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

[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.

 

[Zombie Proof]

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.

To your last point, yeah, everything is open to criticism. In order to criticize something, you must first understand the intent of the thing being criticized otherwise you have no criteria for which to judge said criticism.

To the second: *eyeroll* obviously the elements could be looked at separately, but to what end? It's clear that the philosophy behind my replies to you come from the perspective that criticism needs to stem from the overall understanding of what the controlling idea is for what's being criticized. How would hyper-focusing on each individual piece help accomplish that? I'm confused as to what the intent behind your reply is.

To the first: This bit seems to be more sophistic than anything. Again, in order to criticize something one must understand the whole of what is being criticized. I wouldn't criticize the the merit of an impressionistic paintings perspective or anatomy because I understand that the painter was being impressionistic and in knowing the rules of impressionism, I'd realize that pointing out and judging irregularities in the anatomy is superfluous.

OF COURSE we need to understand where the developer is coming from. It's through this understanding that people form taste, preference, and yes, a basis for criticism.

 

[chikusho]

To your last point, yeah, everything is open to criticism. In order to criticize something, you must first understand the intent of the thing being criticized otherwise you have no criteria for which to judge said criticism.

No, you don't need to know the intent, because you can never truly know the intent. Also no, you don't need to know the intent because something can be communicated without it being intended. Yes, you can use your understanding of intent (claimed or otherwise) in your own speculation and interpretation. But it's by no means a necessary element of criticism.

To the second: *eyeroll* obviously the elements could be looked at separately, but to what end? It's clear that the philosophy behind my replies to you come from the perspective that criticism needs to stem from the overall understanding of what the controlling idea is for what's being criticized. How would hyper-focusing on each individual piece help accomplish that? I'm confused as to what the intent behind your reply is.

To whatever end you find appropriate. For example, stripper murder might be completely superfluous, overly gratuitous, tonally inconsistent or exploitative, and thus affect the overall experience of the user. It might also be singled out as a specific, graphic representation of a larger trend in a larger argument. It might also be criticized for being poorly handled and giving the user too much of the wrong type of freedoms in a game. It might also be critized for being tacky and inappropriate. It might also be praised for it's boldness, tonal consistency, contextual framing, technical design etc. without considering every other aspect in the product. Just like you can praise the sound design in a game with shitty gameplay.

To the first: This bit seems to be more sophistic than anything. Again, in order to criticize something one must understand the whole of what is being criticized. I wouldn't criticize the the merit of an impressionistic paintings perspective or anatomy because I understand that the painter was being impressionistic and in knowing the rules of impressionism, I'd realize that pointing out and judging irregularities in the anatomy is superfluous.

Sure you can, and no, you don't. To use a childish example: if an impressionistic painter makes an impressionistic painting featuring people with the anatomy of penises, you're well within your right to critisize the painter for just drawing dicks and passing it off as art.

OF COURSE we need to understand where the developer is coming from. It's through this understanding that people form taste, preference, and yes, a basis for criticism.

OF COURSE you CAN use an assumed understanding of where the developer is coming from (claimed or otherwise) to form your interpretation. But it's not a requirement for criticism. And such an interpretation is no more valid than one done from a perspective that doesn't consider the claimed developer intent.

I've already discussed the death of the author at length in another thread, and I feel like this is where this discussion is going. I'm not really in the mood for continuing that right now, so I'll just leave that discussion here.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

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?

This bit reminds me of spec ops the line here. The game makes you do something bad and then scolds you for it. I recall some people making the argument that if the game makes you do something, then it's not really your fault. The counter to this thought is that it's your choice to play the game. You can take out the disk any time you want. (This conundrum is mirrored with the player character blaming the main villain for what the PC did even though they could have just left.)

Of coarse it can simply be both the players and the developers fault. Every one can be blamed.

 

[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?

This bit reminds me of spec ops the line here. The game makes you do something bad and then scolds you for it. I recall some people making the argument that if the game makes you do something, then it's not really your fault. The counter to this thought is that it's your choice to play the game. You can take out the disk any time you want. (This conundrum is mirrored with the player character blaming the main villain for what the PC did even though they could have just left.)

Of coarse it can simply be both the players and the developers fault. Every one can be blamed.

Right, I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, but dammit you're absolutely right.

I played Spec Ops myself, and yes I felt like shit after "certain events" (which shall not be named, in case some people don't want to be spoilered).

The reason why I felt like shit after those "events" was because I FELT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! And I was. I continually pressed forwards in the hope that I could fix this, and everything I did just damaged everything even more. And I absolutely loved that a game could get me to feel remorse, and regret.

 

[maninahat]

Absolutely. If the developer consciously built it into the game, they can be criticised for it - even if many players don't actually do it. One of the weediest, most conniving defences I have seen for developers making questionable decisions is when people try to push it on to the players, as though the player is the real bad guy here and the developer had no idea they were going to do that. Please. If you are going to permit players to hack nuns and puppies to bits, you need to own up to the fact that you baked it in, rather than claim ignorance.

Now obviously that doesn't apply to every situation. The creators of Skyrim had no idea that a player might come along, behead every female NPC, and pose their corpses in their house like some kind of a serial killer. And nor could they, because its such a ridiculous stretch of the game mechanics they could not have reasonably expected it to happen. But there is a reasonable point where developers can be taken to task for permitting other such choices.

 

[Erttheking]

People keep criticizing games for difficulties that they're not forced to play, so I don't see why not.

 

[happyninja42]

I think it depends on the context of the criticism. I'm in general, going to be more favorable of a game that took the effort to provide multiple directions to take the story, based on how you want to proceed. And I do mean actual choices, not just window dressing that basically all lead to the same final result, I'm looking at YOU Dragon Age 2. But genuine, different content, determined by the choices the player makes. The act of doing that in itself, I think is worthy of praise just from a game design standpoint.

Now, the actual choices themselves, should be judged individually. Giving me 5 different choices, that are all poorly written, poorly designed, and executed poorly, are still poor choices. So I would criticize them on the actual quality of the choices presented. But if they are well done, well thought out, and compelling, and make me genuinely have to make a hard decision, and then have that decision be rewarded with excellent gameplay as a result, then great, and good for the game for doing it.