Developers' responsbility on how players play their games

[Amentep]

So it's your turn now:

In how far should developers encourage certain ways of playing the game?

In how far should and can they be responsible for how players play their game in contrast

to the players being responsible for their own actions?

It is the developers responsibility to develop a way to play the game that they believe will be something the player wants to play. They can create their systems to try and not encourage one play style over others (unless the game has only one play style) and not to require things that will be tedius, un-fun, etc.

 

Once the developer puts the game in the hands of the player, they can't really be responsible for how the player uses the system, only for whether the system works/doesn't work.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Amentep

[bigsun123]

For the sake of staying on topic I'll avoid the kill xp thing here.

 

 

So, just to be clear:

 

"Some backers want it" is not a valid argument as long as some backers don't want it.

 

"It was in the IE games" is not a valid argument because I could use it to demand attributes that are as useless as some were in the IE games or countless other things from those games which many would agree can be and have been improved upon over the last decade and a half.

 

 

I don't know if everyone does or not, but it seems to me that the people that wouldn't want these features simply wouldn't use them, as long as the game provided other options that were rewarding and fun.  Based on the poll of what people think here it seems like a large number of people that care enough to respond think differently.  I agree that we can't really speak for the majority of those that don't respond, but the developers can't really base any decision off them either.

 

 

That doesn't mean, however, that they absolutely can't or won't make changes based on feedback if they are persuaded by that feedback.

 

I hope they do.

[Wintersong]

So it's your turn now:

In how far should developers encourage certain ways of playing the game?

In how far should and can they be responsible for how players play their game in contrast

to the players being responsible for their own actions?

So if some players don't want quests, all of the quests should be optional. So you could grind until you get bored and then directly go to the end boss. Right?

 

It's a game, not a tabletop session. So the developers must deploy rules that make it playable between certain parameters. There is no DM to improve or retcon as needed. Those parameters shouldn't be defined by some people on forums. They could be influenced, but in most cases, not defined. Bethesda does sandbox RPGs. BioWare does story ones. Should Bethesda change their ways to please the story camp? Should BioWare change their ways to please the sandbox camp? Or should the players shut up and play the games designed in a way that appeals to them?

[Quadrone]

I don't understand this line of thinking, seems like a bunch of slippery slope suggestions.

Let me use some hyperbole to get my point across:

"Just let me play however I want to. Why are you oppressing me?"

"I'm just playing this game for the story. Give me an optional invulnerability mode so I can breeze through combat!"

"Just leave this infinite gold exploit in, you don't have to use it."

[GrinningReaper659]

For the sake of staying on topic I'll avoid the kill xp thing here.

 

 

So, just to be clear:

 

"Some backers want it" is not a valid argument as long as some backers don't want it.

 

"It was in the IE games" is not a valid argument because I could use it to demand attributes that are as useless as some were in the IE games or countless other things from those games which many would agree can be and have been improved upon over the last decade and a half.

 

 

I don't know if everyone does or not, but it seems to me that the people that wouldn't want these features simply wouldn't use them, as long as the game provided other options that were rewarding and fun.  Based on the poll of what people think here it seems like a large number of people that care enough to respond think differently.  I agree that we can't really speak for the majority of those that don't respond, but the developers can't really base any decision off them either.

 

 

That doesn't mean, however, that they absolutely can't or won't make changes based on feedback if they are persuaded by that feedback.

 

I hope they do.

 

"Based on the poll of what people think here it seems like a large number of people that care enough to respond think differently.  I agree that we can't really speak for the majority of those that don't respond, but the developers can't really base any decision off them either."

 

EDIT: Not sure what you meant by your first line of "I'll avoid the kill xp thing here" as you then went on to link a poll that you say is an argument in support of kill XP, but...

 

this is exactly my point. I argue that there's no reason to think that a majority of players want kill XP, and you link a poll that proves my point, please explain to me further how you think that that poll could possibly be an argument in support of kill XP. First of all, that poll is not representative, it simply does not have a large enough sample size yet, not to mention the fact that there are other polls with results skewing in other directions. On top of all that, the poll you linked has only 26.07% of voters voting for kill XP.

 

There are five options in the poll, and as of now 73.93% of the people that participated in that poll say that they do not want kill XP, and so by your ideas of representation and by the poll that you provided, kill XP support is held by a clear minority of backers. I, however, maintain that the poll isn't representative and that the questions skew the results in the direction of my side of the argument, as other XP polls' questions skew the results for the other side.

 

EDIT: By the way, even if you include the second to last option in that poll as being in support of kill XP (although it clearly says objective-XP), then even those two options combined have a 43.58% support, still a minority.

 

As for the "those that don't want it don't have to use it" argument, I think that that has been more than thoroughly debunked more than enough times. I mean, "Why don't I have an option to fly and shoot lasers from my eyes and teleport straight to the final boss?" Well, likely because that's not how the designers designed the game. Everybody else not being forced to do those things doesn't give me some right to demand them from the designers. Yes it's a bit hyperbolic, but my earlier example of being able to levitate above my enemies and attack them while remaining untouchable, in my opinion, wasn't any more powerful than kiting allowing players to destroy their enemies while remaining untouchable. It doesn't matter if every player has to use it or not, it's a poor design choice as determined by the designers.

Edited August 23, 2014 by GrinningReaper659

[bigsun123]

Whoa lots of text, gonna put it in the quote. 

EDIT: Not sure what you meant by your first line of "I'll avoid the kill xp thing here" as you then went on to link a poll that you say is an argument in support of kill XP, but...

Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant that I would avoid arguing the benefits/drawbacks of it here, and was using it as an example.

 

this is exactly my point. I argue that there's no reason to think that a majority of players want kill XP, and you link a poll that proves my point, please explain to me further how you think that that poll could possibly be an argument in support of kill XP. First of all, that poll is not representative, it simply does not have a large enough sample size yet, not to mention the fact that there are other polls with results skewing in other directions.

You're not going to get feedback from everyone, so what would you qualify as a large enough sample size?

 

On top of all that, the poll you linked has only 26.07% of voters voting for kill XP.

Is this a significant amount to you or not?  To me it seems like a significant portion of people aren't happy with the gameplay.  If the vision of the developers was to create a game based on the feedback of the supporters they should address it, change it, but they can't ignore it.

 

There are five options in the poll, and as of now 73.93% of the people that participated in that poll say that they do not want kill XP, and so by your ideas of representation and by the poll that you provided, kill XP support is held by a clear minority of backers. I, however, maintain that the poll isn't representative and that the questions skew the results in the direction of my side of the argument, as other XP polls' questions skew the results for the other side.

 

EDIT: By the way, even if you include the second to last option in that poll as being in support of kill XP (although it clearly says objective-XP), then even those two options combined have a 43.58% support, still a minority.

Why does it have to be a majority decision?  Again, I think it's a significant number of people.

 

As for the "those that don't want it don't have to use it" argument, I think that that has been more than thoroughly debunked more than enough times.
I disagree.  For example, I may never use some of the races/classes or quests , but I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be in the game.  I don't understand how putting this in can harm others' experience.  If I'm reading your arguments correctly, you feel that these changes will impact your playing negatively?

I mean, "Why don't I have an option to fly and shoot lasers from my eyes and teleport straight to the final boss?" Well, likely because that's not how the designers designed the game. Everybody else not being forced to do those things doesn't give me some right to demand them from the designers. Yes it's a bit hyperbolic,

Yeah.

 

but my earlier example of being able to levitate above my enemies and attack them while remaining untouchable, in my opinion, wasn't any more powerful than kiting allowing players to destroy their enemies while remaining untouchable.  

Really?  That's okay, I personally don't care for either I guess.

 

It doesn't matter if every player has to use it or not, it's a poor design choice as determined by the designers.
The designers have asked for feedback, specifically about some of these topics.  I think there are a significant number of supporters that would like the game to change, in some aspects that I feel would not affect those that did not choose to use those features.  It may not be the majority, but I feel that the feedback should not be ignored.  

 

I'm not sure us arguing is going to change anyone's mind either way about these examples (kill xp, stats, classes, etc)  But, the developers have asked for feedback, and it'll be up to the developers to choose to incorporate the feedback or not.  I would think that since people have put in money and time that at the very least those topics will be addressed.  That was the impression I was led to believe when I backed this project.  We'll all find out once they release a statement following the beta.

[GrinningReaper659]

@bigsun123 Just a couple of things here:

 

One of your main points here is that ~27% of people being dissatisfied is a significant amount, I completely agree. I don't think the number is exactly accurate, but I do agree that that is a significant percentage of dissatisfied players and should be addressed. However, when you suggest that they should add kill XP in because 27% want it, while 73% don't want it, that makes no sense. It's not that they can't take the feedback/ideas of backers to heart, but the argument that a mechanic should be changed because of the request of 27% of backers (and against the request of 73% of backers) doesn't make sense. If it turns out that as many as 27% are actually dissatisfied, then the problem should be addressed in order to find a balance, not to say "Well I guess we have to bow to the wishes of these 27% of people and disregard everyone else." If a significant number of people have an issue, and the developers decide to take that feedback to heart and make a change, then a balance should be struck. I don't see how you go from something along the lines of "27% of people want kill XP and 73% of people don't" to "The developer's have a responsibility to include kill XP."

 

As for your question concerning how the design elements of a game affect my playing that game, they necessarily do, they're elements of a game that I'm playing. If I didn't like the stash and you said "well you don't have to use the stash," that argument wouldn't make any sense. Of course I don't have to use the stash, but the game is designed and balanced around the idea that I will use it, so my game will be dramatically affected if I don't. I don't understand how people who understand that a game is a series of rules and systems that frame a story and which all inherently affect the end-user's experience suddenly forget this when a designer decides to not include something they want real bad.

 

About your last comment, I totally agree that feedback is important and those that want per-kill XP should absolutely be saying so and explaining why. I just don't agree with some of the supporting arguments in favor of it, nor would I agree with people using them in favor of my side of the argument. So I hope people continue to voice their opinions and explain why they hold that opinion.

[redneckdevil]

A Game Designer is just like a GM/DM. They create a world for u to play in, the dictate the rules and what u can create and also afe in charge with the story/npcs/fights/rewards/etc etc. Basically they fill the world with everything and give u a story on top of that. As a player u create what is allowed and interact with what the GM/DM allows and/or provides and become stars of the show.

alot of people forget that GM/DM are allowed to have fun as well and are allowed to want their work that they spent alot of time on to be appreciated AND are allowed to follow their vision.

BUT it is also the players right to participate in the GM/DM vision and creation BUT it is also the right that the player does not have to play the game.

think of videos games as games already fleshed out and set up and the GM/DM stepped away from the table while the players are playing.

Edited August 24, 2014 by redneckdevil

[archangel979]

It is unfair to say 73% of people don't want kill xp. Better to say would be that most people don't want current only quest xp system and want it tweaked.

[Captain Shrek]

I really feel that the developers should make games that THEY want to play. Trying to second guess the players leads only to focus group mess and leads the game away from the developers gut feeling. Generally what people are comfortable with *themselves* should be what they should try and make for a game. 

[JFSOCC]

I think it is a valid concern whether or not there is an "intended" path or solution. I'm more worried about narrative railroading and scripted events. Nothing pissed me off more in DA:O when my fully stealthed character would drop out of stealth when clicking a chest or moving through a doorway, being forced dropped out of stealth, and hearing how I had betrayed everyone for doing something I wasn't allowed. despite having invested heavily in stealth and there being no internally consistent way for the npc's to know what I had done/was about to do.

[Msxyz]

In an online game, it's the developer responsibility to avoid situations where certain players have an advantage over the others for something else than mere ability.

 

In a single player game, it's okay to let the players indulge in what they think it is more fun. Part of the reason behind the success of the Elder Scrolls games doesn't lie in the mechanics, in the story or in the gameplay, but it's because they allows players to metagame to their will without a clear direction. The availability of MODs (on PC only, though) it's the icing on the cake.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Msxyz

[archangel979]

Hmm, okay it's their game, they set up the rule. I understand that.

 

I just would have expected that they would leave more choice to the player.

 

For example the kiting. The developers decide to exclude it.

Why not leave this decision to the player if they want to kite (as long as kiting isn't the only way of beating a fight)?

 

Right now I feel like it is excluded because someone else would tell me that it is not fun for me if I kite.

 

If kiting is included then people can enjoy it who like it, and people who don't just don't use it.

Where's the harm in that?

 

I don't see why an exclusion based on what other people think what is fun for me and other players

is an enrichment for a game.

they didn't exclude kiting, just didn't provide means to safely disengage for all characters like NWN2 had with Tumble skill.

I still hope we get something.

Maybe a general talent that lets you safely disengage once per encounter.

Edited August 29, 2014 by archangel979

[Orillion]

Sorry if this has been mentioned here, but engagement wasn't implemented necessarily to combat kiting. Play Baldur's Gate again. Engagement is meant to stop that thing that ALL melee enemies do where they push past your melee fighters to go after the cleric or druid who's minding her own business, or the wizard you were intentionally keeping out of the fight altogether.

[Zombra]

Who should decide what is the most rewarding way to play the game?

The developers should.  They should have an idea in mind of the kind of experience they're trying to create, and then design to encourage that experience.

 

It's all very well for devs to just throw a bunch of systems out there and let the player do whatever they want, but in many cases this creates situations where the most mechanically rewarding behavior is also the most boring.  Players who don't like boring things end up feeling cheated, and players who want the reward at any cost end up "grinding" boring behavior to get the cookie.

 

If you like to grind and do other boring things, good for you, go ahead and do them.  You can still kill everything in sight in PoE if that's your taste.  But if you're only doing it for the cookie, just go buy a box of cookies and be done with it.  You don't have the "right" to a cookie just because you like a certain type of behavior.  The devs can attach cookies wherever they choose to, and not attach them where they choose not to, in order to encourage an experience consistent with their intentions.  Note that every xp-based game ever already does this.

 

It's perfectly OK if you don't want to experience a game the way they encourage you to, but it's on you to find your own fun then.  Not their responsibility to make sure everyone loves it, no matter how retarded their preferences.  

[Mayama]

For me the perfect cRPG would not allow any kind of cheese/exploiting because the AI is good enough to deal with it.

[Gromnir]

independent game developers (different than developers working directly for a publisher) have a duty to their wives, children, selves and perhaps coworkers to be making games that will earn enough money so that they can stay in the business o' making games.

 

...

 

that's it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[GreyFox]

Hah...the names really get me too.

 

UtherhartSnufflebunny

 

It's actually funny that i've heard Sawyer say "Deerwood" (Dyrewood)

 

and then in a separate interview hear Avellone say "Direwood" (Dyrewood)

 

I don't know if even they are on the same page as far as the names go.

 

 

I'm gonna need a dictionary like mechanism for telling me how to pronounce these things.

Edited September 3, 2014 by GreyFox

[Gfted1]

I greatly dislike wacky made up languages (usually with too many vowels). My brain cant be bothered trying to figure it out so I just make up some close approximation of what the word should be and then forevermore mispronounce it.

 

Seriously, if it looks like Welsh or has too many accents / umlauts, then you're doing it wrong.

[GreyFox]

I greatly dislike wacky made up languages (usually with too many vowels). My brain cant be bothered trying to figure it out so I just make up some close approximation of what the word should be and then forevermore mispronounce it.

 

Seriously, if it looks like Welsh or has too many accents / umlauts, then you're doing it wrong.

 

I've always done the same thing...I just make up what I think it says and go with it....I've gotten some strange looks from DnD nerds on how I pronounce Drizzt...

[Zombra]

I usually don't read out loud that often when playing a single-player CRPG anyway.  They could call it the XQQHHWood for all I care.  

Edited September 3, 2014 by Zombra

[Zeckul]

Hmm, okay it's their game, they set up the rule. I understand that.

 

I just would have expected that they would leave more choice to the player.

 

For example the kiting. The developers decide to exclude it.

They did not. You can choose to kite if you want. It's just not an effective strategy in this game. 

[Gromnir]

I greatly dislike wacky made up languages (usually with too many vowels). My brain cant be bothered trying to figure it out so I just make up some close approximation of what the word should be and then forevermore mispronounce it.

 

Seriously, if it looks like Welsh or has too many accents / umlauts, then you're doing it wrong.

apostrophes in a name make it exotic?

 

*shrug*

 

at the same time, it were a bit o' a fad a few years ago to hire grad student or "expert" linguists to create Genuine game languages. bioware did such a couple times, no? genuine new languages has, for the most part, left Gromnir unimpressed. am recalling that frank herbert only ever used five words o' fictional fremen in his books. am knowing Tolkien fascination is kinda a nerd prerequisite, but the fact that he created complete original languages never impressed Gromnir all that much. yeah, Tolkien were attempting to create a whole English Mythology, so perhaps he thought a core language were necessary foundation, but frankly (no pun) we prefer Dune to Fellowship of the Ring... and we expect that if we is ever murdered, our killer will beat us to death with The Silmarillion as kinda a final cruel joke.

 

...

 

where were we? oh, yeah, apostrophes makes names more exotic... everybody knows that elf or grilvac names need inexplicable apostrophes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we made up "grilvac"... shoulda'  made it gr'lvac?

[ManifestedISO]

Ninth-grade me wrote a book report for Dune ... looking down my nose at Herbert from high on a horse having read LOTR four grades prior. I remember being terribly dismissive (or just terrible), and the opposite of impartial. Even in 1986, nerd book cliques were divided between fantasy and sci-fi, Tolkien versus Asimov or Herbert. It was the numerous languages conceived in the former, that turned our glasses gang into elitists, though.

 

As per above, how is kiting not effective in PoE. Or am I misunderstanding. I thought that was the only way to manage mobs.    

[Gfted1]

Seems effective to me. I used kiting on almost every battle.