Argument to Moderation

I have seen and read about a lot of ideas in these forums about what should or shouldn't be in the game. Often times, when the argument gets particularly intense (some might say that is when they are most productive), someone will chime in and say that both sides should be available in the form of some kind of toggle in the menu or something. This may very well be the only way to make everyone happy in the short-term, but it might not actually be what is best for the quality of the game. In other words, it is the logical fallacy of Argument to Moderation.

The Argument to Moderation is based on the assumption that the best option is always found between two opposite extremes. In this case, the extremes are having some feature included in the game, or excluding it entirely and leaving it as a potential mod. The "compromise" is to have it be optional within the game.

To show how this is an obvious logical fallacy, I'll use the perfect example: When the two extreme options are having something be optional versus not having any choice in the matter, wouldn't the best solution be something in between? Any conclusion that comes from the Argument to Moderation can be further attacked by creating another extreme alternative and claiming that a better solution is somewhere between the two.

If the assumption was true, that compromises are always better, then shouldn't combat be entirely optional? How about jumping, or crafting, or space travel? Is there any feature of the game that wouldn't be improved by allowing you to disable it in the menu? The obvious answer to these questions is yes, so the assumption clearly doesn't work in all cases. Certain aspects of the game are so basic and essential to the gameplay, that to remove them is no less than creating an entirely different game. While changes like that are entirely appropriate for a mod, they don't make very much sense in the vanilla game.

There are also cases where making something optional does work, like having various types of weapons or classes. Since there are a wide variety of viable options, you can choose to ignore certain ones entirely. You can also play as part of a team and split up the jobs you take, having one player farm crops and build while the other mines ore and other resources. There is an important aspect to note about these things, though: they are not a toggle in a menu. The game presents you with choices, and you get to make them inside the game.

So how can you tell the difference? When is a making something optional better, and when is it worse?

Well, first of all, if one of the options makes the game easier for the player than the other one, then it effects game balance and is not a fair choice. If it isn't really a fair choice, then you should gauge each option individually and determine which is best for the holistic gameplay. Just because a mechanic is good in another game doesn't mean it will mix well with the different mix of mechanics in Starbound. For the most part, this is up to the developers to test and figure out for themselves, since players and fans are mostly just theorycrafting.

Second, if the toggle could be managed in-game using items or equipment, then it really shouldn't exist in the form of a menu selection. Take colors for instance: if you could include a paint tool, it wouldn't make sense to have a menu option that allows you to change the colors of various blocks. Generally speaking, menu options are a more clumsy way to present players with choices compared to giving them different actions or objects to choose from. Menus are more universal and less specific, so you end up with less overall control.

Need an example? Well, ammo counters are a good one. Including both weapons that use regenerating energy and also weapons that use ammo counters is a problem because it is nearly impossible to balance. In the end, Chucklefish had to carefully select one or the other based on which one they believed would add more depth to the combat gameplay. Now, I'm not claiming that there is no possible way to balance them and include both options-- that would be the fallacy of the false dichotomy, but finding that solution could be a very difficult task.

Another example is the optional hunger system and temperature mechanics. I think Chucklefish is making a mistake by making these optional. The choice clearly effects game balance, so I think it should not be optional and players should have the "option" of becoming immune to hunger/temperature effects by equipping tech and equipment. That way players are making a choice in-game, rather than in a menu, and it can be controlled for balance because they have to sacrifice other tech or equipment options.

One last example: the stripped/armor while sleeping in beds. Why have it be one way of the other or have a menu toggle? Since the decision doesn't effect balance, you should give power to the player in-game by allowing them to somehow swap their vanity items without returning to their ship. Some people suggested having pajamas, like a vanity set that is determined when making your character like in the Sims. That's a good step towards the best compromise, but it still gives the player less control than allowing them to sleep while wearing whatever they want.

Thanks for your time. TL;DR = Having things be optional isn't always a compromise, that's a logical fallacy.

 

The only thing I disagree with is the hunger and temperature thing. I like how they made it optional, because frankly I find hunger annoying in games.(although the temperature system looks really interesting...)

 

I too think that the hunger and temp system being set as optional is...well......lame. It needs to be something that nobody has control over.

 

I totally thought you were going to complain about the moderators when I read your title.

I can see where you're coming from though, and I agree that "Let's make it optional" isn't a cure-all. But, I think you're forgetting that there are times when making something optional works really well. The hunger and temperature systems are actually a good example. These are systems non-essential to the overall game, they weren't even originally planned to be included. The reason the devs made them optional is because there are a great many people who find these systems as a nuisance. And forcing people to wear special armor or tech to negate the systems does absolutely nothing to fix the problem because these people still have to deal with it and it remains annoying for different reasons. These systems are made available in an optional form for the people that want the extra challenge they provide.

 

When the game is not competitive by nature, making some kinds of things optional only serves to increase accessibility. It's really no different than difficulty settings in single player games, you choose how much you want to deal with challenges vs simply experiencing the content.

e- I never played Minecraft in Peaceful (no combat) or creative mode, but I support their existence. I'm never going to pretend that my way of enjoying things is absolute.

 

This isn't really an Argument to Moderation as you are describing it. For example, having hunger be a menu-controlled option isn't so much of a middle ground as it is being able to have both.

One person wants a bowl of apples, another wants a bowl of oranges, so Chucklefish puts both apples and oranges in the bowl and let's us choose which one we want to eat.

 

Personally I believe when it comes to decision making in the real world I think compromise is needed and not irrational short term fixes but long term ones where both sides have to put aside there pride and beliefs for the better future.

 

So I just read that article about argument to moderation, and unless you can provide some better examples I'm pretty sure you're using it out of context. Having the option of whether or not to do something isn't compromising by taking the middle road, it's simply allowing each person to make the decision themselves.

 

Combat is optionable. People have completed combat games without killing anything.

 

That is a very general statement I am sure there are games where that is not at all possible. For instance how do you beat a boss in the metroid series without attacking?

 

Temperature will hopefully give me memories of the Metroid games... sometimes I just manned up and ran through, I even swam in lava for like 3 minutes straight to reach a door I wasn't suppose to.

 

In the beginning of his/her post, DeadlyLuvdisc had said that he/she had seen a lot of argument on whether something should or should not be in the game. I just wanted to point out to people that it is really not the community's decision on whether or not something should be or not be in the game. It is the Dev's game, the people who actually WORK ON IT, have the right to decide how they make their game. I just wanted to throw this out there, it really bothers me when people try to control what is not theirs to control.

What I am saying is that the community shouldn't INFLUENCE the game, the point here being that sometimes you need to step back and not try to control every aspect of something that is not yours. Just because you pre-ordered doesn't give you the right to step in and and "try" to be the boss.

Sorry for repeating myself, It has just been bothering me that this has been happening, and sorry to those who are offended by this, I mean well.

 

Some games you are forced to kill something.

People have completed the main storyline of Skyrim with only killing Alduin.

 

There is something called a suggestions thread. Therefore, the devs want to hear what we have to say about the game, and what we want. People have strong opinions sometimes, and they want others to see it the way they do. Some people like hunger, some don't. However, the devs want it in the game, so they will keep it in. But the Devs are not perfect. Maybe they might to decide to come up with a religion aspect where the only religion is satanic worship. The community would cry out against it, and they would realize it wasn't a good idea.

It's not our game to control, however the devs try to keep us happy while maintaining the game they want. They gauge new ideas off the community, and sometimes they take our ideas and implement them. Like when Tiy streamed the ranged attacks for enemies.

 

Still that is killing something.

 

You couldn't have posted this direct response to a thread in the thread to which you are responding?
Argle blargle thread merging

 

Another post from someone who's upset about people who are upset. Perhaps the people who are upset about people who are upset shouldn't be so upset. Granted the upset people shouldn't upset the people who are upset about upset people, but I'm becoming a little upset about the people who are upset about upset people. Why are we upset again? Actually I'm not. It's just been a long day and I'm in a half-silly mood. Ignore at your leisure.

 

I agree with you both in certain ways, I found the fact that mass effect 3 was changed after it was done because gamers did not like the decision the makers of the game made disturbing. A creative vision should not be trampled by people who believe by purchasing a game gives them the right to change the game even though the were not at all involved in development. But Jones also makes a good point the game is in a early stage and the developers are taking suggestions to add into there creative vision from the community which is great. The fact is people will always complain from pets to, items description tool tips, and press preview copies I have seen many complain based on their view of fairness and their belief that pre ordering means they now are entitled to mold the game for themselves and not respect the developers decisions.

Upsetcion? I know it's better to just ignore pointless anger but I am just putting my opinion in the mix. In the end these are just discussions to keep are minds of the eternal wait for starbound lol.