Should a Game restrict Us from Abusing it, or should We restrict Ourselves from Abusing it?

[Osvir]

What the title says :D

 

* Rest Abuse

Rest rest rest! You've now been able to sleep for 40~ some hours and ready to kick some ass.

 

* Save Abuse

Pickpocket Fail - Quickload - Pickpocket Fail - Quickload etc. etc. (Until success)

 

* What-Else-Abuse?

 

* Have you ever abused a system, if so, how/in what way and why?

 

Discuss.

 

EDIT:

I would love to hear what anyone feels on this subject. What I'm after here isn't necessarily the game mechanic of P:E or Baldur's Gate. Basically I see two categories on the board:

 

A, Wants a game that is role-playish, but it is abuseable

B, Wants a game that is role-playish, but it is not

 

Both of the options are practically the same suggestions, B is just a tad bit more restricted (Not being able to save or rest everywhere just being examples) whilst A is much more free and open.

 

2nd EDIT:

I've gotten stuck in the Gameplay & Mechanics Forum so I forget there's a General Discussion Forum. Could this be moved? :D

Also...

 

Hugs! <3

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[TrashMan]

BOTH.

 

People are notoriously bad at restricting themslves; and the best way to resist temptation is to avoid it altogether.

 

If it's there it will be abused, so a well-designed game shouldn't be easy to abuse.

[metiman]

Let people play the game the way they want. If they want to rest a lot let them. If they want to save a lot let them. You can't really stop that last one anyway unless you go full consoletard with checkpoints and other stupidity. That's not to say that you shouldn't introduce realistic game mechanics like making the passage of time have some meaning and not letting the player put off saving the nearby village from a dragon attack for several years. If he waits that long he should just see a bunch of burned out structures and nothing more. That's not about stopping some kind of abuse. It just makes sense.

[Amentep]

The game should be fun to play and balanced to play. elements of previous games which created unbalance should be seen as cautionary tales.

 

That said I think its impossible for a game to be made that can't be exploited by the player in some way, so to my mind the focus for the game maker can't be in trying to solve the problem of how the user is going to abuse the system once it gets in their hands, but work on solid design that doesn't actively encourage players seeking ways to abuse the game design.

[Osvir]

The game should be fun to play and balanced to play. elements of previous games which created unbalance should be seen as cautionary tales.

 

That said I think its impossible for a game to be made that can't be exploited by the player in some way, so to my mind the focus for the game maker can't be in trying to solve the problem of how the user is going to abuse the system once it gets in their hands, but work on solid design that doesn't actively encourage players seeking ways to abuse the game design.

 

I like this thought a lot.

 

EDIT:

I want a game built in confidence and not insecurity, I do not want the developer's to be influenced in a way by the community so that they start to think:

"We shouldn't do this because this is abuse-able"

Whilst in fact whatever idea they got is a great idea.

 

To draw a picture/parallel: Resting in Baldur's Gate is a great idea in itself, but it is -very easy- to abuse at the same time. Even on the hardest of difficulties. Without resting in the game it wouldn't have been the same game, instead it was released to have that feature. What if the developer's had gotten cold feet and removed the feature from the game? Would it have been the same experience? Would we even be talking about it today?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[ImRhoven]

Any obvious exploitable and balance breaking mechanics should be rooted out in testing. It's just proper game design. (for instance Skyrim's poorly designed stacking enchanting and alchemy skills: people "exploit" the system to craft items of ludicrous strength and then complain the game is to easy. Herp-a-derp.)

 

On the other hand I really see no reason to limit things like reloading a save game if you feel an outcome wasn't as favorable as you wanted. Mostly because restricting stuff like that could lead to all sorts of problems and unfair limitations.

[Valorian]

I restrict myself from abusing it by limiting the number of resting/reloading per game.

 

Now, if they make a system that eliminates resting and instead makes you *wait* to regain HP/stamina/mana.. I can't control this aspect of "not abusing the system" anymore, because the lines become blurry.

[ogrezilla]

A game should restrict us from abusing it so that we can play the game as the designers intend. The reason this is important is for the difficulty of the game. Its especially important the first time through. If I don't know what to expect I am going to rest as often as the game allows me because I will assume the encounters are designed to match the game mechanics. Same thing with any resource management like potions, spells or ammunition. If the game allows me to easily replenish these resources, I will never go without them. I will never keep going in a dungeon after I run out of arrows if the game allows me to go back to town and get more anytime I want, because in that scenario it stands to reason the designers want me to always have arrows. The alternative is to assume poor game design.

 

Now the next time through the game I might give myself limitations if I realize the first time through was too easy. Though with this game having difficulty levels, I will probably just go through the same way again on the hard mode.

 

So I guess basically my point is this: the game mechanics need to match the intended balance of the game. If the game is designed around me being conservative with my supplies, don't let me get more supplies so easily. If the game is designed for me to only rest occasionally, don't let me rest whenever I want. Developers should not expect us to predict their intentions when their mechanics don't enforce them.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Osvir]

Brilliantly said ogrezilla. If there was a "Like this much" button by the post I would have pressed it. I can only agree.

[metiman]

Did you also do the fake-talk strategy to kill Firkraag? Ever try to Feebleminding him? It works sometimes, but it makes the combat afterwards suck and ruins the whole point of the challenging fight. I guess you would do it and then talk about how badly designed the game was to let you. How about using a protection from magic scroll against Kangaxx? Boooring. These strategies work, but no one is forcing you to use them. There were all kinds of exploits in BG2. Did you just use them all to try to make it through the game as quickly as possible? Because that's how the game was designed? I would hope that you would try to play in a way that was most enjoyable for you. If you actually like trudging back and forth between dungeons and camp for more arrows then great. Otherwise I would think that trying 'suboptimal' strategies instead would be more fun.

Edited October 4, 2012 by metiman

[ogrezilla]

The game should be fun to play and balanced to play. elements of previous games which created unbalance should be seen as cautionary tales.

 

That said I think its impossible for a game to be made that can't be exploited by the player in some way, so to my mind the focus for the game maker can't be in trying to solve the problem of how the user is going to abuse the system once it gets in their hands, but work on solid design that doesn't actively encourage players seeking ways to abuse the game design.

 

I like this thought a lot.

 

EDIT:

I want a game built in confidence and not insecurity, I do not want the developer's to be influenced in a way by the community so that they start to think:

"We shouldn't do this because this is abuse-able"

Whilst in fact whatever idea they got is a great idea.

 

To draw a picture/parallel: Resting in Baldur's Gate is a great idea in itself, but it is -very easy- to abuse at the same time. Even on the hardest of difficulties. Without resting in the game it wouldn't have been the same game, instead it was released to have that feature. What if the developer's had gotten cold feet and removed the feature from the game? Would it have been the same experience? Would we even be talking about it today?

I hope they don't remove the troublesome mechanics outright. I hope they fix them. If they just start taking things out because they might be abused the game could turn out very bland.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Lady Evenstar]

By "exploit" do you mean using mechanics in a way that circumvents developer intent or do you mean any mechanic that makes encounters (or recovery from encounters) easier? I think that role-playing games in particular need to offer a fair amount of latitude (and responsibility) to the player. For some it's all about stat optimization. Some think that things like clerical domains, deity-worshiped, and alignment should be in synch, even if the game allows them not to be. On balance I favor supporting a variety of playstyles with the caveat that if the player finds their chosen RP too difficult or their relentlessly optimized character OP, it's on them to make adjustments either via adjusting their play or via mods that tweak the game to their taste.

[Osvir]

Did you also do the fake-talk strategy to kill Firkraag? Ever try to Feebleminding him? It works sometimes, but it makes the combat afterwards suck and ruins the whole point of the challenging fight. I guess you would do it and then talk about how badly designed the game was to let you.

 

What are you talking about? That's great design :D

 

EDIT: Also, I modded my Baldur's Gate (at one point) so that I pretty much gained 1 experience from everything because I wanted a challenge and not level up too fast. Unfortunately I kind of never leveled up (Level 1 Nashkel woohoo~?).

 

I've only finished Baldur's Gate, never Baldur's Gate II. I guess it's about due time.

 

2nd EDIT, on resting:

Difficulty - Resting

Easy - Very easy

Normal/Core rules - Very Easy

Extreme - Very easy

 

Resting never really changed in difficulty scaling. It does sound like a rather easy fix to make it more like I believe it was intended to be originally (More dangerous/risky).

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[GhostofAnakin]

Let people play the game the way they want. If they want to rest a lot let them. If they want to save a lot let them. You can't really stop that last one anyway unless you go full consoletard with checkpoints and other stupidity. That's not to say that you shouldn't introduce realistic game mechanics like making the passage of time have some meaning and not letting the player put off saving the nearby village from a dragon attack for several years. If he waits that long he should just see a bunch of burned out structures and nothing more. That's not about stopping some kind of abuse. It just makes sense.

 

I agree completely with this.

 

Different players find different ways to play fun. If one player wants to save before every encounter, then re-load a game if he fails whatever he attempted, then he should be able to. Because for that player, the game loses its fun factor if he's not able to do that.

 

The developer can limit these so-called "abuses" by implementing mechanics as described above, whereby the player will have to live with certain consequences if he decides to rest for 40 hours straight (village he was tasked to rescue is now burned to the ground, people dead). But the option to rest for 40 hours straight should still be there.

 

But I don't think the developer should arbitrarily limit pretty much everything just to keep players from doing "cheap" things.

[ogrezilla]

Let people play the game the way they want. If they want to rest a lot let them. If they want to save a lot let them. You can't really stop that last one anyway unless you go full consoletard with checkpoints and other stupidity. That's not to say that you shouldn't introduce realistic game mechanics like making the passage of time have some meaning and not letting the player put off saving the nearby village from a dragon attack for several years. If he waits that long he should just see a bunch of burned out structures and nothing more. That's not about stopping some kind of abuse. It just makes sense.

 

I agree completely with this.

 

Different players find different ways to play fun. If one player wants to save before every encounter, then re-load a game if he fails whatever he attempted, then he should be able to. Because for that player, the game loses its fun factor if he's not able to do that.

 

The developer can limit these so-called "abuses" by implementing mechanics as described above, whereby the player will have to live with certain consequences if he decides to rest for 40 hours straight (village he was tasked to rescue is now burned to the ground, people dead). But the option to rest for 40 hours straight should still be there.

 

But I don't think the developer should arbitrarily limit pretty much everything just to keep players from doing "cheap" things.

that's fine. they should balance the game assuming people will do cheap things then. Let people who use their own limitations add extra difficulty since that's their intention anyway. Don't require us to limit ourselves just to get the desired level of challenge.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[GhostofAnakin]

that's fine. they should balance the game assuming people will do cheap things then. Let people who use their own limitations add extra difficulty since that's their intention anyway. Don't require us to limit ourselves just to get the desired level of challenge.

 

I think that's where the different levels of difficulty come into play. At the higher levels, these limits can be put in place. But at the lower levels of difficulty, I don't think developers should limit a player's ability to play "cheap", so to speak.

 

IMO, it's about player choice. If I "choose" to have very strict limits placed upon me, I'll play at a higher level of difficulty. If I "choose" to rest for 40 hours straight or not have to worry about gold taking up space in my inventory's weight limit, I'll play at the lowest difficulty. If the developer decides to put restrictions, period, then the player no longer has as many choices about how to play the game.

[ogrezilla]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Simply put; how can players make an educated choice the first time through the game?

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Moriendor]

The game should restrict us from abusing it. In an ideal world you wouldn't need referees in sports since everyone knows the rules and would play by them but we have sports (like soccer) where you have a half dozen referees just to bring order to chaos. In PE we need virtual "referees" (= gameplay systems) who enforce the rules and restrict the exploitation to a minimum.

[GhostofAnakin]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Well, because I'd assume it would say which "limits" are present in the description of the difficulties when you first start up a game. So the player would know what kind of limits to expect if he chooses "hard" difficulty over "easy".

 

Keep in mind, it's about allowing *all* people to have fun. Some folks simply don't want the game to be incredibly difficult. Some do. Should the former category then give up and not play the game because the developers catered to just the latter category?

[ogrezilla]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Well, because I'd assume it would say which "limits" are present in the description of the difficulties when you first start up a game. So the player would know what kind of limits to expect if he chooses "hard" difficulty over "easy".

 

Keep in mind, it's about allowing *all* people to have fun. Some folks simply don't want the game to be incredibly difficult. Some do. Should the former category then give up and not play the game because the developers catered to just the latter category?

I get what you are saying. My problem is, when the mechanics don't actually enforce the intent of the game design, you don't actually know what difficulty you are choosing. If they call it normal difficulty, but that is based on an assumption that I will give myself my own limitations, then I end up playing what amounts to easy difficulty.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Lady Evenstar]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Simply put; how can players make an educated choice the first time through the game?

 

By paying attention in-game? If it starts feeling too easy, sleep less frequently and close to melee sooner. Or change the difficulty level.

[ogrezilla]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Simply put; how can players make an educated choice the first time through the game?

 

By paying attention in-game? If it starts feeling too easy, sleep less frequently and close to melee sooner. Or change the difficulty level.

That just reeks of bad game design to me if I have to install my own limitations just to play the game as the designer intended.

 

I would be perfectly happy if different difficulties limited these things differently.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[GhostofAnakin]

I get what you are saying. My problem is, when the mechanics don't actually enforce the intent of the game design, you don't actually know what difficulty you are choosing. If they call it normal difficulty, but that is based on an assumption that I will give myself my own limitations, then I end up playing what amounts to easy difficulty.

 

But that's why I said the different difficulties have more limits on them, and would say as much when you go to select that difficulty. So you'd know going in (once you select which level of difficulty you want to play) what kind of "forced limits" there are on you.

 

For example, the topic of "abusing rest". On hard difficulty, it would say at the start up that there are limits to resting, gold counts toward your inventory weight limit, you have a limited number of saves per game, etc. Whereas the easy setting would have no such limits for those items.

 

So you'd have a general idea what each game difficulty will impose on you, and you select your difficulty to fit whatever play style you want.

Edited October 4, 2012 by GhostofAnakin

[Orogun01]

"Jack got mad at me because I cheated on my stats"

[ogrezilla]

I get what you are saying. My problem is, when the mechanics don't actually enforce the intent of the game design, you don't actually know what difficulty you are choosing. If they call it normal difficulty, but that is based on an assumption that I will give myself my own limitations, then I end up playing what amounts to easy difficulty.

 

But that's why I said the different difficulties have more limits on them, and would say as much when you go to select that difficulty. So you'd know going in (once you select which level of difficulty you want to play) what kind of "forced limits" there are on you.

 

For example, the topic of "abusing rest". On hard difficulty, it would say at the start up that there are limits to resting, gold counts toward your inventory weight limit, you have a limited number of saves per game, etc. Whereas the easy setting would have no such limits for those items.

 

So you'd have a general idea what each game difficulty will impose on you, and you select your difficulty to fit whatever play style you want.

we aren't answering the same question then. We absolutely agree. I think you are saying the game design should enforce the limitations to different degrees to match different intentions. That's perfect.

 

I'm talking about a situation where the game mechanics never match the intended design. In the old IE games, it seems clear that resource management and particularly spell management were meant to be important. The games were designed with careful spell use in mind. But it wasn't enforced. To play the game as the developers intended, you had to put your own limitations in place no matter what difficulty setting you were on.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla