Should games open up more options for customisation? *spinoff*

You scoff but some of the best games allow you to replay segments whenever you want.
You know what I can't stand? DVD series that allow you to watch any episode you want without having to start at the beginning. And worse still, flipping through a DVD to find the bit you want to see. How rubbish is that?! Everyone should have to watch from begining to end regardless. Regards games, I hope the console companies find a way to lock out saves so players can't use these to play a favourite bit either. Flippin' cheaters.
 
You know what I can't stand? DVD series that allow you to watch any episode you want without having to start at the beginning. And worse still, flipping through a DVD to find the bit you want to see. How rubbish is that?! Everyone should have to watch from begining to end regardless. Regards games, I hope the console companies find a way to lock out saves so players can't use these to play a favourite bit either. Flippin' cheaters.

"Heck, what I find absolutely unfathomable is how gamers have the gall to even play the game more than once! 12 hours of gameplay at $60, that is $5/hr--same as a good theater ticket. And games are interactive to boot so they are a superior deal!

I say it is about time we not only do software/hardware lock on resale (lock that software to a console baby!) but impose play limits ala digital movies: Once you start your game you have 48 hours to finish. And once you are done, you are DONE. You want to enjoy the experience again? Repurchase baby!"

-- Activision
On the benefits of the convergence of gaming and movies

For MP I totally get the concept of cheating and a level playing field (shut your hole NRP!!!!), but for SP how is there even such a thing as cheating sans leaderboard hacking? Isn't the very essense of "single player" to allow that player to enjoy the experience? Whatever it takes for them to value the software is a good thing.

I know a lot of gamers who buy software for different reasons. Just look at FM3 with all the various features to appeal to different markets. The commonality is cars, but the gameplay is varied to appeal to all sorts of car lovers. While there are a lot of great games that are "more of the same--just bigger, badder, and better!" there are quite a few titles that have avoided the budgets of that mantra by doing simple things through thinking outside the box.

I think if software guys took some unlocks openning the game to the community seriously could reap a windfal. FC2, e.g., if they had only executed more on the MP options (very, very bland MP options, almost draconian) probably would have had a major new franchise on their hands.
 
A lot of PC games enable this through setup files, and I don't know of anyone who complains about the abiliity to adjust gravity, AI etc. I remember the original WORMS on Amiga was wildly received for being customisable.
Yeah, next thing you know Uncharted 3 will have random generated levels =). Worms is a good example for a "sandbox" game, you might end up with maps that have 1 team severly disadvantaged.

Noone complains if he has to "hack" (ie. has to go outside the game) or just doesnt do it. If you however have those sliders easily accessible in the game and you end up creating a horrible mess easily by adjusting - then people will complain about a useless feature.

You said yourself you would like the ability to skip levels if your values end up messing up the game - ie. you aint play through the levels, you aint follow the story, you just mess around in your "sandbox".. for some arbitrary challenges for yourself. or if that word aint fitting, call it "skirmish mode"

I dont have a problem with games like Worms, I just dont see why every game has to be like that. Its the same as complaining that U2 is linear - and thinking you could turn it into a god nonlinear game by just having the player run around freely in an empty world surrounding the story-path. linearity/nonlinearity is something you have to take account for the whole game and not just add it on top - otherwise it would just look silly.
And similary I dont see why you want to play story-levels which just arent adapted for tons of variations of variables. Some MP-Skirmishes I could understand.
 
Letting the player skip the levels. If you just want to replay them , beat the game once and unlock Chapter Select option. What you're asking for is way different than replaying them.


Why would it be? You still have the freedom to play the game as intended. Just exercise some choice and choose not to use chapter select if it's available.

A lot of PC games enable this through setup files, and I don't know of anyone who complains about the abiliity to adjust gravity, AI etc. I remember the original WORMS on Amiga was wildly received for being customisable.

Heh, I remember completely changing how Doom 3 played out by reducing the ammo given down to 25% and damage to 50%. Much more suspenseful! My run through with editing the physics in Quake IV was much more hilarious with the black hole gun or whatever it was called... not to mention a shotgun that can shoot a guy across the room in flips and ragdoll. :LOL:
 
Yeah, next thing you know Uncharted 3 will have random generated levels =). Worms is a good example for a "sandbox" game, you might end up with maps that have 1 team severly disadvantaged.
I reference WORMS because players could create custom maps. eg. We built maps that were complete caverns, and you had to use tunneling skills. That was a completely different experience to the standard artillary mode. Likewise cavern levels meant shifting focus to rope skills and close-quarters combat. All a massive advance on the standard gameplay, and all made possible by simply opening the engine up a little. And I wouldn't expect that from a typicla game like U2. Only the settings.
Noone complains if he has to "hack" (ie. has to go outside the game) or just doesnt do it. If you however have those sliders easily accessible in the game and you end up creating a horrible mess easily by adjusting - then people will complain about a useless feature.
Do people complain about features they don't use? I can understand complaining about features you use that are broken, or want and aren't present. I can understand people complaining about gameplay that deviates from their ideal ("The shooting is unrealistic and I want 2 shot kills." "The shooting is too hard and I want to be able to take more shots rather than just get killed with a lucky hit."). However, I can't understand why anyone would complain about a feature they have no interest in using and do not use!
You said yourself you would like the ability to skip levels if your values end up messing up the game
Not quite. I was not saying that I would set up the game to try and play it wiht some settings, and then when I 'broke' it, would want to skip the 'broken' parts. I was saying I'd like the opportunity to try out different settings in different parts of the game, and the ability to access those parts of the game without having to play all the way through to them would facilitate that.
Letting the player skip the levels. If you just want to replay them , beat the game once and unlock Chapter Select option. What you're asking for is way different than replaying them.
1) Who says you have to have chapter skip from first play? By all means have it as an unlockable feature if you want.
2) Some games have horrible levels that you'd just rather skip. eg. Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance 2 had a dismally dull zombie laboratory level. If I could have skipped that I would have. Now the nature of that game precludes it, but something like U2 would accomodate that nicely. There are also plenty of gamers who aren't particularly good at games, who find some bits challenging. Isn't it better to let them skip a tricky part, or tune the game to their abilities, rather than have them get frustrated and give up, never completing the game and missing a large part of the developers work?

Let me ask a straight quesion - why do you think it's wrong to allow level skip? Who is suffering or...whatever, to make it a bad thing to offer, either as an unlockable or as a first-start feature?
 
Heh, I remember completely changing how Doom 3 played out by reducing the ammo given down to 25% and damage to 50%. Much more suspenseful! My run through with editing the physics in Quake IV was much more hilarious with the black hole gun or whatever it was called... not to mention a shotgun that can shoot a guy across the room in flips and ragdoll. :LOL:
See? You appreciate the idea here! Another good one playing outside the game rules was Champions of Norrath. It didn't take much effort to start a hardest-level game with a level 1 character, but the difficulty made it far, far better. I also played without drinking potions, which otherwise made it too easy. That's the way I wanted to play it. I wouldn't force that on any other player. I also wouldn't want that option to play it my way taken from me. And I'd rather have more options!
 
See? You appreciate the idea here! Another good one playing outside the game rules was Champions of Norrath. It didn't take much effort to start a hardest-level game with a level 1 character, but the difficulty made it far, far better. I also played without drinking potions, which otherwise made it too easy. That's the way I wanted to play it. I wouldn't force that on any other player. I also wouldn't want that option to play it my way taken from me. And I'd rather have more options!

Modding HL2 to have the Uber Gravity Gun from the beginning :cool:

EDIT: Then adding small macros for "Matrix Slow Down" so you could slow down the game (but then move faster!) grab guys and throw them across the room. Awesome!
 
Alright , I say " If you want to play whichever level you want , without an order , you already have that option in Uncharted 2. You just need to unlock it. ".

"To play whichever level you want" is what you're asking for , am i right ?
 
Yes. This thread isn't specifically about U2 though. It's about a general approach for games. Being able to play out-of-order, whether as an unlockable or first-play feature, is all I've suggested. You seem to have been against that from the off, at least in how you have phrased yourself. Although perhaps if you used a few more words than :rolleyes: when contributing to a discussion thread, it might facilitate discussion... :p
 
Back
Top