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

[Zombie Proof]

1. Why is it equally valid to look at game elements in and out of context when attempting to surmise the intent of the developer? Where do the roles of objectivity and subjectivity stand in your eyes gaming-wise?

Why would you ever need to surmise the intent of the developer? I mean, possibly aside from an academic perspective trying to understand the creative process, or what works and what doesn't.
Either way, if you do, what does that get you exactly? For example, the developer might intend for something to be perceived a certain way, but fail to create a context in which that message is effectively conveied. They might also _not_ intend for something that is still ultimately communicated in the final product. Whatever it is, they are ultimately responsible for what they create.
Also, even if you argue that a game is the sum of it's part, each and every part is still open for scrutiny. It's just as valid to criticize NPC murder as it is to criticize a shittily designed gun or a bland texture. In the case of Hitman, they have consciously and intentionally made stripper murder a valid way to interact with their game. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying that if they did NOT want players to utilize those mechanics, it's only them as developers who have the power to prevent it. In this case though, it's seems like the developers are fine with people playing their games that way, since they haven't corrected it, or that they at least consider it a worthwhile trade-off to allow for the experience they wanted to create. But they are still responsible for creating that possibility all the same.

2. Game mechanics are the beats through which narrative is conveyed in gaming, especially in games that have more meat on their narratives. The two coexist.

Sure, they can coexist. They can also be looked at separately.

3. In terms of the Team Fortress 2 example, my point was that you don't judge Team Fortress 2 for it's story simply because there are story elements found within it. Sure, you can judge the quality of those elements themselves, but my point was that the onus is on the player to understand that the point of Team Fortress 2 is not a game focused on literary merit, but rather gunplay and competition.

I'm not sure what, if anything, this has to do with my argument. I've never said anything about judging either Hitman or any other games. I've just said that each part of both Hitman, and Team Fortress, and all other games are created by the developers, and thus the developers are responsible for them. And each of those parts are open to criticism.

To your last point, yeah, everything is open to criticism. In order to criticize something, you must first understand the intent of the thing being criticized otherwise you have no criteria for which to judge said criticism.

To the second: *eyeroll* obviously the elements could be looked at separately, but to what end? It's clear that the philosophy behind my replies to you come from the perspective that criticism needs to stem from the overall understanding of what the controlling idea is for what's being criticized. How would hyper-focusing on each individual piece help accomplish that? I'm confused as to what the intent behind your reply is.

To the first: This bit seems to be more sophistic than anything. Again, in order to criticize something one must understand the whole of what is being criticized. I wouldn't criticize the the merit of an impressionistic paintings perspective or anatomy because I understand that the painter was being impressionistic and in knowing the rules of impressionism, I'd realize that pointing out and judging irregularities in the anatomy is superfluous.

OF COURSE we need to understand where the developer is coming from. It's through this understanding that people form taste, preference, and yes, a basis for criticism.

 

[chikusho]

To your last point, yeah, everything is open to criticism. In order to criticize something, you must first understand the intent of the thing being criticized otherwise you have no criteria for which to judge said criticism.

No, you don't need to know the intent, because you can never truly know the intent. Also no, you don't need to know the intent because something can be communicated without it being intended. Yes, you can use your understanding of intent (claimed or otherwise) in your own speculation and interpretation. But it's by no means a necessary element of criticism.

To the second: *eyeroll* obviously the elements could be looked at separately, but to what end? It's clear that the philosophy behind my replies to you come from the perspective that criticism needs to stem from the overall understanding of what the controlling idea is for what's being criticized. How would hyper-focusing on each individual piece help accomplish that? I'm confused as to what the intent behind your reply is.

To whatever end you find appropriate. For example, stripper murder might be completely superfluous, overly gratuitous, tonally inconsistent or exploitative, and thus affect the overall experience of the user. It might also be singled out as a specific, graphic representation of a larger trend in a larger argument. It might also be criticized for being poorly handled and giving the user too much of the wrong type of freedoms in a game. It might also be critized for being tacky and inappropriate. It might also be praised for it's boldness, tonal consistency, contextual framing, technical design etc. without considering every other aspect in the product. Just like you can praise the sound design in a game with shitty gameplay.

To the first: This bit seems to be more sophistic than anything. Again, in order to criticize something one must understand the whole of what is being criticized. I wouldn't criticize the the merit of an impressionistic paintings perspective or anatomy because I understand that the painter was being impressionistic and in knowing the rules of impressionism, I'd realize that pointing out and judging irregularities in the anatomy is superfluous.

Sure you can, and no, you don't. To use a childish example: if an impressionistic painter makes an impressionistic painting featuring people with the anatomy of penises, you're well within your right to critisize the painter for just drawing dicks and passing it off as art.

OF COURSE we need to understand where the developer is coming from. It's through this understanding that people form taste, preference, and yes, a basis for criticism.

OF COURSE you CAN use an assumed understanding of where the developer is coming from (claimed or otherwise) to form your interpretation. But it's not a requirement for criticism. And such an interpretation is no more valid than one done from a perspective that doesn't consider the claimed developer intent.

I've already discussed the death of the author at length in another thread, and I feel like this is where this discussion is going. I'm not really in the mood for continuing that right now, so I'll just leave that discussion here.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It's the designers choice to give the player freedom.

It's the players responsibility if the player decides to mow down NPCs.

Yes, and so they are responsible for giving players that freedom.
There are plenty of ways to give players freedom. One such freedom that the developers can give players is to murder strippers. You can also give freedom without giving the option to murder strippers. If the players were not given the freedom to murder strippers, they would not be able to. As with any game, it's the developers responsibility to choose which freedoms to give the player or not.

Just like it's the designers choice to give the driver freedom over the gearshifts in their car.

Yep, it's the designers choice and responsibility on what freedoms and options they give the user. Exactly what I've been saying all along.

And it's the drivers responsibility if they foul up the shift (grinding the gears, shift to 3rd instead of 5th and cause a spin-out, wearing out the gears prematurely).

If this was a thread about game difficulty, not content, you might've had a point here.

You simply don't want the player to own up to their actions don't you?

This bit reminds me of spec ops the line here. The game makes you do something bad and then scolds you for it. I recall some people making the argument that if the game makes you do something, then it's not really your fault. The counter to this thought is that it's your choice to play the game. You can take out the disk any time you want. (This conundrum is mirrored with the player character blaming the main villain for what the PC did even though they could have just left.)

Of coarse it can simply be both the players and the developers fault. Every one can be blamed.

 

[MrFalconfly]

It's the designers choice to give the player freedom.

It's the players responsibility if the player decides to mow down NPCs.

Yes, and so they are responsible for giving players that freedom.
There are plenty of ways to give players freedom. One such freedom that the developers can give players is to murder strippers. You can also give freedom without giving the option to murder strippers. If the players were not given the freedom to murder strippers, they would not be able to. As with any game, it's the developers responsibility to choose which freedoms to give the player or not.

Just like it's the designers choice to give the driver freedom over the gearshifts in their car.

Yep, it's the designers choice and responsibility on what freedoms and options they give the user. Exactly what I've been saying all along.

And it's the drivers responsibility if they foul up the shift (grinding the gears, shift to 3rd instead of 5th and cause a spin-out, wearing out the gears prematurely).

If this was a thread about game difficulty, not content, you might've had a point here.

You simply don't want the player to own up to their actions don't you?

This bit reminds me of spec ops the line here. The game makes you do something bad and then scolds you for it. I recall some people making the argument that if the game makes you do something, then it's not really your fault. The counter to this thought is that it's your choice to play the game. You can take out the disk any time you want. (This conundrum is mirrored with the player character blaming the main villain for what the PC did even though they could have just left.)

Of coarse it can simply be both the players and the developers fault. Every one can be blamed.

Right, I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, but dammit you're absolutely right.

I played Spec Ops myself, and yes I felt like shit after "certain events" (which shall not be named, in case some people don't want to be spoilered).

The reason why I felt like shit after those "events" was because I FELT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! And I was. I continually pressed forwards in the hope that I could fix this, and everything I did just damaged everything even more. And I absolutely loved that a game could get me to feel remorse, and regret.

 

[maninahat]

Absolutely. If the developer consciously built it into the game, they can be criticised for it - even if many players don't actually do it. One of the weediest, most conniving defences I have seen for developers making questionable decisions is when people try to push it on to the players, as though the player is the real bad guy here and the developer had no idea they were going to do that. Please. If you are going to permit players to hack nuns and puppies to bits, you need to own up to the fact that you baked it in, rather than claim ignorance.

Now obviously that doesn't apply to every situation. The creators of Skyrim had no idea that a player might come along, behead every female NPC, and pose their corpses in their house like some kind of a serial killer. And nor could they, because its such a ridiculous stretch of the game mechanics they could not have reasonably expected it to happen. But there is a reasonable point where developers can be taken to task for permitting other such choices.

 

[Erttheking]

People keep criticizing games for difficulties that they're not forced to play, so I don't see why not.

 

[happyninja42]

I think it depends on the context of the criticism. I'm in general, going to be more favorable of a game that took the effort to provide multiple directions to take the story, based on how you want to proceed. And I do mean actual choices, not just window dressing that basically all lead to the same final result, I'm looking at YOU Dragon Age 2. But genuine, different content, determined by the choices the player makes. The act of doing that in itself, I think is worthy of praise just from a game design standpoint.

Now, the actual choices themselves, should be judged individually. Giving me 5 different choices, that are all poorly written, poorly designed, and executed poorly, are still poor choices. So I would criticize them on the actual quality of the choices presented. But if they are well done, well thought out, and compelling, and make me genuinely have to make a hard decision, and then have that decision be rewarded with excellent gameplay as a result, then great, and good for the game for doing it.