Why do we have to have our games tell us no?

[Frozengale]

A good game that has a complex combat system, allowing for run and gun/stealth/whatever is one where all these options are viable. There is no dominant strategy because the game is perfectly balanced around all these different playstyles allowing for a player to mix and match, try new things. But a bad game with complex combat systems will have an obvious weak play style. The big part in all this is PUNISHMENT. See when a players preferred style of play for that game is weaker they feel like they are being punished for using it. Yes they enjoy playing it as stealth but it would be 10x easier to just use a rocket launcher to blast through them all. They sit there and say, "Why is the way I want to play weaker? You gave me this playstyle, but you made it bad. Why am I being punished for playing the way I want to play?"

In essence it feels like a punishment, like the game is saying, "No you shouldn't play like that, it isn't as good". Of course that only works for the play style bit of your OP.

As for the spell system and overpowered things in games, it comes down to two different things, challenge and choice. See if something like custom spells are overpowered then it removes challenge from the game, it messes with the all important difficulty curve which breaks a games flow. Once we've found something overpowered then it's a dominant strategy. When we have a dominant strategy then we venture into the idea that the game is less of a game and more of a puzzle. We have a solution that will always work. If we don't take the dominant strategy then we get back into the idea that it feels like we are being punished for not taking it. And this inhibits are choice. We may want to take the overpowered option, not because it makes things easier, but because it's how we want to play. But in doing so this destroys challenge, destroys flow, and forces us to feel like we have to choose the other path. So now we feel punished for taking the weaker option. It's this cycle of punishment or lack of challenge that can destroy enjoyment of a game.

The arguments for why you shouldn't be able to join every single guild in something like Skyrim is because of immersion I believe. It feels strange when every group in the game says, "Yeah you can join our club!" When in reality some of these clubs don't get along. Another aspect of it is the feeling of inclusion/exclusion. If you join Guild "A" and you can't join Guild "B" then you are part of something that others can't be a part of. Your character has something that other characters can't have. Of course I've always found exclusive Guilds, Factions, Skill Trees, etc. to be rather annoying. It just limits you, limits your story, limits a lot of things. Sometimes it might not make sense in a world but I'd rather have more options then be barred from something just because I made the "wrong" choice.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well let's just go to the extreme so you will understand, what if we take out all player restrictions, i.e. even walls, gravity, health, mana, money, locks, weapons, spells, travel time, quest requirements,...
Even in complete god mode where you are ghost form flying, infinitely powerful with all abilities and no resource requirements the player could still just make restrictions on himself to the extent he wanted to, go around walls instead of through them, fly slowly at ground level to simulate walking, go find keys to simulate existence of locks, go find items for quests so it seems like you did something, use limited skill set so it feels like you have some progression, count the number of hits and then hide as if you are taking damage, keep missing the opponent as if your power is limited, ...

Now imagine how that would feel to actually play, I'm thinking like a complete bloody mess.
Sure it's fun to go unhinged for an hour or so but after that the penny drops, without adversity we have nothing to overcome and by extend we get no payoff either.

 

[Kyrian007]

Talking specifically about the "problem with Skyrim's Guild system..."

I thought it was pretty weird initially. It did feel kind of broken or out of place. It felt like it didn't make much sense. It was right up there with "I plowed through the civil war, and it made no difference" arguments.

But... that's wrong. That was my initial feeling ONLY because I was using that character to try and experience EVERYTHING in the game. But when you do it that way, you notice how easy everything gets. It's because by the time you've done ALL that other stuff, you've become an unstoppable badass that nothing in the game can even touch. I made the exact same mistake in Fallout 3. It's almost like it was DESIGNED to be played multiple times with different characters experiencing different content. It's possible to finish Skyrim without experiencing MOST of it's content. It was much better and felt more natural on the next couple of characters specifically because I DIDN'T join every single guild.

So the answer for me (I really don't care if anyone else reacts the same way or not) is simply "I was playing it wrong, that's why it seemed odd." Once I adjusted my play style... that goes away like magic. Sorry if that sounds too much like "if you don't like it, don't use it." But for me at least... it solved the problem, so it is a valid answer.

 

[Loonyyy]

Because games are often about rules.

Soccer is no fun if you don't know you can't use your hands, or that you're meant to kick it in the goal, or that certain people are on your team. You can still have fun with a soccer ball in an unstructured way, more of a pure sandbox approach, but there's no direction to that, and sometimes rules can construct experiences. When some idiot runs on, punches out the ref and hand-balls it into the goal, before pissing on the keeper, that's going to annoy anyone playing for the game of soccer.

If part of the game is immersion in a story, and you can break the rules of the world and have the assassin/warrior/god/theif/politician/headofeveryfactionevermade, then the story stops making the same amount of sense. It also, in the case of Skyrim as you cited, removes the creativity and class diversity. Essentially, there's one playthrough, which will be pretty similar for everyone, bar a few setpiece choices having nothing to do with the way you play or roleplay, or build your character. It separates the story from the gameplay.

You can have fun by removing the rules, or even removing the pretense of immersion, Garry's Mod is incredibly fun, building stuff in Minecraft with cheats is loads of fun. But at the same time, playing within limited rules is also fun, and it all depends on what they're going for. So long as the way they do it doesn't contradict what they're trying to do, it works.

It's about balancing options and freedoms. Also, one distinction: Freedom to use the software in the way that you see fit is one thing I don't think is a case of balance. You should be able to choose saving, custom settings, and difficulty, and you should be given control over your interface.

 

[Bertylicious]

I guess it comes down to what you want out of your game. The best bit for me is the development of my character, mostly in relation to their stats and bars but also their story arc. Content, in terms of quest and narrative, is something of a means unto an end.

Content can, and should, be very satisfying. It's like food; the objective is to not die but it's better to eat a juicy steak than a gritty nutrient paste. By the same token, however, it doesn't matter how delicious that curried hake is, if you're full (or in this tortured analogy; the character has hit max level) you're not going to want to eat it.

Unless you're bulemic of course, but then I guess you'd have entirely different problems when it comes to eating/playing games.

Now I don't want to be restricted in what I can eat. If I want to eat panda cubs marinated in the blood of Bjork then that should be fine, provided there is a magic box that means nothing has to die to slake my depraved hunger and what is a magic box if not a computer that allows me to play a ninja wizard who crafts toys for children from the bones of freshly slain Gods?

Then again I am a fat knacker trapped in a thin man's body. Maybe for you the food is only edible if it can first be wrested from another or obtained after an arduous trial of denial and suffering, like going to KFC.

 

[loa]

What's wrong with not wanting game features to feel like cheats?
To want sidegrades instead of blatantly more effective ways to progress?

 

[putowtin]

They never patched out the Oghnam Infinium exploit, and you can cheat using the console commands... I never heard anyone complain about those. .

It's fixed in the next patch (the one that was beta tested via Steam)

It's a difficult situation, sometimes you want to do everything, in which case, be leader of every guild and kill everything!
Sometimes you want to truly role-play, in which case you have to restrain yourself and only follow a stealth/magic/warrior path
Sometimes you just want a linear experience, in which case don?t play Skyrim!

 

[Simonism451]

Part of the problem with gamebreaking items and playstyles as opposed to, say the option of a lower difficulty, is that by ignoring them, it can feel like you are not playing the game in the right way. It doesn't necessarily have to though: If there is some sort of incentive to play the hard way, such as: getting a better rating, unlocking new items, influencing the story line, even some sort of moral standpoint of the player, etc.

 

[Auron]

Because games are often about rules.

Soccer is no fun if you don't know you can't use your hands, or that you're meant to kick it in the goal, or that certain people are on your team. You can still have fun with a soccer ball in an unstructured way, more of a pure sandbox approach, but there's no direction to that, and sometimes rules can construct experiences. When some idiot runs on, punches out the ref and hand-balls it into the goal, before pissing on the keeper, that's going to annoy anyone playing for the game of soccer.

If part of the game is immersion in a story, and you can break the rules of the world and have the assassin/warrior/god/theif/politician/headofeveryfactionevermade, then the story stops making the same amount of sense. It also, in the case of Skyrim as you cited, removes the creativity and class diversity. Essentially, there's one playthrough, which will be pretty similar for everyone, bar a few setpiece choices having nothing to do with the way you play or roleplay, or build your character. It separates the story from the gameplay.

You can have fun by removing the rules, or even removing the pretense of immersion, Garry's Mod is incredibly fun, building stuff in Minecraft with cheats is loads of fun. But at the same time, playing within limited rules is also fun, and it all depends on what they're going for. So long as the way they do it doesn't contradict what they're trying to do, it works.

It's about balancing options and freedoms. Also, one distinction: Freedom to use the software in the way that you see fit is one thing I don't think is a case of balance. You should be able to choose saving, custom settings, and difficulty, and you should be given control over your interface.

All you're saying can be averted by choice, giving freedom to the player is the best option, it's your choice if you want to not make any sense at all. I only joined the Mage's Guild for example, sadly enough there wasn't enough choice or I'd have murdered the entire Dark Brotherhood(they just respawned was pretty sad.) when they tried to induce me into it so I'd advocate for even more player freedom not the contrary in any way.

 

[Kyrian007]

All you're saying can be averted by choice, giving freedom to the player is the best option, it's your choice if you want to not make any sense at all. I only joined the Mage's Guild for example, sadly enough there wasn't enough choice or I'd have murdered the entire Dark Brotherhood(they just respawned was pretty sad.) when they tried to induce me into it so I'd advocate for even more player freedom not the contrary in any way.

I did murder the entire Dark Brotherhood when they tried to recruit me. The choice to end them was there, and I never saw another respawn or attack me after they were all dead.

 

[BrotherRool]

Self control is a resource that gets depleted if you have to use a lot of it. If you're playing a game at the end of a long day your mind might not be in a place to enforce good gameplaying behaviour, not save scumming whatever

 

[Nazulu]

So we should have broken systems in games because it's another option to you? I prefer they implement it really well so everyone can enjoy it, then you can look for cheats if you don't give a shit about challenge. Get it? I don't reckon they should remove anything, they should find a way to make it work because I like my games designed well.

When I was playing Skyrim I went into it without any knowledge cause I wanted to uncover the mystery's myself. I was not pleased to find that I became over-powered straight away just because of a couple of new skills, that's not good design to me.

Also, another thing you need to understand is not everyone's mind works the same. Some people literally can't help but find the easiest path to get through the challenges, and if it's too easy then they won't enjoy the game as much. I reckon it would be better if they did put in limits so those people can enjoy it more, then you can look for mods or whatever if you want absolute freedom. That probably goes for save scumming as well.

 

[Loonyyy]

All you're saying can be averted by choice, giving freedom to the player is the best option, it's your choice if you want to not make any sense at all.

No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. I know it's common practice here, but please, avoid putting words in people's mouths. There are enough opinions going around without you making mine up for me.

If we take it to the absolute extreme, what if the rules that defined the graphics, the physics, the very system of the game were removed? You've have the most freedom. You also wouldn't have a playing field.

You can make a game which is all about freedom. ie, Minecraft's various creative modes, G-Mod, etc, where the game is working as much as a level editor and content creator. And I'd like it if those tools were available for all games. Because those can be fun experiences.

But maximising freedom in such a dogmatic way doesn't actually lead to more fun. Sometimes, restrictions are good, and they make things good. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to cheat, or mod it, or do anything of the sort: You should be able to go nuts with your software. But on a design side, making rules and restrictions is how you make the game. Gravity? A constraint on the movement of the player. Tangibility? A constraint. Vulnerability? A constraint. By carefully crafting rules and mechanics, you can create more directed fun. And, depending on how you do it, you can create various different scenarios. You could go for a strict structured approach like a CoD game, where the rules are simple, and don't interact with each other much. You could go for an emergent system, like Dwarf Fortress or the Sims, or a simulation like Simcity, where the rules interact with each other to create new and interesting aspects of play.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to turn the rules off, but there's much to be said for putting them there in the first place, because that's half the design. Hence the soccer analogy. You can have a lot of fun with a bunch of people, a ball, some nets and a field. You can have a lot of fun playing soccer. Both of these are perfectly valid. Crying "Freedom" apart from being a ridiculous adherence to a pointless ideal doesn't say anything even slightly meaningful.

I only joined the Mage's Guild for example, sadly enough there wasn't enough choice or I'd have murdered the entire Dark Brotherhood(they just respawned was pretty sad.) when they tried to induce me into it so I'd advocate for even more player freedom not the contrary in any way.

I'm not saying you can't have bad rules. I think they gave freedom in the wrong areas in Skyrim, and took it away in worse ones. You can join all the factions, which is stupid, and you can't kill many NPCs, which is also stupid (And before someone mentions the dragon attacks, please learn some boolean first. It would take me two seconds to show you how to make a tag for whether a character can be killed by a random attack when the player is away. This is not an issue).

I'd like more freedom in being able to customise my armour, climb walls and levitate, and kill any NPC. I'd like less freedom in faction choices, etc, because they hurt the narrative, and minimise the players freedom to make meaningful choices (Which is another point: Giving freedom in one place can hurt it in another). And what you think are good and bad rules etc are entirely up to you, and you can say you like or dislike whichever you please. I'm not going to have that conversation. There's nothing contradictory about this, because I don't say that one dogmatic assertion "Freedom" "Rules" is the only valid one. They both have their place.

I'm just answering the OP: That's why games tell us no. Because otherwise when you jump, you never fall. Sometimes "No" is a mechanic.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

With regards to the stealth issue, i've just been playing the Hitman trilogy. With a degree in patience you can silent assassin every level and it makes you feel like a god to have beaten the challenge as it is intended. Grabbing the M60 and killing everything and storming through the levels in 3 minutes each doesn't feel good at all. Yeah, your a god in that game world but back in the real world your a low ability player with no skill.

I actually impose rules on myself when i play games though. In skyrim i refuse to eat food during combat because it makes no sense. Same goes for Fallout aswell. In Hitman i don't allow myself the use of silenced pistols so it's either wire/sedation or noisy kills. In first person shooters i avoid using sniper rifles unless forced to because they are basically cheating in my eyes.

The developers make a game world with things i consider dodgy and i make rules to try and make them more sensible. We need to coin a phrase or word for that

 

[DoPo]

I don't know why the discussion was drawn to self-control and resisting temptations and such. That's overlooking the issue - a broken game is a broken game. Rules don't function as intended, thus it's a flawed product. Also, self-control means that everybody KNOWS about which, and I'll shock you, is not necessarily the case. When we don't know everything about a game, we tend to, you know, go by intention. Doing A results in B with a side effect of C. That's pretty simple and we tend to go by that formula. In most games you are challenged, then you improve then the challenge rises. It's more or less expected by default. A broken system twists that beyond recognition. Normally, you'd expect that if you improve, the challenge would also increase. So, at any rate, one can happily go into a game, exploit it without knowing, and have their expectations subverted - improvement only removed challenge as a whole[footnote]You could also have instance in which a broken system doesn't throw challenge but rather impossibility at you, but let's face it, very few games tend to be broken in that way.[/footnote], now what?

And that's why you need a game to "tell you no" - self-control could only even begin to work, if you know you need to resist.

 

[Vegosiux]

I think it's more of an issue of balance. I think it's more or less universally agreed that games are not movies. As games, they should have the element of playing them - so there is set of rules and a challenge. When there is no challenge and everything you do would end up in a success, say, combat or stealth, then what does your choice matter? The act of "playing" turns into a choose your own adventure book movie. Heck, even the books have losing conditions and consequences of choice...well, mostly, that is. Anyway, if option A and B don't matter, what then?

Well, but consider this; you're saying that "If you succeed no matter what you do then there's no meaning to your choice". I say "If you fail unless you do the one 'right' thing to advance, you never had a choice to begin with." So is it either a choice without meaning or no choice at all?

There is more than one way to skin a cat, but are you seriously suggesting that because the cat ends up skinned ether way, it doesn't matter which way I picked? Well, it does matter to me. Because I did it my way, it was my choice and part of my character's development.

I mean I agree it gets incessantly tedious if you get "a winner is you" every time you push a button, but the ways to success should be varied and branched, while still keeping enough failure conditions around.

 

[DoPo]

I think it's more of an issue of balance. I think it's more or less universally agreed that games are not movies. As games, they should have the element of playing them - so there is set of rules and a challenge. When there is no challenge and everything you do would end up in a success, say, combat or stealth, then what does your choice matter? The act of "playing" turns into a choose your own adventure book movie. Heck, even the books have losing conditions and consequences of choice...well, mostly, that is. Anyway, if option A and B don't matter, what then?

Well, but consider this; you're saying that "If you succeed no matter what you do then there's no meaning to your choice". I say "If you fail unless you do the one 'right' thing to advance, you never had a choice to begin with." So is it either a choice without meaning or no choice at all?

There is more than one way to skin a cat, but are you seriously suggesting that because the cat ends up skinned ether way, it doesn't matter which way I picked? Well, it does matter to me. Because I did it my way, it was my choice and part of my character's development.

I mean I agree it gets incessantly tedious if you get "a winner is you" every time you push a button, but the ways to success should be varied and branched, while still keeping enough failure conditions around.

And when exactly did I disagree with that? I disagree with throwing balance off a cliff for the sake of having diversity, not putting a straitjacket that promotes THE ONE TRUE WAY?®©. It's not a binary choice between these, you yourself said as much but why did you still assume it?