Are options always a good thing? Should games like BOTW have a toggle for turning off weapon durability or stamina? Should every game have an easy mode for people who aren't good enough at the game?
Are options always a good thing? Should games like BOTW have a toggle for turning off weapon durability or stamina?
No moron, that many options is objectively bad game design. You're effectively telling your customer that you don't know how to design for shit so you're making them do it for you
>places (recommended) next to settings intended by developers
Poof. This problem disappears entirely. Developers outright telling you what they designed the game around, your choice to deviate.
I can't think of a time where being able to fine-tune game options like on the right was ever a good thing. It ends up cheapening or destroying the experience the devs designed and balanced.
>Jump: Max
>Speed: Max
>hit max running speed and jump over the entire level
left is better, but designers should know when to not add shit mechanics. also its nice that options let you fix sonic frontiers controls but the fixed ones should just be the default.
A but with screen zoom
also needs an antialiasing option, bloom/blur toggles, post processing, etc
so I can turn it all off
>Should games like BOTW have a toggle for turning off weapon durability or stamina
no, just fricking learn how to play the game!
better yet just dont play the game
left
>we designed our game and are confident in its design
right
>we designed our game but haha we might have made it a little too hard or too easy so we'll give you some sliders so you can help design the game better for us hehe
If I see the right, I'm refunding the game and then spamming Black personBlack personBlack person in their official forums until I get banned and I'm posting gore in their official Discord server.
I prefer something like Sonic 3 Air where it's a lot of visual things like background blur and stuff like that. I didn't like how Frontiers expected ME to make Sonic feel good so I just went with the default til I got the spindash and then looked up a preset.
fixed
those aren't advanced options those are cheats for debugging
No. A unified experience is good to have. Shit like "jump distance" impacts the experience too much.
Why would I not choose B
Obviously the defaults are the "intended way to play" but tweeking a few settings makes for fun/silly/challenging replays.
I'm honestly a bit dumbfounded at so many in this thread having negative opinions on COMPLETELY OPTIONAL settings being present.
>I can't balance the game for shit so I'll let the players do it for themselves and pretend I'm being inclusive!
At this point just release some assets and a level editor and call it a game.
The default values of such settings ARE the intended, balanced experience, nitwit.
Right side is missing
>yellow markers: on / off (default on)
also needs photo mode hotkey
more options generally means the game is poorly designed. kind of like in the new sonic
>more options generally means the game is poorly designed.
I'm absolutely baffled by this opinion
You would have utterly hated the DOS era of games
A lot of DOS games ARE poorly designed and the ones that people remember typically don't have sliders for every little thing.
But anon, what about fun?
Playing in the figurative sandbox is okay but I have much more fun playing through games where the developer has had confidence in what they're doing rather than expecting the player to balance the game for them.
The default settings are literally what you're describing.
So whats the difference from having some sliders, using a cheat code implemented by the devs, or using a game genie/action replay on a console game?
All avenues give you the same options, yet if it's implemented freely in the menus its bad?
Are you really that fricking moronic?
>What's the difference between a bunch of sliders and [cheating], or [cheating]?
Are you moronic? If it's not freely available then it's not the INTENT.
You're still not following me here anon.... I don't know how else to describe that they can have default values that serve as the "intended" way to play, while still having the option to adjust.
Romaro has said many times that Doom is meant to be played on Ultra-Violent. The game could have been shipped with no difficulty selection and that being the only way to play, but there is a difficulty selection in the game, does that ruin Doom for not following the dev's """"intent""""?
yeah i tend to hate shit games, so probably
you wouldn't play those right now outside of nostalgia purposes
>you wouldn't play those right now outside of nostalgia purposes
Don't tell me if I enjoy something or not
I'm not the one who crumples under choice
okay and before we continue this conversation any further, tell me this:
are you on the autism spectrum, or have a suspicion that you are?
You're responding to a Pokemon Genwar shitpost thread
The true purpose of the thread is to make shitposts about the optional EXP Share being bad
OP wants you to say that the right is bad
>N-NO STOP GIVING HONEST ANSWERS IT'S MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A moron
Right is just a license for shit balancing and mechanical competency since its puts the onus on the player to tailor the experience to them rather than actually making a game that feels like any sort of deliberation was put into it.
It fundamentally shows a lack of vision.
Difficulty options are only good if they're seamlessly integrated into the game instead of being in a menu, like if you're able to farm powerups, use gear with overpowered stats or summon players/NPCs to help you. Then it becomes part of the game in an immersive way instead of having to pick babbymode for morons before you even start the game.
Why should the player be required to make crucial game design decisions? That's the game designer's job.
Gamers should have all the game design decisions made FOR them since humans sometimes don't know what decision would result in the best experience (and that's literally a game designer's entire profession).
Obviously this excludes normal settings like mouse sensitivity, audio settings, accessibility settings, etc.
>Why should the player be required to make crucial game design decisions?
You don't.... its an OPTION, if you feel like it.
It can add additional gameplay by altering the way the game is played. But you're not compelled to change anything
If the option exists and the player sees it then whether or not the player ignores or makes use of it are technically a decision the player is forced to make.
This means that if the player chooses to ignore the option, that doesn't mean they haven't decided anything and wasn't forced to make a decision.
If the player even sees that the option exists, the burden to use it or not has now forcefully been placed on them.
Having grown up in the era of DOS games I've legit never heard of someone having an opinion of "I don't want more options" with their games.
I'm legit perplexed by it as making the decision to touch options or not is not even something worth worrying about. You just simply play the game and change things if you feel like it or maybe not at all even, but the option is still there.
How old are you? I'm asking this not as some sort of boomer/zoomer nonsense, but I'm just genuinly curious. As I've known a fair bit of zoomers in my workplace that seem to have issues with decision fatigue way more so then others.
To be upfront I'm late 30s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue
>How old are you?
21
>Never heard of someone having this opinion
I think my opinion is similar to the ones shared by those who believe difficulty modes would ruin dark souls games
I just don't, and I say that as someone who played and enjoyed all of them to completion.
I guess there is the notion of a shared experience, where both parties can say "I did X" and it transverses from one to another, which is diminished with difficulty selection somewhat as someone who played on easy is going to have a different experience then someone who played on normal/hard/whatever.
In a lot of ways I guess this is really on a topic of how one approach a game. Be it for the experience purely for one self or for something to be shared. With the Internet age, sharing gaming experiences is so much more common now a days that I guess I can understand wanting a unified experience where what you did and someone else did is going to be comparable, which the lack of options facilitates this. I suppose I look at it from a individual perspective where I'm more concerned about simply if the game is fun and what tools does the game have available to extend it's game play (option tweeks, whatever).
Appreciate the feedback anons
NTA but even if a game has no difficulty options in the menu doesn't necessarily mean that the game has less options, Elden Ring is a prime example of this. If the path you chose is too difficult then you may try a different path, with enough time spent exploring you'll find helpful items and your stats will increase making it easier to progress. If all else fails you can always summon a friend or a stranger to help you.
This type of design is just better in every way.
A is the best. Having a player tune the experience down to the values of core mechanics variables is stupid and just says the hack of a developer didn't bother making or balancing their game.
If you allow the player to shift Jump Distance down to 0.5x then the platforming cannot be designed around 1, else some jumps would be impossible at 0.5. If it's all possible at 0.5 then the default 1 would become overkill.
B is how you frick up the core gameplay for the sake of giving the player "more freedom" over things no well designed game would ever give them access to
You post miyamoto like he's some arbiter of good design. rofling rn
>You post miyamoto like he's some arbiter of good design.
He is
he's kind of an butthole then for not designing any games for the past 2 decades while also fricking up others development. sometime he had some moronic ideas too like motion controlled cameras
Right as long as it is an unlockable thing and it is made clear what the intended "options" are for the cheats.
A, unless the game is a sandbox game. Then, and only then, is it B.
If you agree with options menu B then you have to agree there's nothing flawed about the saint's row reboot difficulty menu.
I don't see the problem
Even bad games can have a singular good aspect. If you could dramatically alter a replay with settings, it could give the game more life to you. But I mean, this one is nuSaints, so...
>game devs should do more than make a game
>what about meeeeeeeee what about what IIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiIIII want waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh
You get what you get. Buy it or don't. There are so many games now that people should be happy to just spend their money elsewhere.
Options menu B basically asks you to make your own game and I fricking hate this shit. It means that devs just didn't care to orchestrate a good gaming experience. Like in the first Forza Horizon you can make every race go from super arcadey to hardcore sim shit. b***h, why should I bother with your crap when I can just play a game that is already designed with one of those difficulties/physics models in mind? Fricking hate that cancer trend, it's one of the reasons newer games feel like slop.
Right but you unlock them after you complete the game or are part of difficulty selection at the start of the game more options are always good as long as its executed properly.