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

[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.

 

[chikusho]

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.

I'm saying that developers are responsible for the content they produce and put out into the world. Allowing players to run over NPC's is a conscious choice, and this in particular is one that requires intriquate design work to make possible. So is animating NPC's jumping out of the way before you hit them.

I'm fine with either choice, I just recognize that it IS a choice. Handling the killing of NPC civilians with point deduction or bonus are also equally valid choices, but they are just that: choices.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

"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."

The freedom to kill any NPC in a game would be equatable to a car having either a manual or an automatic gearbox, so the analogy works.

Killing the strippers for no reason would be equatable to short-shifting a manual gearbox.

It's still the responsibility of the player, not the designer.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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.

So the initial target, and those nun assassins "subliminally" messaged to the player that all strippers should die?

 

[chikusho]

snip

"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."

The freedom to kill any NPC in a game would be equatable to a car having either a manual or an automatic gearbox, so the analogy works.

Killing the strippers for no reason would be equatable to short-shifting a manual gearbox.

It's still the responsibility of the player, not the designer.

So, explain this: how come players can kill strippers in Hitman, but they can't kill strippers in Super Mario 64?

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

"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."

The freedom to kill any NPC in a game would be equatable to a car having either a manual or an automatic gearbox, so the analogy works.

Killing the strippers for no reason would be equatable to short-shifting a manual gearbox.

It's still the responsibility of the player, not the designer.

So, explain this: how come players can kill strippers in Hitman, but they can't kill strippers in Super Mario 64?

Well for one there aren't any strippers, and secondly the designer didn't want to give that freedom to the player.

According to my analogy that equates to Porsche not offering a manual gearbox for their new 911 GT3 RS.

EDIT:
And just to keep it consistent with my previous argument.

Fouling up a gearshift can absolutely cause a crash (and yes that is the responsibility of the driver, not the engineer who decided that there shouldn't be an automatic gearbox in the car).

 

[chikusho]

So, explain this: how come players can kill strippers in Hitman, but they can't kill strippers in Super Mario 64?

Well for one there aren't any strippers, and secondly the designer didn't want to give that freedom to the player.

According to my analogy that equates to Porsche not offering a manual gearbox for their new 911 GT3 RS.

EDIT:
And just to keep it consistent with my previous argument.

Fouling up a gearshift can absolutely cause a crash (and yes that is the responsibility of the driver, not the engineer who decided that there shouldn't be an automatic gearbox in the car).[/quote]

So, using that analogy, the creator (game/car designer) has made a conscious choice to put something in their product (gear and/or manual shift / stripper murder), and if the creator had not intentionally designed the product that way, the user (driver/player) would not be able to choose how to interact with the product in that way. Clearly, it's the creators intentional choices regarding what is and is not possible that enable the user to do or not do certain things.

 

[MrFalconfly]

So, explain this: how come players can kill strippers in Hitman, but they can't kill strippers in Super Mario 64?

Well for one there aren't any strippers, and secondly the designer didn't want to give that freedom to the player.

According to my analogy that equates to Porsche not offering a manual gearbox for their new 911 GT3 RS.

EDIT:
And just to keep it consistent with my previous argument.

Fouling up a gearshift can absolutely cause a crash (and yes that is the responsibility of the driver, not the engineer who decided that there shouldn't be an automatic gearbox in the car).

So, using that analogy, the creator (game/car designer) has made a conscious choice to put something in their product (gear and/or manual shift / stripper murder), and if the creator had not intentionally designed the product that way, the user (driver/player) would not be able to choose how to interact with the product in that way. Clearly, it's the creators intentional choices regarding what is and is not possible that enable the user to do or not do certain things.[/quote]

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

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

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

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).

 

[chikusho]

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.

 

[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.

So the initial target, and those nun assassins "subliminally" messaged to the player that all strippers should die?

If I were to suggest that games could influence player choices, then I would get no peace from people claiming that it's impossible for video games to have an affect on someone, but the idea that players might do something nasty when they enter a strip club is something the developer knew about. It couldn't be a surprise to them.

 

[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?

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Let me answer it like this.

Villains steal the show for me, a good enigmatic villain out to ruin the heroes fucking week makes the story for me. Some games give me the option to be that smug, charismatic, cocky absolute prick of a villain. I like that. I like it so much I actively seek it out.

In reality, I'm like Sam from Lord of the Rings. I don't want to go on no adventures. I just want to sit in my hole and eat myself into a coma watching Hobbit netflix.

I am NOTHING like the character I play in games. In fact, I'm their polar opposite. I'll even make black or asian characters just to put myself in someone elses shoes, if just for a few minutes. No, I don't think games should be judged for the options players can take because players take options they never would outside of fiction.

 

[chikusho]

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

I couldn't care less about what players do or don't do with their game. They are simply interacting with a game world that someone designed. Even if not a single player playing the Hitman games ever killed a single stripper, stripper murder is still a viable option, and it's only a viable option because the creators made it so. They have the ultimate responsibility for the content they create, and if they don't want players to interact with their game in certain ways, it's within their power (and their power only) to make it impossible.
I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with choosing to design your game with that element, or any other element. But if you make it, you're responsible for it, and it's just as valid to criticise stripper murder as it is to criticise level design, graphics, story, weapon variety, and everything else included in the product.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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

I couldn't care less about what players do or don't do with their game. They are simply interacting with a game world that someone designed. Even if not a single player playing the Hitman games ever killed a single stripper, stripper murder is still a viable option, and it's only a viable option because the creators made it so. They have the ultimate responsibility for the content they create, and if they don't want players to interact with their game in certain ways, it's within their power (and their power only) to make it impossible.
I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with choosing to design your game with that element, or any other element. But if you make it, you're responsible for it, and it's just as valid to criticise stripper murder as it is to criticise level design, graphics, story, weapon variety, and everything else included in the product.

Well, I don't think game developers should be punished for giving players freedom, and I don't think game developers should be criticised for peripheral consequences their game rules might have.

If you kill the strippers in Hitman, that says more about you than it does about me, or the game developers.

I don't take reviewers seriously who think "I can go postal on NPC's" is a valid criticism.

 

[chikusho]

Well, I don't think game developers should be punished for giving players freedom, and I don't think game developers should be criticised for peripheral consequences their game rules might have.

I'm not saying game developers should be punished for giving players freedom. I'm saying that game developers are ultimately the only ones responsible for the freedoms they choose to give the players. Just the same way that they're responsible for the restrictions they place on interactivity within the game world.

If you kill the strippers in Hitman, that says more about you than it does about me, or the game developers.

Not really. Being able to use the full mechanics and interactivity contained within a product you purchased should be taken as a given. If you as a developer don't want players to interact with your product in certain ways, it's your job to restrict it. If you're fine with how players interact with the mechanics of your game, you should take responsibility for the decisions you've made.

I don't take reviewers seriously who think "I can go postal on NPC's" is a valid criticism.

"I can go postal on NPC's" is just as valid a criticism as "I CAN'T go postal on NPC's" - something your described as "frustrating" and "boring" earlier in this thread. If it's in the box, it's open to criticism.