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.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 4 days ago
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.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 4 days ago
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.