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

[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.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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.

Well, I think it's clear that none of us are going to budge.

Have a nice day. I wont be responding to this thread any more.

 

[Zombie Proof]

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.

No it isn't.

I brought this thought up somewhere before:

Before critiquing a game, it's the players responsibility to understand the intent of the developers for who's game they're playing. Anyone with even a modicum of critical thought understands that the controlling idea of hitman and the theme's motivating gameplay have nothing to do with murdering strippers willy nilly in that strip club. especially if the goals for said mission run contrary to doing so.

That's why understanding "controlling idea" is so important to story. There are a bazillion elements involved in a stories telling. many of those elements exists for many different reasons, but those that contribute directly to either the up or down turn of a controlling idea's value are the ones that need to be focused on when judging merit, either in functional or literary terms.

Your train of thought runs parallel to judging Team Fortress 2 for it's story. There are story elements strewn about to add context to the world, sure. It's the player's responsibility though to understand that valve sought out to make a competitive shooter, not a game containing literary merit before critiquing the quality of that story.

 

[chikusho]

Before critiquing a game, it's the players responsibility to understand the intent of the developers for who's game they're playing. Anyone with even a modicum of critical thought understands that the controlling idea of hitman and the theme's motivating gameplay have nothing to do with murdering strippers willy nilly in that strip club. especially if the goals for said mission run contrary to doing so.

It is equally valid to look at game elements in and out of the context they are presented. If the developers can't take responsibility for what they created, they should probably have created something else.

That's why understanding "controlling idea" is so important to story. There are a bazillion elements involved in a stories telling. many of those elements exists for many different reasons, but those that contribute directly to either the up or down turn of a controlling idea's value are the ones that need to be focused on when judging merit, either in functional or literary terms.

This is about a game mechanic, not story. Although, the story is also something the developers are responsible for.

Your train of thought runs parallel to judging Team Fortress 2 for it's story. There are story elements strewn about to add context to the world, sure. It's the player's responsibility though to understand that valve sought out to make a competitive shooter, not a game containing literary merit before critiquing the quality of that story.

My train of thought isn't judging anything for anything, it's simply a recognition of creators being responsible for their creations. Also, Yes, it's completely valid to criticize Team Fortress 2 for its story. The surrounding circumstances or intent does nothing to improve a bad story, nor do they lessen a good story, when story is the central perspective of the criticism.

 

[Zombie Proof]

Before critiquing a game, it's the players responsibility to understand the intent of the developers for who's game they're playing. Anyone with even a modicum of critical thought understands that the controlling idea of hitman and the theme's motivating gameplay have nothing to do with murdering strippers willy nilly in that strip club. especially if the goals for said mission run contrary to doing so.

It is equally valid to look at game elements in and out of the context they are presented. If the developers can't take responsibility for what they created, they should probably have created something else.

That's why understanding "controlling idea" is so important to story. There are a bazillion elements involved in a stories telling. many of those elements exists for many different reasons, but those that contribute directly to either the up or down turn of a controlling idea's value are the ones that need to be focused on when judging merit, either in functional or literary terms.

This is about a game mechanic, not story. Although, the story is also something the developers are responsible for.

Your train of thought runs parallel to judging Team Fortress 2 for it's story. There are story elements strewn about to add context to the world, sure. It's the player's responsibility though to understand that valve sought out to make a competitive shooter, not a game containing literary merit before critiquing the quality of that story.

My train of thought isn't judging anything for anything, it's simply a recognition of creators being responsible for their creations. Also, Yes, it's completely valid to criticize Team Fortress 2 for its story. The surrounding circumstances or intent does nothing to improve a bad story, nor do they lessen a good story, when story is the central perspective of the criticism.

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?

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.

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.

 

[chikusho]

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.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

You have to judge games based on how they were intended to be played, based on the way the game and tutorials and manual etc. explain it to you.


Simple example, say in the original mario you choose to overlook the option of jumping, well, you'll keep dying to the first goomba since you have to jump over it. You'll hate the game based on that and might be inclined to judge it harshly but that'd be unfair. That's really all it is. Common sense should dictate if you're supposed to do something or if you can but shouldn't. Like, you theoretically could release all of your pokemon and be left with a lvl 1 magicarp, but do you REALLY think you're supposed to do that based on the context the game provides?

I find asking "do you really think you're supposed to do this" as always fitting in this discussion.