Developers' responsbility on how players play their games

[Stun]

Hey everyone,

 

in this thread I'd like to discuss in how far it is the developers'

responsibility to take care that players play in a certain way.

 

And in how far developers can and should define what a "correct" way of playing

a game is.

First let me say that I usually do not care about combat mechanics much in a

game as long as the game provides a good, fascinating story.

 

However I think I have noticed some mechanisms so far that try to enforce

a certain way of playing the game when I wonder why it is the developers'

responsibility to do that.

 

Two Examples for that.

 

1) Kiting.

IMO The engagement system is used to prevent kiting.

If a player likes to kite however why stop him?

Should a player not have the freedom to kite if he likes doing so?

 

If you leave the possibility to kiting open, then people who like to kite can do so and people

who dislike to kite can still decide not to do it.

As long as kiting is not necessary to win a fight.

 

2) KILL XP - Grinding

If people like to grind to get stronger so that it is easier later on why stop them?

As long as this grinding is not a requirement to beat the game.

If I remember correctly Planescape:Torment had two grinding dungeons.

 

It was the players' responsibility to use them or not.

 

At the moment I just feel like the game, that is the developers, try to encourage a very certain way

of playing the game because they deem other ways as not being "good"

(However they define and justify that).

 

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?

Excellent post, Fluffle.

 

Yes, especially in a role playing game, the developers should not ever attempt to close off/eliminate any sort of playstyle.

 

IMO it's alright if they want to encourage a particular playstyle (read: give subtle hints that a certain playstyle will result in more meaningful gameplay) But it's when they try to control the player's decision-making process by forcing the issue, that their game ends up suffering for it.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

It's really down to definitions here. If, for example, kiting simply isn't effective the majority of the time, (just for example), is that the developer trying to control the player's decision making process? I mean, what if your playstyle is to just run at things and hit them without a care in the world for armor values/damage types, etc? Wouldn't you just be out of luck? Or does the game need to accommodate you, sheerly on your desire for something to work as opposed to not-working?

 

I guess what I'm asking is, what draws the line between something simply being outside the boundaries of the game's "field" of play, and something being a wrongfully-closed-off playstyle?

[Bryy]

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. 

Yup.

 

Even in a model where the public are the publishers (because that's the truth), at the end of the day, the developers are making a product that satisfies them.

[Hormalakh]

Hey everyone,

 

in this thread I'd like to discuss in how far it is the developers'

responsibility to take care that players play in a certain way.

 

And in how far developers can and should define what a "correct" way of playing

a game is.

First let me say that I usually do not care about combat mechanics much in a

game as long as the game provides a good, fascinating story.

 

However I think I have noticed some mechanisms so far that try to enforce

a certain way of playing the game when I wonder why it is the developers'

responsibility to do that.

 

Two Examples for that.

 

1) Kiting.

IMO The engagement system is used to prevent kiting.

If a player likes to kite however why stop him?

Should a player not have the freedom to kite if he likes doing so?

 

If you leave the possibility to kiting open, then people who like to kite can do so and people

who dislike to kite can still decide not to do it.

As long as kiting is not necessary to win a fight.

 

2) KILL XP - Grinding

If people like to grind to get stronger so that it is easier later on why stop them?

As long as this grinding is not a requirement to beat the game.

If I remember correctly Planescape:Torment had two grinding dungeons.

 

It was the players' responsibility to use them or not.

 

At the moment I just feel like the game, that is the developers, try to encourage a very certain way

of playing the game because they deem other ways as not being "good"

(However they define and justify that).

 

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?

 

 

to answer your question: it's always the game developer's responsibility to create the rules of the game and to make sure that there are not options that unwittingly break those rules of the game.

 

If, for example, you are playing monopoly and you pass go, unless the game developer wanted you to get more than $200 each time,  you only get $200. it's just the rules of the game. Yes, players can make their own rules (you can make the free parking space a lottery which is given to whoever lands on it) but that's not how the developer intended the game to play.

 

The developer makes the rules of the game. It's thereafter the dev's responsibility to make sure that the rules are not innately contradictory.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Pray]

Killing mobs is still grinding - it's just not as rewarding as questing - but there are still rewards to be had. To what extent, we have yet to see.