Argument to Moderation

There needs to be a reason for the core mechanic to be in the menu. If it doesn't improve the game, then why do it? Unless you show how doing so is superior to having the option be in-game, and that having it be optional is a true compromise and not a false one, then I don't think it is helpful.

So I guess that's it. The common sense you are asking about is this: something should only be added to a game if it is better than not having it. Seems sufficiently basic to me, but you might be able to argue that breaking even is a sufficient justification-- if it is neither better or worse to include a feature, that would be the perfect time to make it optional.

Having the option be in-game is superior to in a menu because it gives everyone more control and is easier to balance. To use an example, it is better to have classes distinguished from each other based on abilities and equipment selection rather than picking them out of a list in character creation, because then you can make alterations to the class template and create hybrids and so-on. It also allows you to simply balance the options that contribute to your class by pairing pros and cons, rather than buffing/nerfing classes until they have roughly equal win rates.

 

Allowing everyone the option to play however they see fit seems like a pretty good reason to me.

 

Hm... I like that argument. Everyone should have full access to any item in the game via the menu, like how Training Mode works in Super Smash Brothers. That way they can play however they want at any stage of the game-- If they want to skip a tier and just spawn items of a higher level, they can. It wouldn't be cheating, it's just a feature of the game.

EDIT: this part might just be opinion, but I think there should be one legitimate mode of play. Mods and cheats are for enjoyment, but are distinct from the vanilla game.

 

And so what if they did? It has literally no effect on you or how you choose to play the game.

edit - There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate way to enjoy playing a game. This isn't a competition.

 

Making your game a series of checkboxes of features is bad design. Make the game you want to make and people can take it or leave it. Some consideration is obviously fine, but getting distracted by making things optional just creates a disjointed identity for your game and, more importantly for a multiplayer game, a disjointed community. Look at modded Minecraft for example. No one can agree on which mods they want so it takes forever to find a server that has the features you want without the features you don't, and it's almost always a compromise. Nothing you can do about modders, but you can make sure your core game is a coherent experience for the players who just want to play the game as it was designed to be played.

A game is, at least in part, an artistic and creative expression. Would you want a hair color toggle on the Mona Lisa? A button that auto-dubstep-mixes every song someone plays? I'm sure there are some people who'd want that, but it's not really up to the artist to provide it to them.

 

That's not true. I might play with a feature and actually enjoy it if it is forced, but have it turned off if it was presented as optional. I did this in Don't Starve: after playing the game with always summer and extra beefalo, my friend convinced me that the normal game was more enjoyable in spite of the annoyance and difficulty, and I discovered he was correct.

Generally speaking, game developers have way more experience and have put way more thought into their games than any player has. On top of that, Chucklefish is a development team, and a rather large one for an indie game for that matter, so they have the ability to pool their experience and expand their thought through discussing the options with each other. On top of that AGAIN, they pay attention to the community to help brainstorm ideas and further improve what they do end up deciding on. To take this wealth of capability and discard it because you have faith in every gamer's ability to optimize their own enjoyment of the game is folly.

Hell, I know this girl who spent three hours farming rupees from Octoroks in the Legend of Zelda, then said it was a dumb game with too much repetition. She was a new gamer who thought the point of the game was to gather rupees. Nowdays you see AAA games that literally paint glowing arrows on the floors and walls to tell you were to go, and they give you a map with a marked destination on top of that!

Also, having everything available in the vanilla game for free essentially demolishes any sense of progression and achievement.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

So what if say that it did become balanced like you suggested (as an ingame way of deflecting the issue), and it became a mod instead. What's your perspective on that?

I read the entire thread, sorry if this was answered already.

 

Alright, I'll try to give another shot at arguing. Although I don't know if I can cover all the points adequately.
Let's see... basically, you say providing a bunch of options will distract players from the game as it was imagined by the developers and thus could make for a lesser enjoyment. I'd think the solution to that is rather simple: provide some default settings and add a little disclaimer that it's recommended to play with them. That should do fairly nicely for most players.
Then the devs: them trying to please everyone will ultimately make the core experience, the one the devs wanted, inferior. And once more I say: options need not harm the core experience! I think I've covered that a couple of times. The modded Minecraft example , then... why can't you do anything about modders? Why in the world not? As long as you feel your core game experience (as it was meant to be played etc.) to be complete, what's the harm in it?
The argument I see the most merit in here is that it's not the devs' responsibility to provide this "freedom of choice". That is at times a valid point. At some point, you're simply working too much to make only a couple of people happy, and such niche groups probably should be handled by mods. But still... if the core experience is complete, there's little harm in providing options, and in the unlikely case you have enough time to cater to everyone... why not? You certainly shouldn't feel obligated to, but you may!

I hope I made enough sense. My speech isn't all that... coherent at times.

 

I can see having temperature optional only on singleplayer, simply for lag purposes. Other than that I agree completely.

 

And that's why the game should have console commands for this type of stuff .

 

I think mods are a really excellent way to extend the enjoyment value of a game. It would be interesting if game magazines and websites actually gave bonuses to the scores of games based on the quality and variety of mods available for them. Not sure if that would be good or bad, but interesting for sure. They probably don't because not many games have a dedicated modding community.

I mentioned it very briefly, but I don't see why people get up in arms over temperature when players will need oxygen tanks or rebreathers to go deep underwater or in space. I think there are a lot of mechanics and suggestion like this-- players get upset because it was done poorly in another game they played, but don't realize that it could also be done well. As long as a feature of the game is balanced and isn't annoying, I think it probably is an improvement to include it.

I feel like your main point and the basis for a lot of your thinking is that there isn't functionally that much different between using cheats/mods and simply having the option provided in a menu. There are even games that have a cheat menu in the game, if you can count those as cheats. The main difference is the legitimacy issue I mentioned before, which is the product of a culture that values competition and fairness. If the developers included a message saying that the default settings are recomended, it would lend more legitimacy to those settings. If you absolutely want the options in a menu, and having those options include in-game isn't acceptable to you, then having default options that are recommended seems like a halfway decent compromise.

My only problem with that is that it's kind of like the developers are saying, "go ahead and play however you want," so even if they specifically recommend the default settings, players are much more likely to alter them than they would if changing those settings required a mod or cheat. When you change it from the default settings you end up playing a game that really isn't the vanilla game, and yet it clearly is included in the vanilla game.

In a way, it's like legalizing a specific drug that is known to have health risks because you know people will get away with using it anyway. You know players will frequently cheat to remove mechanics that they dislike, even if it might be bad for their enjoyment in the long run. Does that mean you should make it easier, or make it more legitimate? In the end, that's a very difficult question to answer (at least for me it is), which is precisely why it can spark such hot debate.

 

A good comparison, and indeed, I would legalize the drug/option as long as patients/players are sufficiently informed of the risks and recommended the standard medicine/experience.
This does somewhat start to come down to politics, though. I'm not sure I dare touch that subject.
Instead I'll concede that, while I remain unconvinced, I can see your points and principles having some merit. Which I hope doesn't sound condescending, but I really don't know how else to phrase it. Thanks for your civilized reply.

 

*You* may enjoy something more a certain way, but all people probably don't. The fact that an option exists allows more people to play how they want and better enjoy the game.

The devs have the most experience making the game, but I am the only one who has experience with how I enjoy playing it. Also, making an option for something is in no way discarding anything, since the feature is still implemented in the game.

So what? That has nothing to do with optional settings.

This would be possible whether it's implemented ingame or not (inventory editors), either way it comes down to you choosing whether or not to use them.

 

I'm not even sure in which way I want to contribute to this thread. But, I'm am certain I want to. As it is something that has irritated me both with Starbound's creative direction, and with making suggestions in this community. And trust me I have a more than a few suggestions. My observation is this: whether people are for or against a feature's inclusion, that is, whether they love it or loathe it. They will always choose the option of having an option, simply because the option to have an option is an option. Even over choosing in favor of the feature that they personally prefer. Possibly in the spirit of compromise.

Using a featurette as an example, ship customization. Note this is a true, ongoing, concern at this point in SB's creation. Should we have ship customization or not. Or the third option, to have customization be optional. The issue is that customization, if included, is already optional by design. Simply by virtue of, "if you don't want customization, don't customize your vessel". And this is true for many, many more situations. "I don't think swords/pets/shields should have a place in this universe", great then don't equip one, etc, etc. People are asking for the choice of an option without fully realizing that the choice is already there. You don't need a menu item for it.

Also, as a side note that has just hit me. Too many options is a problem, for the same reason that people open a refrigerator full to the brim with fresh groceries and people say "there's nothing here to eat". You give us to many options it makes decisions difficult. If there were an actual option for how many times I've seen "oh, just make it an option" opening the menu would crash anyone's PC. Let alone ruin Starbound completely. Should Starbound have a day/night cycle. Make it an option, some people are scared of the dark. Should we have death in Starbound. Make it an option, some people think dying is a nuisance. Should you have to mine ore. Make it an option, people think physical activity in a video game is tiring. Starbound is part survival genre, and were thinking about including the basic survival mechanisms hunger and temperature. Make it an option, people are bothered by eating and keeping warm. You should immediately see the issues. And my sarcasm.

My stance on the survival aspects: while I'm not going to play Starbound FOR its survival mechanisms. They will absolutely not stop me from playing it. Even if I have to take, literally, 5 seconds to double click an image of a sandwich every half-hour/hour/day. It won't bother ANYONE enough to refund or not play the game. I'm thoroughly convinced of that. Include them anyways. I'm also certain that, had the development team not been as open as they have been. And not told anyone they were including these things. And instead Starbound just released, and oh you have to eat too? No one, absolutely no one, not a single person would return the game or stop playing it because there was a hunger indicator. A mod would eventually be released and some people would use it. And life would go on...

The developers openness is a gift and a curse in cases like these.

 

I just want to make a quick observation about the whole discussion in this thread: It seems to bother some people really hard that different people may be having a different experience while playing the game. (because of options for several mechanics. It´s strikes me as a little strange since the whole game includes so much random generation that everyone will always have different experiences)
Why does it bother someone if there isn´t the "one legit way" to play this game (or any game actually) but many ways to choose from?

 

I'll be cynical here a moment. After reading though this entire thread. People seem to be under the impression that the game HAS to be the way they want it. They MUST have a choice in how they play it. There MUST be options. Tom foolery. The Dev team are only responsible for a CORE game experience. They cannot be expected to hold to every caveat their fan base can drum up. Not only that, it utterly runs ANY direction the game has, to the point where you couldn't give a depiction of what to expect while playing Starbound to a curious person interested in trying it out.

The mod community will be there will solutions. If you don't like their solutions, learn modding for yourself and YOU create the game how you feel you want to play it. No harm, no foul. Quite frankly, the "gentle" notion that people should be able to play a game how they want to play it is ridiculous (and not a responsibility of Chucklefish).

And here's the cynicism/sarcasm: what if I wanted guns on Super Mario. I should have that option no? It's a game I preordered, I should have that choice. Jumping on goombas is time consuming and annoying. I'd rather shoot them. I don't want to waste time playing the game, while I waste time playing a game.

I don't think fuel is a good idea. I don't want to be bothered with fueling (eating). I want instant access to all the game's location from the moment I start. I shouldn't have to be bothered with playing the game. I also don't like mobs, mining, building, swimming, plant life, health bar, crafting, armor, weapons, or resources. In fact I want Starbound to be like chess. The Dev team should give me the option to turn EVERYTHING on or off, or make the game just like chess. Because I should have that choice.

It's an artistic medium. Enjoy the art for what it is.

It's the Mona Lisa. If you don't like the mustache, go paint your own picture. But let the creator create.

 

I think the question isn't so much "should we have the choice?" as it is "why is it a problem if the devs do make it a choice?"

It is also a product, and as a product it will be more successful if it can satisfy a wider group of people.

I am pretty sure that the guy who commissioned the Mona Lisa didn't just give Da Vinci a bunch of money and say "Go do whatever you want".

 

Solid points. It's not a product, yet. The guy who commissioned didn't ask for options though. Or it may have been created more like a puzzle. And honestly, truly honest, for a second, if it did have hunger (if you're against it) would you refund your purchase and refuse to play it?

 

You can determine basic rules for how the vast majority of people enjoy games in the same way. Game Design Theory is entirely based on analyzing why people enjoy games and figuring out how to design the game around that. The developers have that experience, the players don't. I mean, it's kind of like saying every average joe knows more about how they think than your typical neurologist or psychologist.

People are notoriously bad at predicting what things they will enjoy, and identifying why they enjoyed things they experienced in the past.

Don't believe me? Watch this 30 minute Ted Talk lecture all about how bad we are at it. I'd say it's worth anyone's time to check it out.

The same argument is used in favor of legalizing marijuana. The thing is, people will continue to steal and murder even though it is illegal. Should we legalize anything on the basis that people will do it anyway? There has to be a better reason to do this sort of thing (legalizing something, or including the option in the vanilla game). At some point, a clear line needs to be drawn that separates the vanilla game from the hacked game. Since the developers are already making the game so easy to hack/mod, why does the feature need to be an option in the vanilla game?

In fact, in a way it is also a little bit like purging silly laws. In Minnesota it is illegal to sleep naked, but people obviously do so anyway. If Chucklefish makes it very easy to hack their game and doesn't do anything to stop it, then why does it need to be officially accepted as part of the vanilla game? It's already optional, so why does it need to be in the menu?

 

Wow, some solid points have been made here since I last looked!

This is quite true, I think. It would be very difficult indeed for the makers of Amnesia to craft the same sort of experience they were aiming at if they had included an option to start the game with a rocket launcher with infinite ammo! As such, the point is well made that optionalizing every aspect of the game may indeed ruin any attempt at artistic expression. Well said! I can only submit my agreement with the implied point here:

I would imagine the developers understand their "vision" of Starbound better than anyone else, no? As such, if Tiy feels that allowing players to toggle hunger off *won't* ruin the experience he hopes to provide, then I don't think he can be faulted for that. Of course, I am now more convinced by Luvdisc's original point, which - if I remember right - was simply that *suggesting* EVERYTHING be optional is a bit of misstep, because adding a menu toggle for certain things (ship customization; pets) would accomplish nothing, while adding an option for something critical (say, allowing movement) would ruin the game altogether. Still, it remains that providing options for ancillary features shouldn't be taken as a mistake, at least so far as I can see. While this is a good point:

I think it's telling that that while you enjoyed Don't Starve more with some of the easier options off, they were still options, whose presence don't seem to have hindered your enjoyment of the game after you had toggled them to your preference.

Tl;dr: well argued, and it should be conceded that optionalizing everything would indeed hinder the game. But the devs optionalizing some things should not be considered a mistake.