Do you fault a game if what it proposes isn't exactly "good" for the player?

[Lotus Victoria]

Greetings, champions! Good to see you all, as always.

So, there are many many many MANY games in the market that focus too much on the player - We are the special one, the loved one, the chosen one - And that's fine. Sometimes we must leave this miserable reality to be loved by everybody for some time.

But sometimes, some games try to do something different. I'll use Lisa: The Painful RPG as an example. Lisa proposes to make you FEEL the miserable journey of the main character - Brad. The world the game tries to present is harsh, and Brad's life and journey are both HARD, or, in other words, UNFAIR.

With that in mind, a lot of what happens in LISA is totally unfair to the player as well: You sleep to recover HP, and end up getting poisoned, or your items are stolen, or a party member abandons you, etc - Just because you chose to rest. But the game was made with that in mind: Life is not easy in this world, so prepare to suffer unfair things.

My question to you is: Based on what I've said - Do you fault a game if what it proposes isn't exactly "good" for the player?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

no, I only fault games for poor story or poor gameplay.

[dope_danny]

When looking critically a game isn't just good or bad. You ask two questions: Is the work functionally good? and Is the work contextually good?

A game that runs shitty can be enjoyed because of story elements or something, see Deadly Premonition.

A game that runs amazing can be enjoyed even if the story is shitty, see Vanquish.

If a game is intentionally cruel then it comes down to A: is it the point and B: does it do it to the degree it makes you not enjoy it? An example would be Darkest Dungeon. Before it added in difficulty settings to customise it was too hard for some and for some of those people that was what they wanted out of it. For others it wasn't. Is it failing all of them or just some?

[Schattenlied]

Honestly thought this would be a different thing that it was, came in here expecting "not good for the player, but good for the developer/publisher" type of designs (like Battlefront 2's absurd microtransactions)...


Anyways... On topic. No, I don't, as long as it's done in a way that makes sense. Dark Souls, for example, is extremely punishing to the player, but it's a damn good game.

[stellvia]

Combat in Mabinogi felt like that as well: The mob AI was very simple, and dungeons had odd rules like only 1 mob would be active in a room at time even if there were say, a dozen, etc. But the difficulty came from the execution: one mistake would very likely one-shot you or leave you heavily wounded and requiring downtime. (To say nothing of the odd mixture of that kind of combat with the very light-hearted sandbox features and RP representing the "fantasy life")

[Deleted]

Game design went for the worse circa 2004-6 when devs/publishers started to shift focus from offering challenge as a hook in their games into making their games as accessible as it could be tolerated to appeal to broader audiences. We've had cases where this worked very well and cases where it went horribly wrong.

Honestly, I wish more publishers would take the netflix approach i.e invest into risks/experiments and have their devs be really creative with their games. Games should be about immersion and fun, not just rewarding the player for every task they perform.

Mount and Blade or the recent KCD actually don't put the player in the spotlight because it doesn't really make sense in that setting. You're not meant to be the most important person in the room, because you're just a peasant or whatever and peasants weren't that important in ye olde times.

Honestly, I mostly judge games by what they try to accomplish and how well they execute it. Some games may be centered around the player and every heroic feat they do and that's fine, it can be executed well, but it doesn't mean every other game should be. In other games the world around the player could be as much important, if not more.

Alien Isolation did a very beautiful thing - the player wasn't the "biggest, baddest hero', you were just prey. You were pretty powerless against the enemy, the thing that was the biggest and baddest. Other enemies, like humans, also exist but they're as much helpless against the Alien as you are, which you can use to your advantage. It's really a very remarkable and refreshing game.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

My question to you is: Based on what I've said - Do you fault a game if what it proposes isn't exactly "good" for the player?

The people that do are not the people that the game is targeted towards.

[Xar226]

For starters, I guess it depends on what you mean by "fault." Obviously game developers are welcome to make whatever game they want with whatever systems they want and I'm not going to pitch a fit. But that doesn't mean I will like it either.

What you just described doesn't sound particularly fun to me, it just sounds like being RNG punished. Some people may like that, or like the artistry and storytelling of trying to put you into the main character's emotional state. To me it sounds... meh.

But that isn't to say that all mechanics that can end up going poorly for a player are bad. I quite enjoy games where my decisions have consequences, even if those consequences are bad for me. Moreover, I can appreciate that even when I don't like something that it doesn't mean other people don't or that, consequently, it is a bad game.

Would I "fault" the game for those decisions? If they're done well, no. Would I play them? Well that's another question I can't answer in the abstract.

[shaunika123]

games that deliberately try to fuck with you to make your experience more shitty and thus creating the illusion of difficulty are bad.

but just because a game doesnt hold your hand it can be a great game.

[Marrilaife]

I don't "blame" anyone for making a game for masochists. I just know I won't be playing it. Some people like games that are extremely punishing / extremely rng / constantly try to set player for failure. But especially in single player games it's w/e, different audiences and so forth. In multiplayer games I strongly dislike a design where player is incentivized to do unhealthy or mean things because that's the "optimal" way to play. Yes, there are games that promote things like robbing other players as the best means to acquire profit, and I avoid them like a plague. Some people enjoy this kind of "dog eat dog" gameplay. Or games where nolifing / botting is the only recipe to get to acceptable level / keep up with other players. Not gonna even start on games that are designed to scam you out of RL money (aka p2w). You can always say "buyer beware" but still there are enjoyable games that are profitable because they're worth the money spent, and there are cheap shameless cash grabs.

[lawow74]

No, because no one is sitting there with a gun to your head saying 'PLAY THIS GAME OR DIE'. The choice is always in the hands of the consumer as to whether or not they use a given product. That choice may not be easy or comfortable, but it's there.

[WarpedAcorn]

With that in mind, a lot of what happens in LISA is totally unfair to the player as well: You sleep to recover HP, and end up getting poisoned, or your items are stolen, or a party member abandons you, etc - Just because you chose to rest. But the game was made with that in mind: Life is not easy in this world, so prepare to suffer unfair things.

My question to you is: Based on what I've said - Do you fault a game if what it proposes isn't exactly "good" for the player?

When my friends and I play Pen & Paper RPG's, ambushes can happen in the middle of the night, or while exploring. These can be events that have seemingly nothing to do with the story, but they could screw things up for the players. Bad things can happen in a game and while people don't like it, it is acceptable if the players are aware of the possibility of it happening.

If you have a game that generously autosaves and provides as many continues after death throughout the majority of the game, but then it suddenly turns hardcore and deletes your save if you die...that is a problem. I like the example someone used earlier of Darkest Dungeon. You can do everything right and still fail if some bad things happen in a row. But this is explained right at the front and you are warned that Characters WILL die and you WILL find yourself in a bad situation. So when it happens its not unexpected.

[Wondercrab]

Of course not. That would be like faulting a tragedy for making you feel sad or a comedy for making you laugh. If the mechanics reinforce the artistic goals of the creator, then they're serving their intended purpose well. Gaming is an artistic medium, and regarding it as nothing but a fun-factory only diminishes the breadth of experiences you're able to enjoy.