This topic is tricky to me. Because I definitely believe that options affect all players. In fact, I would say that a big part of game design is choosing which options are available and which ones aren't, for that very reason! (...)
For example, I would argue that the option to credit feed arcade games (i.e. use quarters to keep continuing) hurt their reputation with the general public. The best ones really don't shine until you start trying to 1cc them (clear them on a single credit).
If you credit feed, most arcade games are extremely short and the endings are disappointing, because that wasn't the point. You miss out on many of the interesting details, as well as the satisfaction of learning them.
"It's the journey, not the destination", basically.
As human beings, we're kinda wired to seek out easy and safe strategies, even if they're dull. There's no reason to expect someone (especially new to games) not to take an easy option offered to them, even if it is ultimately less fun and satisfying for them in the long run.
You have to learn to love tough games, the same way you have to learn to love spicy food. Once you do, a whole new world of "flavor" is open to you... but it requires either a lot of self-discipline and exploration... or it requires a guide. Should that guide be the game itself?
That's why the topic of options is tricky to me. Games are all about options... some are hidden behind menus, that's all. I think it depends on the type of game and how much you're assuming that players understand themselves. And how much you want to potentially change a player.
Souls games always enter this conversation and my feeling these days is that the series is famous enough that an easy mode would not mislead too many players. But I'm glad the first Dark Souls didn't have one because it might have remained niche if it did (like arcade games).
TL;DR To me, it's more complicated than:
A: "What's the point? Just git gud or watch a let's play."
B: "Why do you care? Just don't use the option if you want to be hardcore."
Adjacent to this topic of options is whether it's good that we're so focused on beating games just so we can move on to the next one. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms! :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm a bit concerned that newer indie game devs are getting overwhelmed reading about all the small optimizations they could be making to promote their games. If you can do it all, great, but it's not always worth the added stress. Don't get lost in the weeds.
As an indie, it's very likely you're doing promotion on the game you're also making. That is SO MUCH WORK. It's good to acknowledge that. Also, I feel like so much of your fate is decided before you even start promoting. You might be squeezing blood from a stone after a point.
Sadly, I think the games that are helped most by optimizing are also the ones that need the help LEAST overall. If your game is naturally appealing to the mainstream (note that I'm not saying "good", "worthwhile", or "artistic"), then that extra effort will come more into play.
I love studying video game UI and noticing all the little details the designers put into menus and buttons: how they look, react, slide on/off the screen, etc.
Just realized the shape of the Smash Ultimate 2nd-level main menus are designed around the icons! Blew my mind a bit!
Fun fact: the lead UI designer for the Smash series (and many Kirby games) is Michiko Sakurai, who is also the wife of Masahiro Sakurai. Husband and wife team FTW!
While I'm talking about UI, may as well re-share @helvetica's great GDC talk about the "three reads", called Building Games That Can Be Understood at a Glance:
A fundamental problem with difficulty options in games is that there are many players between obvious skill levels. This means:
1. Players have to immediately make an important decision without adequate knowledge.
2. Players will continue to question that decision during play.
Players know that difficulty levels are often tacked on, regardless of the game's budget, exacerbating the anxiety of whether they chose the "right" one.
This breaks immersion pretty hard. Gentle reminders about easier difficulty settings after Game Over don't help.
In many ways, interactivity (audience control) and art (creator's vision) simply don't mix well, and game designers have become very creative about band-aiding the bad parts. We've gotten used to tutorials and difficulty settings and such even though they're less than ideal.
IMO the hardest step for aspiring (commercial) indie game developers is learning to finish games consistently and efficiently - to move past game jams and prototypes but also avoid getting mired in a single project for years without end. It's a tiny sweet spot that's hard to hit.
One piece of advice is to try and avoid falling in love with your development tools over the game you're building them for. You will find time and time again that successful indie games are often built with crude tools and/or messy code. Just enough to get the job done.
I've also come to believe that if you show off your game and receive a tepid response, it's generally better to try and finish the game *faster* and move on instead of extending the development to try and fix what is probably an issue at the core.