Optional

[JFSOCC]

I'm thinking about keeping track of how often I hear it.

"Not for me but optional is fine"

[mstark]

"Optional", in my opinion, often equates to bad design.

 

A game should be played the way it's meant to be played, make it well designed and people won't feel the lack of particular "optional" features they might want, optionally, of course.

 

Ideally, we'd have an option to turn of all optional options, because... options.

[Brother Pain]

Options are good. Period.

 

Whether those options are what difficulty the game runs at, what content is shown, what language is used, whether to use ironman mode, key bindings, graphical options, gender and statistics of the main character, or a slew of other things, all these allow for the user to play in a way where they can enjoy the game.

[SophosTheWise]

Options are good. Period.

 

Whether those options are what difficulty the game runs at, what content is shown, what language is used, whether to use ironman mode, key bindings, graphical options, gender and statistics of the main character, or a slew of other things, all these allow for the user to play in a way where they can enjoy the game.

 

Even though "optional" things are a real challenge. For example difficulty and ironman mode. Games have to be design to work in both way there. And they don't always do. Example: Hitman: Absolution. Extremely hard on expert but a cakewalk on easy. The level design there is so flawed that the only choice they had to make the game "harder" is to limit the player's abilities (limit Instinct for example) and put more guards in it. For me that's cheap difficulty. If you tone down that cheap difficulty there is just NO challenge at all, because you can walk through everywhere. You could do that in Blood Money as well, but Blood Money had a completely different level design which gave you challenges other than "hide somewhere or walk through" Absolution on expert-purist is a pain in the ass and on easy it's just not a game. Compare that to Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, which is hard but extremely rewarding. I'd rather have one difficulty setting and play the game like it was meant to play than to agree to compromises in level design which may just create many flaws. =/

[rjshae]

"Optional", in my opinion, often equates to bad design.

 

A game should be played the way it's meant to be played, make it well designed and people won't feel the lack of particular "optional" features they might want, optionally, of course.

 

Ideally, we'd have an option to turn of all optional options, because... options.

Really? Not everybody wants the same thing, and many of the preferences being expressed are incompatible. Options allow you to tune the game the way you want to play it. That's not bad design; that's marketplace flexibility.

[PrimeJunta]

Options cost more than you might expect, though. They tend to interact in unexpected ways and add overhead to testing, especially if they affect mechanics (e.g. AI, difficulty). Having lots of options also makes it especially important to pick good defaults.

 

In practice, adding options also tends to add bugs, balancing problems, and general instability. That's why I hope the devs are very conservative about which options to add.

[Hormalakh]

From what I understand, options come down to when designers can't agree on a certain aspect. Then they try to make it optional.

[mstark]

I didn't mean my post to sound like I think options are bad.

 

Rather, I meant that options should exist where options are due (difficulty, iron man mode, class choices, spell choices...). But, as JSFOCC pointed out, the phrase "Not for me but optional is fine" is very common around here. I don't think that implementing optional game functionality necessarily makes for a better game. Why?

 

I'd rather see developers focusing on a number of gameplay mechanics and make them work really well, instead of implementing every option in order to suit every gamer's personal needs. I trust the designers to select a number of systems and implementing them in ways that work well and benefit gameplay and depth, to the point where making these mechanics optional is pointless.

 

Take an option like quest markers, should they be in the game or not? In my opinion, they make for a cheaper game, one that doesn't encourage exploration, where areas don't have to be designed to guide you in the right direction, because shining arrows are already doing the work for the designers.

 

So, some argue "let's make them optional for the people who want them"! I say no, because even in making them optional, the game designers are allowing people to experience the game in a way it wasn't meant to be experienced. The designers should make the decision from the start, do quest markers fit into their game and for their audience? I don't believe it should be left to the player to pick an option that could cheapen the intended experience. Because, ideally, the game will be designed in a way that makes it a better experience without quest markers.

Edited November 28, 2012 by mstark

[Sacred_Path]

"Optional", in my opinion, often equates to bad design.

 

A game should be played the way it's meant to be played, make it well designed and people won't feel the lack of particular "optional" features they might want, optionally, of course.

 

This. Also too many options can make you feel like you've never beaten "the game", because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place

[Hormalakh]

Obsidian will not make tons of options. First of all it will make designing the game impossible if they would need to consider every possible combination of option on every step of designing, testing and so on. I would be surprised if there would be more options than already stated difficulty options and some minor things. People thinking that there would be hundred options for them to suit their game to their liking are delusional.

 

You really don't live up to your user handle very well, "Sharp One." If you are able to read, I would recommend you to re-read update #9 and tone down the arrogance. Here are a few tidbits in case it's too long of an update for you.

 

We love giving players options: character build options, personality options, story options -- all the options you might want to play around with. We recognize that many players also want to play the game their way and have an experience that matches their particular RPG tastes. RPG fans share a lot of common ground, but on matters of visible mechanical feedback, complexity, and the overall level of punitive face-punching a game provides, there's a big spectrum of opinions. In a lot of cases, it's not too hard for us to provide options to turn an individual feature on or off, so we want to make that possible when resources permit us to do so.

 

The first question you may have is, "Can I enable multiple challenge modes at once?" Yep, you sure can. They have to be selected at the beginning of the game, but if you want to play with two or all three at the same time, you can certainly can do so. If you're not quite sure you want all of the elements that come along with a given mode, this funding level will also cover implementing the ability to enable and disable the individual sub-features.

 

With bated breath, I await your next refreshing and undoubtedly illuminating response to my post.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Frisk]

Options also allow you to please a larger number of the potential buyer base. Take combat difficulty for example. At one extreme you have players who see combat as an annoyance and want it to be quickly and easily resolved to they can continue to the exploration or storyline they enjoy. At the other extreme you have those who primarily enjoy the game because of the combat challenges and want them to be extremely hard, are require advances strategy and tactics to complete. Without a difficulty setting it would be next to impossible to please both extremes.

 

Same goes for a number of other typical option settings....they are a way to allow the game to appeal to a larger base.

[Frisk]

...because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place

 

Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense.

[Sacred_Path]

...because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place

 

Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense.

 

Because the devs have to have some standards in design against which things are balanced.

 

Example: Wizardry 8

 

I like 'expert' difficulty, but several things become unbalanced. Monster resistances go up so much that direct damage spells becme obsolete, melee is much more effective. Critical strikes become way more important than raw damage. Several classes (like mages) become obsolete because of low HP. Heavy grinding becomes mandatory for skill gains. All this makes expert difficulty more of a gimmick than a real option.

 

In a game w/o options (apart from technical stuff like key bindings and graphic detail) you know you play the game in the way the devs intended (= which they considered as balanced).

[mstark]

...because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place

 

Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense.

I disagree. Games are all about the rules and options that define them, even "open" games like recent Elder Scrolls games have very clearly defined rules for how you play the game. Both open and linear games become great, or fail, due to the limits that define them. That said, limiting a game can also mean a lot of bad things, ("return to the battlefield or you will die in 3 seconds" anyone?), but I don't think that's what we're talking about. Edited November 28, 2012 by mstark

[Karkarov]

Options are great if we are talking about things like turning anti aliasing off or on, playing ironman or normal mode, romancing an npc or not. Options aren't so great if we are talking about things like disable or enable the lock pick mini game, make traps do damage or not, or friendly fire on or off. Just because you want to ham fist your way through an area and throw fireballs with no discretion doesn't mean you shouldn't be penalized for it. The devs need to decide the basic rules and method of the gameplay and stay true to those rules. Players should not have the "option" of bypassing an aspect of the core game mechanics just because they don't like it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Karkarov

[maggotheart]

I'm thinking about keeping track of how often I hear it.

"Not for me but optional is fine"

 

I think this gets thrown around alot because people are trying to be polite. Also, options are good.

 

The devs have already stated that there will be many options in the game as Hormalakh points out. I'm not sure how that's an arguable point or why someone wouldn't want lots of options.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Deus Ex: Human Revolution does gameplay options well. I find most games have terrible difficulty options, I usually stick to "normal" because harder levels of difficulty usually mean "everything is now a damage sponge", a lot of the time it's not any harder, just longer. I really like meaningful difficulty levels, like New Vegas's hardcore and iron man modes. Options are great, I really wish the hacking in New Vegas was just a skill check, the minigame is painful, it doesn't make any sense either. The hacking minigame in Deus Ex: Human Revolution is quite fun, I would have probably played it just on its own, although its used way too much, and I never wish to play it again. Having the option to remove annoying things makes good games into great games, especially for repeated playthroughs. The more options the better. I don't understand why people want to force others to play games the way they want, it doesn't harm anyone if they turn off friendly fire, it should be up to the player.

Edited November 28, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[PrimeJunta]

I don't understand why people want to force others to play games the way they want, it doesn't harm anyone if they turn off friendly fire, it should be up to the player.

 

That sort of thing can really screw up the game balance though. Area-effect things would become massively more powerful, which would make character builds that are good at them massively overpowered compared to other character builds. In my opinion, that is not a Good Thing.

[Frisk]

That sort of thing can really screw up the game balance though. Area-effect things would become massively more powerful, which would make character builds that are good at them massively overpowered compared to other character builds. In my opinion, that is not a Good Thing.

 

And why not? Sure, I can see such concerns make sens in a MMORPG where players are competing against each other - many players are trying to get the "optimal build", and don't want anyone else to have an unfair advantage compared to them.

 

But in a single player game?

 

Get real..

 

It is simply nobody's business if someone else wants to play the game in a different way.

[PrimeJunta]

Call me old-fashioned, but I think it's the devs' job to balance the game, not the player's.

[Hormalakh]

Proper, effective options can allow for replayability. Balance is a huge issue and testing it becomes really difficult (imagine having to test the whole game over and over with different options.) But if done well, it can extend the life of a game.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[jezz555]

So, some argue "let's make them optional for the people who want them"! I say no, because even in making them optional, the game designers are allowing people to experience the game in a way it wasn't meant to be experienced.

 

...Unless the game is meant to experienced played with options, I think you could argue that that is the case in most bioware games,although I guess you can't really call them all the pinnacle of game design. I mean I think we can all agree that options are pretty objectively good as they equate to more freedom in the game world, what your really saying if I understand correctly is that you want Obsidian to focus on the game proper rather than wasting funds creating different iterations of the same thing. I get that, but as this is all just wish-listing at this point I don't really think there's any need for complaint

[maggotheart]

Options are great if we are talking about things like turning anti aliasing off or on, playing ironman or normal mode, romancing an npc or not. Options aren't so great if we are talking about things like disable or enable the lock pick mini game, make traps do damage or not, or friendly fire on or off. Just because you want to ham fist your way through an area and throw fireballs with no discretion doesn't mean you shouldn't be penalized for it. The devs need to decide the basic rules and method of the gameplay and stay true to those rules. Players should not have the "option" of bypassing an aspect of the core game mechanics just because they don't like it.

 

Why?

[PrimeJunta]

Why?

 

For the same reason a giant 'win!' button in the middle of the screen is a bad idea.

[maggotheart]

Why?

 

For the same reason a giant 'win!' button in the middle of the screen is a bad idea.

 

I still don't understand why it matters.