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

[The_Lost_King]

So I started thinking about this because of people complaining you can join all the guilds in the newer Elder Scrolls games. Then I thought about it again when people said that Bethesda removed spellmaking because it was too easily exploited. Again when people complained about crafting in Skyrim being OP. Finally(this time not from the Elder Scrolls) people complaining about having both stealth and run and gun as options.

In every one of those scenarios the people who are complaining want the game to tell them they can't do that. Why can't they tell themselves not to do it?

Now I had an argument about spell making and why it shouldn't have been removed in Skyrim. The guy who was against me said it was to easily exploited. I say what does it matter? If you want to exploit something do it, you are not forced to. but no, he said it was way to easy to exploit it so it had to be removed.

There are so many people who say it is ridiculous that you can join the thieves guild and then turn around and do the Companions. Now I agree this is stupid, but you should still be able to do it. Why? because not everyone cares and if you care you should just not do that, I don't let my warriors join the dark brotherhood.

I think that people should stop asking the game to tell them not to do stuff and tell themselves not to do it.

Edit:
I see what you guys are saying and you are right games should have rules. It is just in some cases I feel the rules don't need to always be that harsh. I don't want everything to be a linear experiences but those have their place.

Also I misrepresented what Zhukov was saying and temoved the paragraph because I actually agree with what he says. Sorry Zhukov.

on an unrelated not, seriously I am having a bad day with spelling.

 

[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?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I agree. I had the same argument with someone on this forum when I said that all games should allow you to save whenever you want, and people kept telling me that was a terrible design decision because it allowed people to save scum. My retort was "so what?" If someone wants to save scum in a single player game then you should just let them. No one is forcing you personally to do it if you're against the practice. Why not just accept that having more choices in how you play is better?!

 

[The Wykydtron]

The fact that they CAN break the game can often be enough. I mean you could be getting owned trying to beat a game your way and then there's always this voice in the back of your head going "Hey. Hey you! Use the Inferno Divider! Just this once! It's OP" NO! Shut UP voice!

It can really detract from a game. Like how I dislike how you can get every single piece of armour and weapon from the get go in Dead Space 2. I think you need to preorder or something because lol EA. I KNOW I can just ignore it but I feel like I would be missing something if I didn't use it, gimping myself of a challenge if I did use it etc etc

In general, once i'm aware of broken tactics and moves, beating the game any other way loses some value for me.

"Well THAT took a lot of effort to beat. You really could have saved yourself the trouble and used Inferno Divider 100+ times and won ten times easier."

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, if you used the stealth suit in Fallout 3, it breaks the entire game's combat.
Now, you could say "it's in the game, it's cool, why not use it?"
When devs make a game, though, they're designing encounters or stages or whatever around a range of scenarios of how players could experience it.

So if you use the stealth suit, maybe it's a place where it's supposed to be tense in the way you're expecting crazy dudes to jump you. They can't see you? The experience of the game is diminished.
You're in this gigantic military complex full of soldiers and turrets and whatever? Fine, no problem, just walk through.

What happens when a player goes through the game like this, and then gets asked "so what's FO3 like?"

Cheat codes and such are there. If you want to use them, use them.
But there should be a clear distinction between something that breaks the game, vs something that is working as intended.

 

[generals3]

The fact that they CAN break the game can often be enough. I mean you could be getting owned trying to beat a game your way and then there's always this voice in the back of your head going "Hey. Hey you! Use the Inferno Divider! Just this once! It's OP" NO! Shut UP voice!

I basically wanted to say the same. It's for instance why in Civ IV i ended up disabling the world builder because when on that voice wouldn't shut up when my enemies would overwhelm me.

 

[josemlopes]

About the stealth options, I think it has a bit to do with the fact that in most stealth games you can go guns blazing in a room and then have the next room be filled with completely calm dudes (basicly a reset to the alert state) meaning that after 10 minutes of trying to stealth the player will possibly go "Eh... fuck it" and kill everyone.

Every room is like a puzzle and when the player keeps failing at the end of that puzzle he may want to get a "hint" and quickly go to the next one because he got tired of getting stuck.

In the Hitman games (before Absolution) this was actually well fixed, you could go stealth or action but if you went with action you would completely eliminate all the puzzles of that level, choosing to go guns blazing actually meant that you would now have to deal with the rest of the level this way instead of the usual "fuck these 2 guys that are always looking at that door BAM! BAM!" and getting away with it.

I know that it isnt a great excuse but I do feel that after a while of forcing yourself to sneak in a game that only penalizes sneaking can get tiring really soon making you wonder "Why am I doing this again?"

 

[Doom972]

When the game gives a player an easy way out, a player might lose motivation for taking the harder path. I usually don't have a problem restricting myself to make things more interesting, but sometimes I wish I could remove the "safety net" that many modern games provide, so that I can feel I actually have a chance of losing if I mess up.

As for the guilds in TES games: In Morrowind, in order to gain a higher rank (which opens up a new tier of missions) in a guild, the player would have to complete missions and in addition to that, reach a certain level in certain skills that are relevant to the guild. That prevented, for example, pure fighters from reaching the position of Archmage without ever casting a single spell. I would've liked to see that in Oblivion and Skyrim. Hopefully they'll bring it back in TES VI.

 

[Innegativeion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI&t=1m47s

Mordin said it best.

Challenges are at their peak level of satisfaction when striking the correct balance of limitations with freedom.

You could play solitaire with a deck already fully sorted with the cards in perfect order, but what's the fucking point? Some games benefit from more freedom. Some don't. It's all about striking the correct balance.

If you have a horrible balance of limitations and freedoms, then just because your player can choose not to exploit it, doesn't make your game suck any less.

 

[Zhukov]

There was a thread about how someone thinks stealth action games are stupid because even though they love stealth they felt they should go with combat because it was easier. I found it silly that they couldn't just stealth, I mean come on it is a perfectly viable option if you love it pick it. but no, he wanted the game to make it impossible for you to win in a straight up fight if he gets detected.

I think you are talking about me [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.401912-I-have-a-gripe-with-games-that-combine-stealth-and-action].

I like it when people talk about me. However, I don't like it so much when people misrepresent my views. Please refrain from doing so.

Also, hello.

My point was not that I felt I should go with combat because it was easier. Rather, I said that the availability of action made playing stealth nothing more than an exercise in playing with your food. The point of stealth is to not be spotted, yes? In a game where the action approach is viable, being spotted has no consequences. You just kill whoever spotted you and whoever else turns up, then move on. Maybe crouch-walk past the bodies in a pathetic attempt to maintain the illusion that you're playing a stealth game.

It's like playing an action game with god-mode turned on. One of the major points of an action game is to avoid damage or death, yes? What would happen if you took that away by making yourself invulnerable? You could just ignore the enemies and walk past them to the end of the level. You wouldn't be playing an action game anymore. I suppose you could pretend you were by killing a few helpless enemies along the way, but really, what's the point?

That's why your game needs to say "no" every now and again. As in, "No, you really shouldn't get spotted by every guard from here to the ends of the earth without consequences in a stealth game." Or "No, you shouldn't be able to ignore enemies in an action game."

You could play solitaire with a deck already fully sorted with the cards in perfect order, but what's the fucking point? Some games benefit from more freedom. Some don't. It's all about striking the correct balance.

If you have a horrible balance of limitations and freedoms, then just because your player can choose not to exploit it, doesn't make your game suck any less.

Now, this guy?

I like this guy. This guy gets it.

 

[Smeggs]

Disregarding anything else, the reason I take issue with Skyrim's Guild system is the same reason I take issue with the fact that a High Elf can join the Stormcloaks: it makes no god damned pissing sense when set up next to the game's story. I literally became the Archmage while only ever using the most basic spells required of me-my character was a Two-Handed Greataxe user. Meanwhile, I'm also a werewolf Companion member, and am also the best Thief in the entire Thieve's guild.

Apparently, this super high member of society who runs THE ONLY mage's college in Skyrim, while also being a member of Whiterun's widely famed warrior club, is also a master thief nobody knows, as I also kill dragons as I'm the legendary Dragonborn.

 

[AwKwardly]

As Innegativeion said, it's all in the balance. Having infinite choice isn't necessarily a positive thing. What value is there in MY particular answer if by simply doing anything would work? On the flip side, why am I bothering if I get to have no effective decision making?

Another point about choice, consequence, reward and punishment. When I make a decision, I expect it to open certain avenues and that it will likely close others. But that's personal preference. Without your decisions having ramifications, both positive AND negative, I feel they are further undervalued.

Using the Skyrim guilds as an example; you can lead them all regardless of initial skill set. If you want to do that power to you. My issue with it is that I feel a guild should be the pinnacle of your chosen play style, rewarding you for your behaviors and style and potentially disapproving of other approaches. There's no reinforcement or refinement of your play style through reward and appropriate resolution of the challenge. Unless of course it's through self imposed challenge as you stated, which I don't feel overly rewarded for, but that isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Windcaler]

So I started thinking about this because of people complaining you can join all the guilds in the newer Elder Scrolls games. Then I thought about it again when people said that Bethesda removed spellmaking because it was too easily exploited. Again when people complained about crafting in Skyrim being OP. Finally(this time not from the Elder Scrolls) people complaining about having both stealth and run and gun as options.

In every one of those scenarios the people who are complaining want the game to tell them they can't do that. Why can't they tell themselves not to do it?

There was a thread about how someone thinks stealth action games are stupid because even though they love stealth they felt they should go with combat because it was easier. I found it silly that they couldn't just stealth, I mean come on it is a perfectly viable option if you love it pick it. but no, he wanted the game to make it impossible for you to win in a straight up fight if he gets detected.

Now I had an argument about spell making and why it shouldn't have been removed in Skyrim. The guy who was against me said it was to easily exploited. I say what does it matter? If you want to exploit something do it, you are not forced to. but no, he said it was way to easy to exploit it so it had to be removed.

There are so many people who say it is ridiculous that you can join the thieves guild and then turn around and do the Companions. Now I agree this is stupid, but you should still be able to do it. Why? because not everyone cares and if you care you should just not do that, I don't let my warriors join the dark brotherhood.

I think that people should stop asking the game to tell them not to do stuff and tell themselves not to do it.

Im only going to talk about the issues of Skyrim from my perspective rather then bring other games into the situation. Lets talk about this "if you dont like it dont use it" idea first. In some cases this makes a lot of sense but in other cases it doesnt. For example the Dragonborn basicly has the full knowledge of Skryims layout in his head despite never having been to those lands or at the very least not having been there in awhile. What Im talking about here is quest markers specifically. You could turn them off but the game doesnt give you any directions because theyre so intregal to the system that you literally cant not use them and still complete your quest.

As to the blacksmithing system being overpowering. I agree it can be but I dont agree that we shouldnt call it out for what it is. Can people choose not to use it? Sure. Should they just forget that its potentially unbalanced toward the rest of the game? Absolutely not. I would have been comfortable with a system that could make everything but daedric armor

As for the guilds thing. Well lets think about this you can be Harbinger of the companions, Thieves guild leader, leader of the Nightengales, Archmage of the College of winterhold, Listener of the Dark brotherhood, The Dragonborn, and probably a lot more that Im forgetting. For me that irrevocably shatters my suspension of disbelief. Whenever I play any game I tend to have some suspension of disbelief but the Dragonborn being all of those things just goes to far, I cant force myself to suspend it that much. My brain just doesnt work like that

So Im sorry but its just not as simple as you make it out to be. Dont use it if you dont like it can work on a personal level but that doesnt mean we shouldnt call out nonsense when we see it.

 

[VoidWanderer]

As much as people want choice, they also don't.

They feel that their choices are 'the only correct way to play'. People also like to push the mechanics of a game a hard as they can. Personally while I was aware that you can break Oblivion by having items that give you over 101% chameleon rendering you completely invisible to NPCs, even while attacking.

While people loved that, they broke the game for themselves and some of them regret that choice knowing what it can do. The only 'broken' thing I did was using some website whose name eludes me to find out where there was a boss/end of dungeon chest that you can access by going down a trap door southwest of the Imperial City.

For me, the most fun I had in Dishonored was stealthing and committing as little killings as possible. To me it was the greater test of skill as anyone with average skill in FPS games can gun everyone down, but to make you way through a game undetected and complete your objective to me (and this makes me sound like an ass) is the 'higher' level of play.

Giving yourself limits in a gameplay and completing it, despite the challenges.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

People are ridiculously fickle these days when it comes to games and what they supposedly want. When a game closes it's arms and says that they can't do something, they ***** about wanting to have more options, when a game provides those options they ***** about how those options detract from one thing. You can please nobody these days it seems.

I agree with you though, having more options in a videogame isn't a bad thing, if somebody doesn't have enough self restraint to not use an option in a game they don't like then that's their problem.

 

[Auron]

People dislike having options it seems... Which I always thought was extremely fucking weird to tell the truth. I mean, if you want your Elder Scrolls character to make sense, just pick up one guild to join. If you want to be extremely stealthy Deus Ex furure cop do it, if you want to murder everything JC comes across do it, I love when a game gives me multiple options to engage it's challenges.

The real problem is people say they want deep experiences and roleplay and what-not but most of them are just powergamers who'll find the optimal build or the optimal play style and finish the game instead of actually playing the goddamn game they're rushing through it.

PS - it's the same goddamn thing with dark soul's whatever(2?) easy mode, it'll be there and it'll be completely optional not affecting the main game but people still complain endlessly about it. It seems gaming fans nowadays have in their minds a correct way to have fun and want everyone else who can appreciate more than one way to stop gaming.

 

[Jared Hansen]

The only time balance in a game annoyed me was in Arcanum (ahem, going back a ways) because that game had you either make a choice between tech and magic or use neither/ a weaker combination of both. The big problem, and the thing you'll hear from nearly everyone who plays the game is that tech SUCKS. It is so underpowered compared to magic, which in that games universe is Diablo-tier even though you'll fight about an eighth of the enemies. And what's more NPCs operate by the same rules so mages can curb stomp you.

So the game ends up giving you a choice that amounts to easy mode or grind mode. And what I found so annoying was that I figured tech was the obvious way to go. Every fantasy game lets you cast spells, after all. Arcanum was the only one that let you build a machine gun FROM A BOX OF SCRAPS.

That said, I can see where people come from with Assassin's Creed. What annoys me with AC is that you have oddly limited options. I think it may be the only stealth game, for example, where you can't crouch. If I have to race over a massive open rooftop to see the sultan's son in Revelations and my bonus objective is to not be spotted, it makes it annoying to have to look around for a convenient man-sized chimney to stand in front of. In that case, I think adding a bit more versatility to the stealth system rather than making the game stricter is a better answer. A superficial stealth system will result in superficial stealth gameplay, as simple as that.