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

[WindKnight]

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

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

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

YOU CANNOT DO IT

The dev has all the power.

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

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

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

Do you also blame Tamagotchi in advocating animals abuse?

What part of 'if you can do it in the game its because the devs allow it' translates to 'this encourages you to do it in real life'?

 

[WindKnight]

And why are strippers of all people invulnerable to all forms of attack? Why are the only areas where they completely take your tools away the ones with strippers? Why are strippers the only NPCs that make you get knocked out, taken prisoner, or killed when you try to kill them? What is the justification in the game world for why these NPCs interact with you differently than everyone else?

Because in real life sex workers have a shit lot in life for reasons I've gone into already, and society in general and media in general treats them like shit, which generally games treating them the way they do ('mature' set dressing you can treat as toy) can help reinforce a lot of negative attitudes. And if a games wants to be mature in the proper sense, and not just 'teenager shouting fuck at the top of the lungs to upset people' terms, its something they should put more thought into.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

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

Not really true. I'm sure when crouching was first introduced to shooters the Devs didn't have T-bagging in mind. Some games have areas the devs don't want the player to access, but the player still can by doing things like exploiting a skill or crouching in a corner. I remember in Transformers: Fall of Cybertron there are multiplayer maps that allow the players to go outside of the intended area and walk on the "ceiling". Similarly, most multiplayer games now support mics for the players to communicate. I doubt anyone wanted the players to use it to shout racial slurs. All of these are certainly in the game. No hacking involved.

So, in a game where the player can: 1.) Can kill NPCs and 2.) Move the bodies. What the Devs intended these actions for and what the player will use them for don't always align and the Devs certainly shouldn't be held responsible for it. The only real solution to the problem would be for there to be no strippers, and probably no women, in the game.

Anyway, didn't Ms. Sarkeesian also say the players are meant to be aroused by killing the strippers? I don't mind her, but she does tend to say some seriously ridiculous things.

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

Yeah, if that bio thing were added into any game, I'd go out of my way to kill NPCs, just to see what they're bios read. I already do it in games like Watch_Dogs and Far Cry 4 whenever I kill an ally or civilian. That'd be more like rewarding the player for killing said strippers.

 

[MrFalconfly]

And why are strippers of all people invulnerable to all forms of attack? Why are the only areas where they completely take your tools away the ones with strippers? Why are strippers the only NPCs that make you get knocked out, taken prisoner, or killed when you try to kill them? What is the justification in the game world for why these NPCs interact with you differently than everyone else?

Because in real life sex workers have a shit lot in life for reasons I've gone into already, and society in general and media in general treats them like shit, which generally games treating them the way they do ('mature' set dressing you can treat as toy) can help reinforce a lot of negative attitudes. And if a games wants to be mature in the proper sense, and not just 'teenager shouting fuck at the top of the lungs to upset people' terms, its something they should put more thought into.

It's a game.

A game showcasing some rather grim aspects of life, including situations that might force our actions in ways we aren't comfortable with.

Optimally, you sneak past those strippers, and no harm comes to them.

If shit hits the fan, those strippers see you, and to stay undetected you need to incapacitate (i.e. kill) them.

Just to make it clear. If you go postal on those strippers, then that's on you. NOT the game designer.

 

[Schadrach]

The thing is, you can only do something in videogame if the dev lets you, unless your working very hard at breaking to game. And as much as you think 'no true player' will kill the strippers, my experience with games in general shows if they want to, they will, unless the dev makes it impossible, and I listed a few examples where the dev decided they didn't want you to do something, and they made it impossible.

So, to be clear, your complaint is that a special exception wasn't put in place to make certain noncombatant NPCs unkillable based on which character model is used for them, but instead they act exactly like every other noncombatant?

Dev's aren't naive. Dev's know gamers. If they truly didn't want you to be able kill the strippers, you would not be able to. But they were totally okay with players being able to. The point loss is minimal, and is mitigated by hiding the bodies, so there is no real reason not to if your so inclined.

The strippers are treated exactly like any other civilian NPC. They literally follow exactly the same rules as every other noncombatant, the only difference is that people like you take offense at them.

As for the point loss, it isn't wholly negated by hiding the bodies, and killing or not killing them could potentially effect your position on the leaderboards, if that's a thing you care about. Of course it's not the "harming a female NPC should cause you to lose outright" that Saint Sarky seems to think should be required, but that's insane...

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

You have a steering wheel that controls the direction of the car, as well as accelerator and brake pedals to control speed. By your reasoning, since these give you the capability to crash the car, and the manufacturer isn't making it impossible to crash the car, therefore the car manufacturer is promoting the crashing of cars.

Likewise, interlock devices that require you to breathe in a machine that check your BAC and refuse to allow the car to start if you are drunk exist, and are sometimes court ordered on people in DUI cases. That all cars are not equipped with them by default means that car manufacturers are encouraging drunk driving.

This is your argument applied to cars.

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

So, women as literal background decoration? I could swear someone claimed that was a sexist thing to do somewhere...

 

[WindKnight]

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

So, women as literal background decoration? I could swear someone claimed that was a sexist thing to do somewhere...

Spoken like someones who's only read the title and not actually watched the video in question.

In the logic of the Hitman game I would be hypothetically playing, what physical, mechanical, and/or story justification is there for these NPCs to behave differently than every other NPC?

And going back back to an earlier example, what logic does it serve that the children in Skyrim are invulnerable? None. But Bethesda did not want you to have the ability to harm them, so you do not. Their choice.

What part of 'if you can do it in the game its because the devs allow it' translates to 'this encourages you to do it in real life'?

Because in real life sex workers have a shit lot in life for reasons I've gone into already, and society in general and media in general treats them like shit, which generally games treating them the way they do ('mature' set dressing you can treat as toy) can help reinforce a lot of negative attitudes. And if a games wants to be mature in the proper sense, and not just 'teenager shouting fuck at the top of the lungs to upset people' terms, its something they should put more thought into.

Those 2 sentences seems to be in contrast with each other, and wouldn't a mature game acknowledge that sex workers exist? ignoring populations because their existence is not comfortable with you strikes me as more immature. Not to mention that:
a) Not all sex workers do it solely because they have rough life, some do it by choice.
b) I Don't remember games that outright villanize the entirety of sex workers as men hating succubus.
c) they are from an industry that is both prevalent in real life and has connection to criminal activities so it's pretty believable will appear in games.

a) And society still treats them like shit. The police harass and abuse them, making them unable or unlikely to report crimes against them.

b) TV shows and movies treat them as disposable victims no-one cares about. Games are only a part of that, but their still pushing the same messages. They make it easier for people to see sexworkers as 'less valuable' or 'responsible' for the bad things that happen to them.

c) Ans agin, that brings a lot of baggage with it that should be handled carefully, not as a maturity tiara be worn as you prance around 'look at me! look a tme! I'm mature!' which is generally the way games treat it.

 

[chikusho]

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

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

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

Here's why your comparisons don't work: the game designer is basically the god of the game universe. The designer is responsible for everything in the game that is 1) Possible, and 2) Not possible. And everything in the game that is possible or not possible is a conscious choice made by the developer. Thus, the game designer is responsible for everything that the player can do.

A car designer in the real world can't control what the user decides to do with his or her car. A god controlling the fabric of reality has 100% control over what a user can do with his or her car. So, game designers can control every action and consequence that is possible to make within their world. They can't control what a player decides to do in a game, but they can control what is possible to do in a game. You can't use a real world analogy like that to describe what the designer is responsible for, because everything that a player could concievably do within the world the designer has created is a direct result designer choice (and mods are a third-party changing of those rules, i.e. the result of conscious choices from another "god" of a different gameworld, and so does not have any bearing on what is actually contained within the released product).

Don't willfully ignore who is actually responsible for putting content in a game.

 

[JamesStone]

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

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

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

YOU CANNOT DO IT

The dev has all the power.

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

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

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

And why shouldn't the player be able to kill prostitutes? Why are prostitutes protected from the player's wrath when the rest of the NPCs are not? And more importantly, why is it that you blame a game that makes all civilian NPCs equal in terms of importance for some player's actions towards a certain group of civilian NPCs?

 

[MrFalconfly]

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

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

Don't pin user-responsibility on the dev.

Here's why your comparisons don't work: the game designer is basically the god of the game universe. The designer is responsible for everything in the game that is 1) Possible, and 2) Not possible. And everything in the game that is possible or not possible is a conscious choice made by the developer. Thus, the game designer is responsible for everything that the player can do.

A car designer in the real world can't control what the user decides to do with his or her car. A god controlling the fabric of reality has 100% control over what a user can do with his or her car. So, game designers can control every action and consequence that is possible to make within their world. They can't control what a player decides to do in a game, but they can control what is possible to do in a game. You can't use a real world analogy like that to describe what the designer is responsible for, because everything that a player could concievably do within the world the designer has created is a direct result designer choice (and mods are a third-party changing of those rules, i.e. the result of conscious choices from another "god" of a different gameworld, and so does not have any bearing on what is actually contained within the released product).

Don't willfully ignore who is actually responsible for putting content in a game.

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.

 

[DoPo]

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

Well how would it be the player's fault? Just look at how the strippers were dressed! If they didn't want to get shot, they should have worn body armour.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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

Well how would it be the player's fault? Just look at how the strippers were dressed! If they didn't want to get shot, they should have worn body armour.

Ah, that's where I was confused.

See, I thought that wearing bodyarmour mean that you WANTED to get shot.

I've been playing Battlefield all wrong then. I only shot the guys who wore bodyarmour.

 

[DoPo]

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

Well how would it be the player's fault? Just look at how the strippers were dressed! If they didn't want to get shot, they should have worn body armour.

Ah, that's where I was confused.

See, I thought that wearing bodyarmour mean that you WANTED to get shot.

I've been playing Battlefield all wrong then. I only shot the guys who wore bodyarmour.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the verb "shot" - if it's "have somebody shoot at your direction" then you are correct, but I was thinking "receive a gunshot wound", in which case the body armour makes sense.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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

Well how would it be the player's fault? Just look at how the strippers were dressed! If they didn't want to get shot, they should have worn body armour.

Ah, that's where I was confused.

See, I thought that wearing bodyarmour mean that you WANTED to get shot.

I've been playing Battlefield all wrong then. I only shot the guys who wore bodyarmour.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the verb "shot" - if it's "have somebody shoot at your direction" then you are correct, but I was thinking "receive a gunshot wound", in which case the body armour makes sense.

It was "have somebody shoot at your direction".

English isn't my first language. Sometimes I forget that some verbs can have different meanings, depending on the intent of the speaker.

 

[chikusho]

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.

 

[DoPo]

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.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

I think if choices and their consequences don't make sense for whatever reason, or are poorly written, then yes I think criticism is perfectly valid. For example, Steve Cortez from Mass Effect 3, as well as a lot of romances in Bioware Games, was very badly written. We get it. Steve's gay and a romance option. You develop characters slowly so it feels natural. He comes out and tells you, in your first conversation with him, that he's gay. The first conversation. You don't do that. I think the writing for friendships in the game, Cortez among them, were well written(Garrus is especially great) but a lot of the romances fell flat in a lot of ways.