Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
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’m talking about ones that are like one line of code being set to true instead of false etc
I don’t know how many, if any, settings matching the true/false + 1 line of code restraints even exist.
If you can change a setting, even if it’s a binary choice, someone had to think about, implement and test everything pertaining to these choices.
Depending on what kind of mechanic we’re talking about and how deeply integrated into the rest of the game this mechanic is, that could be a big task.
Checkout the custom settings for Ixion.
Its exactly what they’re asking for, and it works well
Increasingly seeing this in games, and I love it.
don’t know how many, if any, settings matching the true/false + 1 line of code restraints even exist.
Absolutely. For example, turning off running out of stamina, removing item loss, turning off minigames is close.
There are tons. Atomfall has a ton of options that are similarly simple.
If you can change a setting, even if it’s a binary choice, someone had to think about, implement and test everything pertaining to these choices.
Nah. Some choices just arent that complicated. I think you’re over complicating it. We can especially see that this is true in many games where things are modded in. Like in Cyberpunk, just not having to play the minigames is a better experience imo. Like its slightly more than the one line hyperbole, but not much.
Depending on what kind of mechanic we’re talking about and how deeply integrated into the rest of the game this mechanic is, that could be a big task.
I feel like you’re getting away from the spirit of my comment here/getting carried away with finding exceptions and technicalities to this thread about no game in particular and hypothetical wishlists of features.
I didn’t mean to get caught up in exceptions or exaggerations. I’m no developer either, so I have zero background-knowledge about game-development or game-engines.
Though as I work in IT (again, no developer) and live within a zero-IT-knowledge friend circle, I tend to try and shine a little light on some things that, to the outside, might seem simple but maybe aren’t. I guess sometimes I’m trying to err on the side of caution a little too much.
I definitely think there are a few of those one-line, true/false settings that could just be toggled, especially things that are handled by the engine instead of the game-logic itself, though I cannot speak of experience here.
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.
Then just don’t play that game or use cheats (if its a singleplayer game)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
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.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
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.