I understand exactly what affordance is. What I am rejecting is the requirement to design for it in every single game. Specifically in a single player RPG.slitherrr wrote:They quite definitely designed the game to quicksave and quickload. That particular design also has the unintended side-effects of being abusable. Just because that wasn't their intention, it doesn't make it any less an affordance. My argument is that it is possible to iterate on this design, keep including the quicksave and quickload mechanics (and the nice features they provide), while removing the abusive affordance. You're really failing to understand this, so I'm sorry if my explanation isn't getting through to you, but the thing you're arguing against is not the position I am holding.Wolfe wrote: You can explain it however you wish. It doesn't change the fact that you are choosing to reload the game. This is not an "optimal play style" this is not something that the developers designed the game to do.
That example doesn't work, because there are no rules being followed in your painting of the Orc, no rules being broken through the process, you are simply doing it badly.slitherrr wrote:Intent is not the end of design. I can "intend" to draw a photorealistic picture of an orc, but unless I execute it well, it's going to come out a stickman. Just because I intended the former doesn't make my execution any less terrible.Woolfe wrote: This is your use of a function created for a specific purpose(saving the game, so that you don't have to start again every time you play) to get around game mechanics that have been designed and balanced to give you a certain degree of success and failure.
Well lets put it a different way. If you were playing say Solitaire with a physical deck of cards. You could at any time choose to move a card to a different location, flip a card out of sequence, etc. Because of course the physical aspect of the game "affords" you the possibility to do that. You are essentially cheating. The only person you are cheating is yourself, but as it is a single player game then that is your choice.
The devs should not design with that possibility in mind, because then you force everyone to apply by the rules of the cheat. Whilst those who want to play it how it is envisioned, find that they cannot succeed because the game has been balanced with the "cheat" in mind.
Another poor example. Chess is a two player game in which the optimal path is the path that leads to victory over your opponent.slitherrr wrote:You mistake "an optimal path" with "everything is given to the player". There is an "optimal path" when you're playing chess. That doesn't mean the game of chess only gives you success paths. Do you see the difference?Woolfe wrote: Let me put it another way, why would a developer create multiple paths including "fail paths" if they designed the game so that the player can always get the optimal path?
However according to your affordance rule, the best way to beat your opponent is simply to knock all his pieces off in one go and call out Mate.
Indeed see my reference to Solitaire, Chess, any other "game" you choose to play. The rules are there for a reason. Just because you can break them using an available option, doesn't mean you should.slitherrr wrote:It being a side-effect does not mean it is not a design feature. See above.Woolfe wrote: Save/Reload to avoid "failure" is not a design feature it is simply a side effect of a function. If you choose to use that function inappropriately, then it affects only you. Hence any experience of tedium is purely your own fault.
Of course there is a seperation between game mechanics and the gameworld, else the world should continue when you are not there.slitherrr wrote:There is no such thing as "not in the world". It exists in the game. The game is the world. Don't confuse verisimilitude with simulation--this game seeks to recreate some aspects of the real world in order to create a fun experience, it does not create a fun experience by exactly imitating the real world. If you keep attacking straw men and refuse to acknowledge this difference between "theoretically optimum play" and "you're just playing the game wrong", then I can't do much else to convey my point.Woolfe wrote: You are incorrect as the tedium is only an issue for those who are willingly going outside the design functionality. A player who doesn't Save/Reload will have a little bit of excitement with every attempt because there is always a chance of catastrophic failure.
You are applying design principle to something in the assumption that every mechanic will be used to affect every other. Whereas this is simply not the case. The save game mechanic is not a game mechanic. It is not "in the world". Your choice to use it is entirely your own, as the only person it affects is you.
The concept of saving the game, developed simply from the need to stop playing for a while and then start again at a later date. Now the save load format can actually built in as a gameplay element. As mentioned many arcarde games, platformers etc, build the reload as an important factor to game play. Hence the idea of "lives" and "save points" but this doesn't mean that it has to be used everywhere. In an RPG, where the idea is to play the role of the characters of the game, within the game. The use of the save tool is simply there to allow players to stop and start at will. The misuse of the tool is not a design consideration at this point. If you use that functionality to "cheat" the system, then you are the one that misses out. You get a different experience to the one you should be getting. You may even enjoy that experience which is fine. No one is telling you not to save reload However to use the concept of affordance in regards to save reload, is simply a way of justifying an inability to follow the rules of the game. The concept of affordance simply doesn't apply in this design situation. Its like using a robot arm to drink your mug of coffee. Sure, you can do it, it may even be easier. But you don't need to, and it has no real effect of the taste of the coffee, or that the mug has a handle.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you not say that you gave the gear to Angela, because you were distributing it around? You didn't mention that it was 500 5.56 ammo until the second comment. Which is clearly a different situation.slitherrr wrote:I haven't moved a damn thing. You're continuing to insist that Angela shouldn't have any problem keeping ammo. I'm saying that it leads to idiotic results, and there should be caveats. Stop arguing against a position that doesn't exist.Woolfe wrote: Sure, but that is a different situation to say "If I accidentally pass Angela all my 5.56 ammo because I'm distributing things around, then I can't get it back. NPCs should either keep track of the amount of ammo they originally owned, and only get feisty to that level, or they should just not own ammo."
Don't move the Goalposts here. Angela may not want to give up a bit of ammo, that is a function of the design of the NPC personalities. Hell she may not want to give it all up, and you have to dismiss her. Ok that's a bit extreme, and the scaling for gear keeping is clearly not quite correct. But don't mistake the issue here. The gear keeping is a purposeful design. It gives the NPC's character which is the goal.
Things can be frustrating in a game, that doesn't mean the game is badly designed. It just means that sometimes you can't win everything.
And as I said, I agree, it's obviously not correct, probably either bugged, or not fully thought out. But that doesn't mean the design element of Ang being picky about what she gives back, isn't sound.