dishonored, makes it into an actual choice - yes both paths are viable, but killing people is actually quite a lot easier than not. It's not whether you'll get the resources for the in-game equivalent of bubble gum or not.

Moreover, the powers illustrate just why the Outsider is not trusted. The Abbey tries to stomp out the Outsider worship and throughout the game we not given much justification why. Sure, there are several people who went mad by being close to Outsider artefacts and Corvo is also aided by him it which in part can allow him to go through the game which results in the game world being changed. However, it's the actual powers that nail down why Outsider is considered a bad influence.

First of all, the powers are very distinctly unnatural. This is to illustrate how the Outsider influence turns people into something else. There are only two abilities that (maybe?) wouldn't stand out as being just wrong when viewed by a normal person: Dark Vision[footnote]Daud's Void Gaze makes the mark on his arm glow, however, so it is visible[/footnote] if we assume there is no outside indicator, however, it's possible Corvo's eyes glow or something and Vitality - it would be harder to detect but Corvo/Daud are able to take more damage than a normal human would. Vitality is still easier to hide than anything else.

Second, the abilities geared towards making the marked person better at causing harm and mischief. This is the big one - this is why the Abbey doesn't like the Outsider. Not only are the marked turned into something not quite human - they are also way better at hunting down other humans. It's also something that stands out to other games with moral choice. In those powers can still be aligned with good/evil. However, this is the thing - all of them are equal or mostly equal in making you more effective at the game. In KOTOR, the light side powers can buff you and disable enemies making you a killing machine, thus they do rival the dark side powers which focus on direct damage and debuffs. In Disciples 2 the evil races can destroy and harm enemies in various ways using their magic, while good races make their own troops way better.

In general that's how the moral based powers work - "good" helps out "evil" harms. If available, "neutral" would be sort of there with some generic buffs and/or uncharacterised powers[footnote]examples include erecting a force field or lighting a fire[/footnote]. But the end result is pretty much the same - whether you use "good" or "evil" powers, they all contribute to you killing a bunch of dudes. In Dishonored, all the powers are evil. Or at the very least they certainly aren't good some may be called neutral. The more involved you become with the Outsider, the more power you get but they only serve to make you into more of a monster.

This is part of why I liked Dishonored so much - the game did actually present a choice even if it didn't frame it as such. Would you pursue becoming something else in order to achieve your goal or would you keep your humanity? And this is a different question to whether you would go thorough low/high chaos paths. Yet still linked, since if you take up the inhuman route, you are heading down the high chaos path. This all fits in incredibly well with the world painted in the game.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

Feeling is mutual mate.

As godlike as you think the game developer is, he has no power when the product is in the hands of the owner.

Same with rifles, same with cars, same with clothes, same with aircraft.

Also, it's funny that you say "no player can choose to use a Call of Duty rifle to shoot up a school. Why? Because the developer did not design a school for the player to shoot up", because while not a school, there was that level in CoD MW2 where you shot up an Airport (kids included) full of civilians.

As for "A game designer is responsible for every single action that a player can make within a game. For example, a designer can choose to give a player the freedom to move freely within an area. But they can also decide to entirely control movement for the player. They can also decide to only allow a player to move forward, but not backward, or turn left but not right.

Please tell me which part of what I just described that you disagree with."

I disagree with the part where the game designer is responsible for any action that I take that aren't directly mandated by the game's story.

EDIT:

I live by a very basic concept.

My actions, my responsibility.
I will not accept responsibility for something other people did, and I refuse to accept that other people take responsibility for my actions.

EDIT:EDIT:

"Those sound like two GREAT inventions that have nothing whatsoever to do with games."

They are relevant, since they stop the user from doing things the inventor would rather the user didn't.

 

[chikusho]

As godlike as you think the game developer is, he has no power when the product is in the hands of the owner.

So tell me, who do you think is responsible for deciding what a player can and cannot do in a game?

Same with rifles, same with cars, same with clothes, same with aircraft.

Categorically different, because where a real company can TRY to prevent a product from being used a certain way, they cannot control the environment in which the product is used. A game developer can do exactly that.

Also, it's funny that you say "no player can choose to use a Call of Duty rifle to shoot up a school. Why? Because the developer did not design a school for the player to shoot up", because while not a school, there was that level in CoD MW2 where you shot up an Airport (kids included) full of civilians.

I know, I said so in that same paragraf, and the developers of that game are equally responsible for creating that section and making that action a valid choice within the context of the game.

As for "A game designer is responsible for every single action that a player can make within a game. For example, a designer can choose to give a player the freedom to move freely within an area. But they can also decide to entirely control movement for the player. They can also decide to only allow a player to move forward, but not backward, or turn left but not right.

Please tell me which part of what I just described that you disagree with."

I disagree with the part where the game designer is responsible for any action that I take that aren't directly mandated by the game's story.

So, who is responsible for allowing the player to move left, right, forwards or backwards?

EDIT:
I live by a very basic concept.
My actions, my responsibility.
I will not accept responsibility for something other people did, and I refuse to accept that other people take responsibility for my actions.

Exactly: the developers actions led to a product where certain things are or are not possible. They don't have to take responsibility for people changing that product, but they do however have to take responsibility for what they created.

"Those sound like two GREAT inventions that have nothing whatsoever to do with games."

They are relevant, since they stop the user from doing things the inventor would rather the user didn't.

They are irrelevant, because the manufacturers cannot control the environment in which the inventions are used. A game developer can.

 

[MrFalconfly]

EDIT:
I live by a very basic concept.
My actions, my responsibility.
I will not accept responsibility for something other people did, and I refuse to accept that other people take responsibility for my actions.

Exactly: the developers actions led to a product where certain things are or are not possible. They don't have to take responsibility for people changing that product, but they do however have to take responsibility for what they created.

You apparently didn't read what I wrote.
My actions, MY RESPONSIBILITY!
If I shoot someone, it's my responsibility, not the gunmakers. If I decide to go postal on random NPC's in a game, it's my responsibility NOT, the game developers!

"Those sound like two GREAT inventions that have nothing whatsoever to do with games."

They are relevant, since they stop the user from doing things the inventor would rather the user didn't.

They are irrelevant, because the manufacturers cannot control the environment in which the inventions are used. A game developer can.

What needs to be controlled in order to eliminate traffic accidents?

- The car itself
- Maintenance of said car

If Ford makes a selfdriving car, which automatically drives itself to maintenance, then said car will not crash (simply because we've idealized the conditions for the car.

No need to change the laws of physics.

The designer of the car only controls the systems of the car, just the the game developers only control the internal systems of the game (not the environment in which the game is being run).

EDIT:

My analogy is that it's the entire game that equates to the car, not just a minor system.

And just like with a car, which can be endlessly modified, a game developer looses any kind of control over their creation the moment the owner installs it.

 

[chikusho]

You apparently didn't read what I wrote.
My actions, MY RESPONSIBILITY!
If I shoot someone, it's my responsibility, not the gunmakers. If I decide to go postal on random NPC's in a game, it's my responsibility NOT, the game developers!

I read what you wrote and understood perfectly. I just applied the same logic to someone who is not you: the game developer. If you develop a game, you will, through YOUR ACTIONS, be responsible for everything you put in said game.

What needs to be controlled in order to eliminate traffic accidents?

- The car itself
- Maintenance of said car

If Ford makes a selfdriving car, which automatically drives itself to maintenance, then said car will not crash (simply because we've idealized the conditions for the car.

No need to change the laws of physics.

They also need to control the entire environment where the car is used. They need to be able to control the car, the roads, all other traffic on said roads, any animals, people or objects who may or may not end up on said roads, weather conditions, naturally occurring incidents such as earthquakes, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tsunamis, and so on and so on. A game designer can control every single one of those instances by either making them in the gameworld or not making them in the game world. A car manufacturer cannot.

the game developers only control the internal systems of the game

Exactly, and if the internal systems of the game includes turning right, that's a conscious decision the developer made for how you can interact with the game environment. You can give a player a gun, and then you can decide if the player can aim that gun up or down, and you can also design what happens when you aim at, and pull the trigger on, for example, a stripper.

My analogy is that it's the entire game that equates to the car, not just a minor system.

If the Ford company can design and build a car that exists on a plane of existence that only contains said car, without an environment for it to be used, your analogy might possibly work.

And just like with a car, which can be endlessly modified, a game developer looses any kind of control over their creation the moment the owner installs it.

As I've explained, modifying the game removes the responsibility from the developer. Any changes are the sole responsibility of the modder.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

In regards to hitman absolution. I can see some developers being surprised when players jump off the rails and do something the developer never expected or intended, but the menu screen for absolution is a dead naked woman. There is a level where you have to kill assassin women who fetish clothing. The whole game has a sexy violence feel to it. The game knew what was going to happen if they put the player inside of a strip club.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

In the case of Hitman, the game developer has had to work for years to code, create, animate and design the specific action and consequence of killing a stripper.

More likely they just attached the same regular NPC behaviour code that all the other civilian NPCs used to the stripper model and that was it. They didn't spend a solid month coding exactly specific behaviours for that one type of NPC that shows up maybe once or twice in the game.

It's infinitely more likely they didn't go "and now we will allow the player to kill and pose stripper bodies!", they probably just went "Right, so this mission is in a strip bar, so lets make a few of the civilian NPCs be strippers" and didn't put much more thought in beyond that. In this case, at worst you could say they were negligent.

It doesn't HAVE to be a deliberate choice by the developers, it's more likely they didn't consider it and just treated the strippers like every other NPC in the game without thinking beyond that.

And again, just because the developer lets you crouch even when it's on a body does not mean that they went "Yes, we are totally cool with players teabagging people". Certain players are just plain destructive and will find any way possible to be an asshole, and you can't account for EVERY possibility. The devs may be the gods of the game world, but they are not themselves omniscient gods who can predict what every player will do.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Exactly, and if the internal systems of the game includes turning right, that's a conscious decision the developer made for how you can interact with the game environment. You can give a player a gun, and then you can decide if the player can aim that gun up or down, and you can also design what happens when you aim at, and pull the trigger on, for example, a stripper.

Sooo...You're saying that in LA noire, a game where you're a policeman (and thus are penalized for doing things like running people over), the developers are responsible for a certain segment of asshole players deliberately running people over with their cars because they put cars and NPCs in the game, even though it's strongly discouraged by the game (thus making the point of the NPCs: "These are obstacles. Do not hit them.")?

Devs cannot account for everything, nor do they often realize the implications behind certain things, since they're more focused on creating a working and enjoyable game which takes a ludicrous amount of time and effort. They may be "gods" within the game world, but they're still just humans making something, and are thus prone to error.

Seriously, at this point, I'm tempted to ask you if you think that if there is an IRL god, if he's an asshole because he doesn't prevent people from killing other people or stopping starvation in africa or wherever.

 

[chikusho]

More likely they just attached the same regular NPC behaviour code that all the other civilian NPCs used to the stripper model and that was it. They didn't spend a solid month coding exactly specific behaviours for that one type of NPC that shows up maybe once or twice in the game.

It's infinitely more likely they didn't go "and now we will allow the player to kill and pose stripper bodies!", they probably just went "Right, so this mission is in a strip bar, so lets make a few of the civilian NPCs be strippers" and didn't put much more thought in beyond that. In this case, at worst you could say they were negligent.

It doesn't HAVE to be a deliberate choice by the developers, it's more likely they didn't consider it and just treated the strippers like every other NPC in the game without thinking beyond that.

I don't think anything is 'it'. First of all, being the creators of the environment and the mechanics within the game world, they are (or at least should be) intimately aware of everything that is possible and not possible to do within their system. Secondly, every decision and design choice on large scale productions such as a AAA game has to be endlessly discussed before, during and after something is done on the project. Besides, whether or not they considered how shooting/posing strippers would look, they are just as responsible for that mechanic as they are giving the player the option of turning left.

And again, just because the developer lets you crouch even when it's on a body does not mean that they went "Yes, we are totally cool with players teabagging people". Certain players are just plain destructive and will find any way possible to be an asshole, and you can't account for EVERY possibility. The devs may be the gods of the game world, but they are not themselves omniscient gods who can predict what every player will do.

That's completely different. "Teabagging" is not a part of the game (at least in any game I've seen); crouching on corpses is. The only reason it gets referred to or used as "teabagging" is because of outside input. It's a stand-in for a mechanic that does not actually exist in the product, and the bagging of tea only occurs within player imagination.