Optional

[Karkarov]

Why?

 

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

Thanks for answering for me despite the fact that I suspect maggot doesn't get your logic. I do at least.

 

The mechanics exist for balance and gameplay reasons. If the devs felt like a mechanic needs to be there then it should be there. If the devs feel like friendly fire should not be a part of the game then that's fine, they are making the game it is their call. I will personally find that odd, but I will also know that Obsidian are good designers and likely have built in something else to compensate. Such as aoe's though having no friendly fire may not have beneficial effects like cc, or may do notably less damage than a single target spell, or may only do cc and no damage. Etc etc.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Karkarov

[jezz555]

Why?

 

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

Thanks for answering for me despite the fact that I suspect maggot doesn't get your logic. I do at least.

 

The mechanics exist for balance and gameplay reasons. If the devs felt like a mechanic needs to be there then it should be there. If the devs feel like friendly fire should not be a part of the game then that's fine, they are making the game it is their call.

 

By the same token if they feel like friendly fire should be an option in the game isn't that also fine?

Edited November 28, 2012 by jezz555

[mstark]

...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.

The bold part here is the exact reason behind my arguments against giving players certain options. Options that, arguably, exist only because of bad game design. Now, I haven't played many new BioWare games, so I might not know exactly what kinds of options you're referring to.

 

In the mad little world that is my brain, there's just no way that the player (us) is able to make better decisions about how the game is best experienced than the developer, when it comes down to options such as those outlined by Karkarov. They're not options, they're major game design elements that are either in a game, or they're not, because either the game benefits from it, or it doesn't . The developers are the experts, they do this for a living.

Edited November 28, 2012 by mstark

[Jojobobo]

I think by now Obsidian would probably have a more unified vision of what they want in the game and what they do not. I really wouldn't imagine they'd curtail their vision of the game by making things they don't really feel would be appropriate or help cohesiveness in mechanics optional solely to satisfy fans.

[Sacred_Path]

Just putting it out there you're also sacrificing your artistic integrity by adding too many options.

 

 

Come at me bros

[Karkarov]

The mechanics exist for balance and gameplay reasons. If the devs felt like a mechanic needs to be there then it should be there. If the devs feel like friendly fire should not be a part of the game then that's fine, they are making the game it is their call.

 

By the same token if they feel like friendly fire should be an option in the game isn't that also fine?

 

Of course. It is their game, their call. This isn't their first rodeo and I have said it before and I will again. They are experienced game designers, they know what they are doing, and I trust them to be professionals and make a game that appeals to the fans but also stays true to their over all design. To be honest I have played almost every game Obsidian has made and I can only think of one that I didn't really like. That is a pretty solid endorsement as far as I am concerned.

[LadyCrimson]

I think having a certain range/amount of options within a game is the awesome. More characters, more skills, story decision choices, more difficulty choices. What difficulty choices are available is up to the dev's and what might fit the game (or is easy to implement as an on/off sort of thing). I remember in Casear3, being able to turn the God's effects off. This meant you didn't have to deal with worshiping them and their anger effects if you didn't, but at the same time, you didn't get any benefits of a happy God, either. Up to you. I liked having that option when I was playing freemaps and was more interested in building (design) then playing a campaign level (story) and was irritated when they took that option away in later CB games.

 

So, I like plenty of options when it comes to my single-player game. That said, there is a point of having so many options that you may as well just hand over a giant toolbox and let people design their own game instead, and then what's the point. It's a fine balance sometimes.

[Agelastos]

Hopefully, they'll release a toolset so that we can tweak, remove or add features ourselves.

[Dream]

To all the people that think optional things are "bad design" and the game should be played only one way (the "intended" way):

 

What happens when the devs decide that you're in the minority (because you are) and design the game to be played pretty much the opposite to how you like. Would you be perfectly fine with the game since that's the way it was "intended" to be played?

 

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.

 

Who gives a **** if another person's SINGLE PLAYER experience isn't balanced? Should they disable all mods as well because someone somewhere might make a mod that "imbalances" the game (god forbid)? There were plenty of things you could do in the IE games that broke the **** out of them (Kensai/mage anyone?), but I never did (most of) them and the fact that others did had absolutely zero effect on my own personal enjoyment of the games.

 

Design a game to be played a certain way but let people play it how they want. IWD2 was never intended to be played on HoF at level 1, but people still did it and had fun. How a complete stranger chooses to experience a game should have absolutely zero effect on you.

[JFSOCC]

good discussion so far

[PrimeJunta]

What happens when the devs decide that you're in the minority (because you are) and design the game to be played pretty much the opposite to how you like. Would you be perfectly fine with the game since that's the way it was "intended" to be played?

 

Of course not. I would simply not play that game. For example, I didn't finish Arcanum, Gothic 3, or Oblivion, and didn't even buy Skyrim for that precise reason. I didn't care for what they were trying to do. Nor does it offend me the least bit that lots and lots of people do like them.

 

Who gives a **** if another person's SINGLE PLAYER experience isn't balanced?

 

I certainly don't. However, I do care about my single-player experience. When I crack open a new game and look at the settings, I have no clue how they may affect the game balance. If I can throw the entire class system out of whack by unchecking a single checkbox -- "friendly fire," say -- then, in my opinion, the devs have screwed up.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love options as much as the next guy -- but I prefer my options to be in-game rather than metagame.

 

Options I like:

 

* Class options: fighter/ranger/rogue/paladin/cipher/sorcerer/wizard/monk/cleric/barbarian/kensai/elementalist/necromancer/demonologist/theurge/duelist/scout/...

* Character build options: attack/defense/buff/debuff/damage/...

* Story options: favor this faction/that faction/the other faction/take this path/that path/the other path/save these guys/those guys/the other guys...

* Solution options: fight your way in/sneak your way in/teleport your way in/find a way through the sewers to get in/bribe your way in/bluff your way in

 

I'm much less interested in metagame options, even for things that cater to my personal foibles (e.g. ironman mode or other ways of making savegame abuse more difficult). Put another way, during the kickstarter, I got much more excited about the Cipher class, the stronghold, the Endless Paths, and the Big Big City than Ironman and those other modes that I can't even remember for now.

 

Put another way, for me, the gameplay is the vessel that holds the actual game. I've enjoyed NetHack's mechanics just as much as those in The Witcher 2. I really don't give a **** about the specifics as long as it's well done, well balanced, and carries the story.

 

Most importantly, I'd much, much rather see the devs put their effort into balancing out and refining a system that has lots and lots of choice in-game, even if it means reducing the metagame options. (And yes, Virginia, it does -- metagame options that affect gameplay elements do directly impact the effort needed to get the in-game options in balance. It is a real trade-off.)

 

Should they disable all mods as well because someone somewhere might make a mod that "imbalances" the game (god forbid)? There were plenty of things you could do in the IE games that broke the **** out of them (Kensai/mage anyone?), but I never did (most of) them and the fact that others did had absolutely zero effect on my own personal enjoyment of the games.

 

Of course not, silly.

 

But just because BG2 had a poorly balanced class system, does it mean every other game has to have one too? (Yeah, I played a kensai/mage. Whee!)

Edited November 29, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[rjshae]

I think having a certain range/amount of options within a game is the awesome. More characters, more skills, story decision choices, more difficulty choices. What difficulty choices are available is up to the dev's and what might fit the game (or is easy to implement as an on/off sort of thing). I remember in Casear3, being able to turn the God's effects off. This meant you didn't have to deal with worshiping them and their anger effects if you didn't, but at the same time, you didn't get any benefits of a happy God, either. Up to you. I liked having that option when I was playing freemaps and was more interested in building (design) then playing a campaign level (story) and was irritated when they took that option away in later CB games.

 

So, I like plenty of options when it comes to my single-player game. That said, there is a point of having so many options that you may as well just hand over a giant toolbox and let people design their own game instead, and then what's the point. It's a fine balance sometimes.

It seems like this gets back to the Pareto Principle. There are options the developers can provide that make the game a different experience and satisfy a significant portion of the audience. Then there are minor nuances they could provide that make a small group really happy, but most people will just ignore. I'm not sure what the correct balance is, but I suspect it is in the single digits.

[Dream]

What happens when the devs decide that you're in the minority (because you are) and design the game to be played pretty much the opposite to how you like. Would you be perfectly fine with the game since that's the way it was "intended" to be played?

 

Of course not. I would simply not play that game. For example, I didn't finish Arcanum, Gothic 3, or Oblivion, and didn't even buy Skyrim for that precise reason. I didn't care for what they were trying to do. Nor does it offend me the least bit that lots and lots of people do like them.

 

Who gives a **** if another person's SINGLE PLAYER experience isn't balanced?

 

I certainly don't. However, I do care about my single-player experience. When I crack open a new game and look at the settings, I have no clue how they may affect the game balance. If I can throw the entire class system out of whack by unchecking a single checkbox -- "friendly fire," say -- then, in my opinion, the devs have screwed up.

 

So you would rather not play a game, or force other people to play the game in a way they don't enjoy, than have options available because you can't resist opening the ****ing options menu and going "oooooooh, shiny, MUST CHECK ALL THE BOXES!"

 

What?

[PrimeJunta]

So you would rather not play a game, or force other people to play the game in a way they don't enjoy, than have options available because you can't resist opening the ****ing options menu and going "oooooooh, shiny, MUST CHECK ALL THE BOXES!"

 

What?

 

Of course not, silly.

 

But I would prefer that the devs focus their resources on in-game options rather than metagame options, even if that means the metagame features do some things contrary to my personal preferences. And if it turned out that the devs' vision was drastically different from my expectations, then yeah, I'd rather not play the game at all.

 

How about you? Would you prefer a game with a metric fluckton of toggles in the "Options" screen, but with wildly out-of-balance gameplay, with some classes either grossly overpowered or borderline unplayable, depending on how you set those toggles? What indeed.

[rjshae]

How about you? Would you prefer a game with a metric fluckton of toggles in the "Options" screen, but with wildly out-of-balance gameplay, with some classes either grossly overpowered or borderline unplayable, depending on how you set those toggles? What indeed.

Yet another reducio ad absurdum argument. You are the perfect example of why options are needed; your expectation of the game is wildly different than others.It's a balancing act on the part of the developers. You want a game that has no options, but which you wouldn't play if it didn't meet your expectations. How does that make any business sense? It doesn't. If you don't like the options, don't use them. If you don't like the developers spending time on options that others like, well that's too bad.

Edited November 29, 2012 by rjshae

[jivex5k]

I'd like the option of optionally having my options optional.

Edited November 29, 2012 by jivex5k

[Sacred_Path]

On the risk of repeating myself, I hope the devs will present a strong coherent vision of their game, rather than one overflowing with options.

 

Still, some options make more sense and are more meaningful in terms of balance (i.e. permadeath) than others (i.e. friendly fire).

 

On the argument of wether a game whose creative vision doesn't suit you is worse than one where everything is controlled via options, I can only say the devs have listed several games that serve as an inspiration for PE. Personally, I've liked all of them, and that's why I'm p. sure I'll like PE (and more options wouldn't change anything about that). So, what if I bitch and moan about hitting my own peeps with fireballs someplace mid-game? I'd still prefer that over having some dumb friendly-fire-off option. That is, I'd trust the devs to balance their game around the fact that ff will happen, and I'll probably learn to live with and appreciate it. And mastering it will give me proper satisfaction, because I know I've succeeded at playing the game as the devs intended it.

[PrimeJunta]

You are the perfect example of why options are needed; your expectation of the game is wildly different than others.

 

Is that so? In what way or ways, specifically?

 

It's a balancing act on the part of the developers.

 

Correct.

 

You want a game that has no options,

 

Wrong.

 

but which you wouldn't play if it didn't meet your expectations.

 

Correct. However, I'm fairly confident that it will meet my expectations.

 

How does that make any business sense? It doesn't.

 

Exactly! It makes no sense at all! I would be a very silly person indeed if I thought what you think I think.

 

If you don't like the options, don't use them.

 

I won't!

 

If you don't like the developers spending time on options that others like, well that's too bad.

 

Yeah, I would prefer the developers spending time on stuff I like rather than stuff I don't care about. Shocking, isn't it?

[Dream]

So you would rather not play a game, or force other people to play the game in a way they don't enjoy, than have options available because you can't resist opening the ****ing options menu and going "oooooooh, shiny, MUST CHECK ALL THE BOXES!"

 

What?

 

Of course not, silly.

 

But I would prefer that the devs focus their resources on in-game options rather than metagame options, even if that means the metagame features do some things contrary to my personal preferences. And if it turned out that the devs' vision was drastically different from my expectations, then yeah, I'd rather not play the game at all.

 

How about you? Would you prefer a game with a metric fluckton of toggles in the "Options" screen, but with wildly out-of-balance gameplay, with some classes either grossly overpowered or borderline unplayable, depending on how you set those toggles? What indeed.

 

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

Beside that, "wildly out of balance gameplay" isn't exactly the kiss of death for a single player story driven game. Baldur's Gate had some ****ed up balance with certain classes, and kits especially, being okay at best and others being straight up broken. Hell, PS:T was even worse with one of the three classes being borderline worthless (thief), another making the game stupid easy combat wise (fighter), and the last providing the only reasonable access to half of the story/dialogue content (mage). If they were multiplayer games then those would have been serious issues, but they weren't so it was hardly worth even mentioning (and most people didn't even notice the issues, if they ever did, until they'd replayed the games multiple times).

Edited November 29, 2012 by Dream

[Sacred_Path]

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

While we cannot doubt that gameplay options take time to implement and balance, we can very well doubt that more options will make the game appeal to "a broader audience".

 

Will any RPG fans skip over this game because you can't turn off friendly fire, if it has a gripping story and solid mechanics? I'd say no. Conversely, will non-RPG fans buy this game because you can turn permadeath on? I'd say no, not if the game's overall features aren't attractive by themselves.

 

All things considered, I'd say a buttload of options will only appeal to habitual RPGers, and will mostly just intimidate and confuse people who aren't familiar with the genre, so in the end it will limit rather than broaden general appeal.

 

 

 

Beside that, "wildly out of balance gameplay" isn't exactly the kiss of death for a single player story driven game. Baldur's Gate had some ****ed up balance with certain classes, and kits especially, being okay at best and others being straight up broken. Hell, PS:T was even worse with one of the three classes being borderline worthless (thief), another making the game stupid easy combat wise (fighter), and the last providing the only reasonable access to half of the story/dialogue content (mage). If they were multiplayer games then those would have been serious issues, but they weren't so it was hardly worth even mentioning (and most people didn't even notice the issues, if they ever did, until they'd replayed the games multiple times).

 

Two things:

 

1) This is true to some extent for BG2, because combat mechanics never was its strong point. From what we've heard about the classes, PE will offer more tactical depth than BG2 (ToEE was cited as an influence), and that makes balancing more important. Of course flawed balance often only becomes noticeable until you've experimented a bit with the game (not even necessarily replaying), but that's hardly an excuse for bad balancing.

 

2.) There's no reason to copy the flaws of its spiritual antecessors, but there is every reason to try and improve on them.

[Dream]

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

While we cannot doubt that gameplay options take time to implement and balance, we can very well doubt that more options will make the game appeal to "a broader audience".

 

Will any RPG fans skip over this game because you can't turn off friendly fire, if it has a gripping story and solid mechanics? I'd say no.

Of course not. I would simply not play that game.

 

Apparently they would.

 

 

Beside that, "wildly out of balance gameplay" isn't exactly the kiss of death for a single player story driven game. Baldur's Gate had some ****ed up balance with certain classes, and kits especially, being okay at best and others being straight up broken. Hell, PS:T was even worse with one of the three classes being borderline worthless (thief), another making the game stupid easy combat wise (fighter), and the last providing the only reasonable access to half of the story/dialogue content (mage). If they were multiplayer games then those would have been serious issues, but they weren't so it was hardly worth even mentioning (and most people didn't even notice the issues, if they ever did, until they'd replayed the games multiple times).

 

Two things:

 

1) This is true to some extent for BG2, because combat mechanics never was its strong point. From what we've heard about the classes, PE will offer more tactical depth than BG2 (ToEE was cited as an influence), and that makes balancing more important. Of course flawed balance often only becomes noticeable until you've experimented a bit with the game (not even necessarily replaying), but that's hardly an excuse for bad balancing.

 

2.) There's no reason to copy the flaws of its spiritual antecessors, but there is every reason to try and improve on them.

 

1) "Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

2) It's not about copying the flaws of those games; it's about realizing that perfect balance is not really that important to the core audience so making sure that every option you add is balanced is a waste of resources. Design the game to be played one way and then add a bunch of options for the people that want no FF, permadeath, limited saves, etc. If those options make the game really hard/easy then whatever; it's the player's choice to play that way, let them.

[JFSOCC]

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

While we cannot doubt that gameplay options take time to implement and balance, we can very well doubt that more options will make the game appeal to "a broader audience".

 

Will any RPG fans skip over this game because you can't turn off friendly fire, if it has a gripping story and solid mechanics? I'd say no.

Of course not. I would simply not play that game.

 

Apparently they would.

 

 

Beside that, "wildly out of balance gameplay" isn't exactly the kiss of death for a single player story driven game. Baldur's Gate had some ****ed up balance with certain classes, and kits especially, being okay at best and others being straight up broken. Hell, PS:T was even worse with one of the three classes being borderline worthless (thief), another making the game stupid easy combat wise (fighter), and the last providing the only reasonable access to half of the story/dialogue content (mage). If they were multiplayer games then those would have been serious issues, but they weren't so it was hardly worth even mentioning (and most people didn't even notice the issues, if they ever did, until they'd replayed the games multiple times).

 

Two things:

 

1) This is true to some extent for BG2, because combat mechanics never was its strong point. From what we've heard about the classes, PE will offer more tactical depth than BG2 (ToEE was cited as an influence), and that makes balancing more important. Of course flawed balance often only becomes noticeable until you've experimented a bit with the game (not even necessarily replaying), but that's hardly an excuse for bad balancing.

 

2.) There's no reason to copy the flaws of its spiritual antecessors, but there is every reason to try and improve on them.

 

1) "Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

2) It's not about copying the flaws of those games; it's about realizing that perfect balance is not really that important to the core audience so making sure that every option you add is balanced is a waste of resources. Design the game to be played one way and then add a bunch of options for the people that want no FF, permadeath, limited saves, etc. If those options make the game really hard/easy then whatever; it's the player's choice to play that way, let them.

Just because you're inspired by the old doesn't mean you can't innovate.

[Dream]

Just because you're inspired by the old doesn't mean you can't innovate.

 

Innovate away, but don't leave out options because they'd be a pain to balance when the players that want said options would enjoy the game more with the option turned on even if it wasn't balanced (especially since this is a story driven single player game).

[PrimeJunta]

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

Then how come mainstream games are usually designed with the minimum of metagame options? Hell, Angry Birds doesn't even have difficulty levels.

 

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

While we cannot doubt that gameplay options take time to implement and balance, we can very well doubt that more options will make the game appeal to "a broader audience".

 

Will any RPG fans skip over this game because you can't turn off friendly fire, if it has a gripping story and solid mechanics? I'd say no.

Of course not. I would simply not play that game.

 

Apparently they would.

 

That's a bit of a funny way to bolster your point, since I'm the one arguing for fewer metagame options here. In other words, either you're not understanding a word of what I'm saying, or you're intentionally distorting it. Either way, this conversation is starting to feel like a waste of time. :out:

Edited November 30, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[alanschu]

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.

 

snip

 

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

 

It's important to note that many of the options that they talk about in the post you linked refer to options/variability within the game. The ability to customize your character and choose different paths through the game are what they are talking about.

 

Optional/variable content is typically considered interesting, but depending on the scope of "optional" the concerns people list in this thread are valid. Even with content, excessive optional content can make the game more breadth based instead of depth based. This isn't necessarily bad (Bethesda's games do this), but it will disappoint those that would like a stronger main story of the game.

 

In this sense, with finite resources options are often mutually exclusive. You cannot give the option of the longest, deepest story possible while also providing the option of not requiring the player to play the crit path and instead playing optional side content. One comes at the expense of the other.