Hear me out. A few games have shader installations that will usually apply any new settings you put down AFTER you restart the game, and a lot of other games have graphics settings that will only apply after you’ve rebooted the game.
I don’t think it would cost developers ANY amount of money or any significant development time to add a “Reboot game” button (or toggle) every time the player presses the quit button, or give the player a prompt every time they change a setting that requires a game restart (like in both PC versions of GTA V).
I also think ANY game should have a “full potato” mode capable of running in older computers with NONE of the fancy graphics stuff that we have access to today, despite having a decent computer now.
Gameplay settings menus that allow you to turn off gameplay mechanisms you simply don’t enjoy, or tune them.
I’m talking about ones that are like one line of code being set to true instead of false etc. That type of thing.
Basically things like that and the Atomfall gameplay/difficulty settings menu
I don’t give a fuck if some pretentious asses “artistic vision” requires the player to backtrack half way across a level on every death or thinks a shitty minigame should be played no less than 153 times every play through. I want to be able to just turn off the unfun shit, and leave on the fun shit.
This is a game. I don’t care if the developer thinks X Y or Z adds to the experience. If I don’t, within reason I should just be able to turn it off.
I disagree because it solely approaches games as some sort of “electronic commodity” and outright despises a development group’s artistry.
Sure, not every game is trying to be art. But games have long gone beyond the realm of simply “entertain me”. That opinion is like saying “books should be made in a way that allows users to change the story whenever and however they want.” It is something you can do but there’s no imperative to cater to it.
I disagree because it solely approaches games as some sort of “electronic commodity” and outright despises a development group’s artistry.
This is meaningless pretentious gibberish. It’s like saying that watching movie on an unintended device is disrespecting the playwright.
Why should your desire to put entertaining past times on a pedestal restrict what I should be able to do.
If you feel that way, then play games as they intend. There is no reason to be against other people having an option just because you don’t like it.
You are in essence gatekeeping enjoying a video game as a concept. Like people must enjoy them the way you envision.
That opinion is like saying “books should be made in a way that allows users to change the story whenever and however they want.” It is something you can do but there’s no imperative to cater to it.
This makes no sense at all as an analogy. Books don’t run on game engines and don’t have recycled bits of logic that game mechanics are comprised of that can be mass changed to great effect. The feature you’re describing would require the equivalent of writing the book a million times over. The changes Im describing are often accomplished on day one by modders, or just included by the developers as a quality of life feature set.
You are in essence gatekeeping enjoying a video game as a concept. Like people must enjoy them the way you envision.
What an incredibly inaccurate statement. I love modding video games, I spend more time modding video games than I spend playing video games. I understand that the vision developers have doesn’t often align with what I want from their product.
I don’t agree that developers should be spending dev cycles making a game functional for a user that turns off any configuration of gameplay mechanics.
Saying you can just set a variable from “true to false” is so laughably misunderstanding what goes into software development much less game development that it sounds entitled. What gameplay mechanics are you even saying should be configurable? All of them? Just turn off the combat in a fighting game? At what point is a gameplay mechanic integral to the genre/experience? And who is the person or persons that decide?
Developers should be free to create what they want, and the end user is free to mod it however they want. That includes, for the devs, not purposefully obfuscating things so that modding is more diffcult.
Saying you can just set a variable from “true to false” is so laughably misunderstanding what goes into software development much less game development that it sounds entitled.
This is an attempt to sound smart that falls flat. The idea that there are no configuration settings that are simply inaccessible to users which are boolean values is laughably naive and provably wrong in many games.
What gameplay mechanics are you even saying should be configurable? All of them? Just turn off the combat in a fighting game? At what point is a gameplay mechanic integral to the genre/experience? And who is the person or persons that decide?
This isn’t an argument, its you saying that without being hyper specific, and laying out a detailed rule book for hypothetical future games, youll arbitrarily decide to assume the most irrational conclusion so that you can continue to rage and gate keep.
Developers should be free to create what they want, and the end user is free to mod it however they want. That includes, for the devs, not purposefully obfuscating things so that modding is more diffcult.
This is a strawman argument, as no one in this thread is restricting any developers ability to do anything. It is quite literally a wishlist thread. This “criticism” could literally be applied to anything in this thread. Its invalid.
I don’t give a fuck if some pretentious asses “artistic vision” requires the player to backtrack half way across a level on every death or thinks a shitty minigame should be played no less than 153 times every play through.
Then just don’t play that game or use cheats (if its a singleplayer game)?
I don’t see why a game developer needs to intentionally provide an option to remove mechanics they designed a game around just to please someone that doesn’t want to play the game as they designed it.
Lets talk about QTEs as an example. Because for QTEs, a developer can easily add an option to entirely circumvent them, with just a single boolean and a single line of code in the QTE input method.
I think that, for accessibility reasons, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an option to switch between tapping a button and holding a button to complete a QTE. I think it is unreasonable to ask developers for an option to completely remove QTEs from their game (such as auto-succeed/auto-complete). For many games, this would turn an interactive part of the game which is normally followed by an uninteractive cutscene into an uninteractive cutscene immediately followed by another uninteractive cutscene. Players that disable QTEs could easily be sitting through very long stretches of uninteractive parts of the game instead of interacting with the game, leading to those players complaining about long cutscenes since they usually completely forget they disabled QTEs.
Shenmue has Quick Time Events. A lot of them. If someone hates QTEs, it would be better for them not to play the game at all than to play without them. It is a core part of the intended experience that enhances the player’s time with the game. You get to interact with the cutscene instead of dropping the controller and turning off your brain. As a player, you pay more attention and keep your controller ready because at any moment you could be hit with a QTE and you want to be ready for that. You as a player have anticipation, excitement, nervousness, fear, etc that the developer makes you feel using mechanics like QTEs. You are more engaged with the game than someone that wants those deleted from the game, and in the end that means you will get more enjoyment out of the game. Someone that wants that turned off wants to play a different game.
Not every game is made for every person. And thats okay, thats good even.
For many games, this would turn an interactive part of the game which is normally followed by an uninteractive cutscene into an uninteractive cutscene immediately followed by another uninteractive cutscene. Players that disable QTEs could easily be sitting through very long stretches of uninteractive parts of the game instead of interacting with the game, leading to those players complaining about long cutscenes since they usually completely forget they disabled QTEs.
This is such a bizzare and contrived example.
Firstly, because the idea that QTE’s are anything but fill in the situation you’ve described is ridiculous. Secondly, because it is literally preference based (for instance, I would have loved to just eliminated QTEs completely from Dispatch), and lastly, because your made up result could easily instead just be that they recieve rave reviews for how accessible their game is and how freeing it is to have the ability to play how you want to play.
If someone hates QTEs, it would be better for them not to play the game at all than to play without them.
This is only true to someone who is pretentious and gatekeepy about what they feel other people should enjoy. Why do you have such strong opinions about how other people should live their lives?
As a player, you pay more attention and keep your controller ready because at any moment you could be hit with a QTE and you want to be ready for that.
Not everyone likes or wants that. I can personally say I can’t recall a time where QTEs added to a game experience, and in games where I’ve modded out similar, they played much better to me. Thats the big important thing; to me. You obviously have tremendous trouble imagining anyone else having a different felt experience than you do.
Not every game is made for every person. And thats okay, thats good even.
This is a bullshit shield from criticism. A game having a feature I don’t like doesn’t mean I’m not the audience for said game, it just means the game is less enjoyable for me.
The idea that no game should be criticized or offer options, and instead people should just never play any game that isn’t perfectly suited to them is obviously absurd but the clear logical conclusion from your nonsensical advice here.
I was with you at first, thinking you meant in a sandbox game, like turning off hunger/on hardcore in Minecraft, etc. but you’re just whining because every moment isn’t custom built to keep up with your personal ADHD/hedonic treadmill. The point of a game isn’t to just give you a blowjob from launch to credits. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
but you’re just whining because every moment isn’t custom built to keep up with your personal ADHD/hedonic treadmill.
This is such a weirdly hostile, assumptive and gatekeepy sentiment.
The point of a game isn’t to just give you a blowjob from launch to credits. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
Your mentality of “this is not what the point of a game is” is especially ridiculous because if a game was that, what I’m advocating for would give you the ability to make it what you want instead.
You really like the word ‘gatekeep,’ as though it were a bad thing. When you walk into a museum, start complaining about the lack of teleporters and strippers, and then get told to leave, yeah, they’re gatekeeping you, but it’s because you’re complaining about the lack of teleporters and strippers in a museum. That’s not what it’s there for. They have curated a collection of experiences focused on creating an overarching experience, and you have wandered in, said ‘I don’t want to have to walk to each exhibit, teleport me,’ and ‘This exhibit is booooooring. Teleport me to the one with strippers.’ If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
It’s actually one of the cleanest, most direct analogies I’ve ever used. Both are curated experiences with controlled visual, auditory, and interactive elements. The differences lie only in the physical/resource limitations each has for the kinds of experiences they can include.
The differences lie only in the physical/resource limitations each has for the kinds of experiences they can include.
Not only is this wrong, but it’s also nonsensical. It is nonsensical because these are massive elements of each experience and why accommodating preferences in one is far easier than the other. Its also wrong because most museum experiences with interaction absolutely have the option to skip parts of said interactions.
The other reason this is wrong, is that these are certainly not the only areas differences lie in, as museums aim to preserve history, and are therefore locked in content wise from that perspective, what with the physical artifacts and care for that. Games are not at all that.
accommodating preferences in one is far easier than the other.
Tell me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience without telling me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience. If you think it’s so easy to take every element of a highly complex, performance sensitive program and make it possible to pick and choose which ones you experience without breaking the whole experience or turning a 1 year project into a 10 year project, go ahead and try. Do you also ask movie directors to make their movies so that when you hit ‘skip scene’ because you don’t like the way the scene looks, it still makes a good movie?
museums aim to preserve history
That’s just your failure to understand there are more kinds of museum than a history museum. A history museum does have special work involved, but others don’t share that element. Perhaps you’ve heard of an art museum, sometimes also known as a gallery. They can contain all sorts of elements, audio, video, scent, touch, taste, human interaction, machine interaction, ludic interaction, whatever. The artifacts can be any age, with art from hundreds of years ago or being created in the moment via performance.
The analogy is a failure, to be sure, but only because I hadn’t considered the possibility you wouldn’t have that piece of common knowledge. Now that you do have that knowledge, though, if you can’t see the analogy, that’s on you.
Tell me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience without telling me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience.
I actually have, and have worked on multi person teams doing such.
Its why this line of argument rings so hollow.
Even if I didn’t, I could obviously point to the many games that do have levels of granularity like this, and are completely successful at it.
If you think it’s so easy to take every element of a highly complex, performance sensitive program and make it possible to pick and choose which ones you experience without breaking the whole experience or turning a 1 year project into a 10 year project, go ahead and try.
See, this is what is called the most blatant strawman argument I have ever seen. It is so obviously so far removed from anything I’ve suggested its laughable on its face.
Do you also ask movie directors to make their movies so that when you hit ‘skip scene’ because you don’t like the way the scene looks, it still makes a good movie?
Yet another nonsensical analogy for obvious reasons. You wouldn’t need this obviously badly fitting analogies if your POV had merit.
What movies don’t let you skip past some scenes based on what you’d like? I very frequently speed up/skip parts in movies that move too slow, or even rewatch parts that I miss. Its most definitely an additive part of the experience.
That’s just your failure to understand there are more kinds of museum than a history museum.
All museums do what I am talking about. Your pedantry about it being more than history does not at all change the merit of the point made.
The analogy is a failure, to be sure, but only because I hadn’t considered the possibility you wouldn’t have that piece of common knowledge. Now that you do have that knowledge, though, if you can’t see the analogy, that’s on you.
Except that the literal only thing you could point out that was wrong with my critcism of it, was pedantic and had no effect on the effectiveness of the point.
Unless there is a serious, compelling reason and they game is about that, let me turn off micromanage shit. I want to explore the world and dungeons and not worry about whether all the loot I can pick up is worth it or to decide each and every single item whether I want it or what I need to toss to pick it up.
This is exactly it. I don’t understand why people would want to waste any time doing things they don’t want to do vs things they want to do when playing games. The point is fun, whatever that means to the individual.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
Gameplay settings menus that allow you to turn off gameplay mechanisms you simply don’t enjoy, or tune them.
I’m talking about ones that are like one line of code being set to true instead of false etc. That type of thing.
Basically things like that and the Atomfall gameplay/difficulty settings menu
I don’t give a fuck if some pretentious asses “artistic vision” requires the player to backtrack half way across a level on every death or thinks a shitty minigame should be played no less than 153 times every play through. I want to be able to just turn off the unfun shit, and leave on the fun shit.
This is a game. I don’t care if the developer thinks X Y or Z adds to the experience. If I don’t, within reason I should just be able to turn it off.
I disagree because it solely approaches games as some sort of “electronic commodity” and outright despises a development group’s artistry.
Sure, not every game is trying to be art. But games have long gone beyond the realm of simply “entertain me”. That opinion is like saying “books should be made in a way that allows users to change the story whenever and however they want.” It is something you can do but there’s no imperative to cater to it.
This is meaningless pretentious gibberish. It’s like saying that watching movie on an unintended device is disrespecting the playwright.
Why should your desire to put entertaining past times on a pedestal restrict what I should be able to do.
If you feel that way, then play games as they intend. There is no reason to be against other people having an option just because you don’t like it.
You are in essence gatekeeping enjoying a video game as a concept. Like people must enjoy them the way you envision.
This makes no sense at all as an analogy. Books don’t run on game engines and don’t have recycled bits of logic that game mechanics are comprised of that can be mass changed to great effect. The feature you’re describing would require the equivalent of writing the book a million times over. The changes Im describing are often accomplished on day one by modders, or just included by the developers as a quality of life feature set.
What an incredibly inaccurate statement. I love modding video games, I spend more time modding video games than I spend playing video games. I understand that the vision developers have doesn’t often align with what I want from their product.
I don’t agree that developers should be spending dev cycles making a game functional for a user that turns off any configuration of gameplay mechanics.
Saying you can just set a variable from “
truetofalse” is so laughably misunderstanding what goes into software development much less game development that it sounds entitled. What gameplay mechanics are you even saying should be configurable? All of them? Just turn off the combat in a fighting game? At what point is a gameplay mechanic integral to the genre/experience? And who is the person or persons that decide?Developers should be free to create what they want, and the end user is free to mod it however they want. That includes, for the devs, not purposefully obfuscating things so that modding is more diffcult.
This is an attempt to sound smart that falls flat. The idea that there are no configuration settings that are simply inaccessible to users which are boolean values is laughably naive and provably wrong in many games.
This isn’t an argument, its you saying that without being hyper specific, and laying out a detailed rule book for hypothetical future games, youll arbitrarily decide to assume the most irrational conclusion so that you can continue to rage and gate keep.
This is a strawman argument, as no one in this thread is restricting any developers ability to do anything. It is quite literally a wishlist thread. This “criticism” could literally be applied to anything in this thread. Its invalid.
Then just don’t play that game or use cheats (if its a singleplayer game)?
I don’t see why a game developer needs to intentionally provide an option to remove mechanics they designed a game around just to please someone that doesn’t want to play the game as they designed it.
Alternatively, the devs could just have those options, as some games do, and everyone is happy.
You have such a weird gate keeper take here.
This is a wishlist. No one is forced to do anything by me saying this is my preference.
You are stanning for a nonexistent idea of a game. This is an unbelievable level of gatekeeping.
Lets talk about QTEs as an example. Because for QTEs, a developer can easily add an option to entirely circumvent them, with just a single boolean and a single line of code in the QTE input method.
I think that, for accessibility reasons, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an option to switch between tapping a button and holding a button to complete a QTE. I think it is unreasonable to ask developers for an option to completely remove QTEs from their game (such as auto-succeed/auto-complete). For many games, this would turn an interactive part of the game which is normally followed by an uninteractive cutscene into an uninteractive cutscene immediately followed by another uninteractive cutscene. Players that disable QTEs could easily be sitting through very long stretches of uninteractive parts of the game instead of interacting with the game, leading to those players complaining about long cutscenes since they usually completely forget they disabled QTEs.
Shenmue has Quick Time Events. A lot of them. If someone hates QTEs, it would be better for them not to play the game at all than to play without them. It is a core part of the intended experience that enhances the player’s time with the game. You get to interact with the cutscene instead of dropping the controller and turning off your brain. As a player, you pay more attention and keep your controller ready because at any moment you could be hit with a QTE and you want to be ready for that. You as a player have anticipation, excitement, nervousness, fear, etc that the developer makes you feel using mechanics like QTEs. You are more engaged with the game than someone that wants those deleted from the game, and in the end that means you will get more enjoyment out of the game. Someone that wants that turned off wants to play a different game.
Not every game is made for every person. And thats okay, thats good even.
This is such a bizzare and contrived example.
Firstly, because the idea that QTE’s are anything but fill in the situation you’ve described is ridiculous. Secondly, because it is literally preference based (for instance, I would have loved to just eliminated QTEs completely from Dispatch), and lastly, because your made up result could easily instead just be that they recieve rave reviews for how accessible their game is and how freeing it is to have the ability to play how you want to play.
This is only true to someone who is pretentious and gatekeepy about what they feel other people should enjoy. Why do you have such strong opinions about how other people should live their lives?
Not everyone likes or wants that. I can personally say I can’t recall a time where QTEs added to a game experience, and in games where I’ve modded out similar, they played much better to me. Thats the big important thing; to me. You obviously have tremendous trouble imagining anyone else having a different felt experience than you do.
This is a bullshit shield from criticism. A game having a feature I don’t like doesn’t mean I’m not the audience for said game, it just means the game is less enjoyable for me.
The idea that no game should be criticized or offer options, and instead people should just never play any game that isn’t perfectly suited to them is obviously absurd but the clear logical conclusion from your nonsensical advice here.
I was with you at first, thinking you meant in a sandbox game, like turning off hunger/on hardcore in Minecraft, etc. but you’re just whining because every moment isn’t custom built to keep up with your personal ADHD/hedonic treadmill. The point of a game isn’t to just give you a blowjob from launch to credits. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
This is such a weirdly hostile, assumptive and gatekeepy sentiment.
Your mentality of “this is not what the point of a game is” is especially ridiculous because if a game was that, what I’m advocating for would give you the ability to make it what you want instead.
You really like the word ‘gatekeep,’ as though it were a bad thing. When you walk into a museum, start complaining about the lack of teleporters and strippers, and then get told to leave, yeah, they’re gatekeeping you, but it’s because you’re complaining about the lack of teleporters and strippers in a museum. That’s not what it’s there for. They have curated a collection of experiences focused on creating an overarching experience, and you have wandered in, said ‘I don’t want to have to walk to each exhibit, teleport me,’ and ‘This exhibit is booooooring. Teleport me to the one with strippers.’ If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
This is such a ridiculously bad faith analogy I feel like it has to be on purpose
It’s actually one of the cleanest, most direct analogies I’ve ever used. Both are curated experiences with controlled visual, auditory, and interactive elements. The differences lie only in the physical/resource limitations each has for the kinds of experiences they can include.
Not only is this wrong, but it’s also nonsensical. It is nonsensical because these are massive elements of each experience and why accommodating preferences in one is far easier than the other. Its also wrong because most museum experiences with interaction absolutely have the option to skip parts of said interactions.
The other reason this is wrong, is that these are certainly not the only areas differences lie in, as museums aim to preserve history, and are therefore locked in content wise from that perspective, what with the physical artifacts and care for that. Games are not at all that.
The whole analogy is terrible.
Tell me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience without telling me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience. If you think it’s so easy to take every element of a highly complex, performance sensitive program and make it possible to pick and choose which ones you experience without breaking the whole experience or turning a 1 year project into a 10 year project, go ahead and try. Do you also ask movie directors to make their movies so that when you hit ‘skip scene’ because you don’t like the way the scene looks, it still makes a good movie?
That’s just your failure to understand there are more kinds of museum than a history museum. A history museum does have special work involved, but others don’t share that element. Perhaps you’ve heard of an art museum, sometimes also known as a gallery. They can contain all sorts of elements, audio, video, scent, touch, taste, human interaction, machine interaction, ludic interaction, whatever. The artifacts can be any age, with art from hundreds of years ago or being created in the moment via performance.
The analogy is a failure, to be sure, but only because I hadn’t considered the possibility you wouldn’t have that piece of common knowledge. Now that you do have that knowledge, though, if you can’t see the analogy, that’s on you.
I actually have, and have worked on multi person teams doing such.
Its why this line of argument rings so hollow.
Even if I didn’t, I could obviously point to the many games that do have levels of granularity like this, and are completely successful at it.
See, this is what is called the most blatant strawman argument I have ever seen. It is so obviously so far removed from anything I’ve suggested its laughable on its face.
Yet another nonsensical analogy for obvious reasons. You wouldn’t need this obviously badly fitting analogies if your POV had merit.
What movies don’t let you skip past some scenes based on what you’d like? I very frequently speed up/skip parts in movies that move too slow, or even rewatch parts that I miss. Its most definitely an additive part of the experience.
All museums do what I am talking about. Your pedantry about it being more than history does not at all change the merit of the point made.
Except that the literal only thing you could point out that was wrong with my critcism of it, was pedantic and had no effect on the effectiveness of the point.
Being stubborn is a virtue to you I suppose.
Oh, definitely.
Fuck carry weight. Fuck inventory management.
Unless there is a serious, compelling reason and they game is about that, let me turn off micromanage shit. I want to explore the world and dungeons and not worry about whether all the loot I can pick up is worth it or to decide each and every single item whether I want it or what I need to toss to pick it up.
This is exactly it. I don’t understand why people would want to waste any time doing things they don’t want to do vs things they want to do when playing games. The point is fun, whatever that means to the individual.