Is it OK to let players 'break' a simulation?

[cliffski]

I'm doing a sequel to this -> www.democracygame.com which is like a big complex sim game, closest comparison is maybe Civilisation.
Anyway, Balancing every variable in games like this is evil, and there are TONS of variables that its possible to expose to the player. Normally, most big budget games do not do this. They may have config files that allow the stuff to be modded, but that's generally for the hardcore. 95% of players will not get involved with modding a game, but if an option is there to be tweaked I'm guessing people will tweak it.

My instinct is to make as much stuff as possible openly 'out there' in a ncie GUI when starting a game that basically says "these are advanced options, have fun, but don't expect to retain game balance"
Am I mad to do that? Maybe its the game coder in me, but most single player games I play (obviously its tricky for multiplayer), I find myself thinking "why couldn't they expose this one variable I'd really like to change", I'd love to make morale more robust in total war, and to make the unit costs of armour lower in Company of Heroes. I'd like to make rail and subway transport more attractive in Sim City, and increase the range at which water pipes supply houses.
I know that in doing any of those, I'd upset the 'delicate game balance' but presuming I'm told this before fiddling, that would be ok wouldn't it?
In commercial terms, has this been shown not to work? will people moan at me that the game is unplayable, or that I'm just being a cheapskate by not balancing every combination? Does the upside of making the casual modder really happy outweigh the downside of people who flail around and break the game, then blame me?

[Robert Sharp]

That would be fun, actually.

However, one possibility would be to only allow those options to be available after the player wins the game. It could be a bonus reward type thing. That way they can play the balanced version first, without 'cheats' (as some would see it).

[Zylon]

Don't expose any variables that can't have their function fully and meaningfully described in fewer than 20 words.

[McBain]

Disclaimers make everything cool.

Disclaimers and the word allegedly.

[mutt]

Disclaimers make everything cool.

Disclaimers and the word allegedly.
Disclaimer: This game is allegedly fun, but experience may vary for some players and some systems.

[Fugitive]

If it's a multiplayer game, just make sure there's an option to filter out games with non-standard rules.

[BobJustBob]

It's so okay that it's not even okay to phrase it as a question.

[Quitch]

The only harm in doing this is the cost of time to yourself. Putting it in a file means a player has to go out of their way to change the values, and thus the risk is nothing. Add a short comment to each, and the community will figure the vaguer ones anyway.

In short: do it.

[cliffski]

everything is already out there in heavily commented text files, its just integrating it to the front end im not sure of. useful feedback everyone, cheers,

[Quitch]

I still do it, so long as it's hidden behind another button and a one-time warning, along with a "reset to defaults" button

[Peter Frazier]

Giving too many options fragments multiplayer possibilities but hell, I wish all games let me tinker under the hood for single player.

[jpinard]

Cliffski - I think it's awesome if you put it all out there openly. Giving players more choice and the ability to easily customize their game is the greatest thing for longevity and replayability.

When do you expect your game will be done?

[Quaro]

The better sports sims do this. You can tweak every little constant and really change the game.

[StGabe]

Just so long as the game comes with a well-balanced, working set of parameters that I can use it all sounds good.

Honestly though, I think you will gain little from doing this. It is a feature that appeals to something like 1% of your players. Of that pool of players 90% are going to be just fine with editing a text file to change things. It seems like you might get most of the utility you are looking for just by letting players select an alternate text file from which to load the settings (making it easy to distribute a "mod").

I remember reading a Phil Steinmeyer blog entry where he talked about this and Railroad Tycoon. Not balance really but just the overall utility of creating game editors/tools.

[cliffski]

I'm hoping within the next 2 months for it to be done, depending on balancing and testing. I'm leaning towards sticking lots of this stuff in, behind a 'advanced options' box or similar.

[Brendan]

I think the .ini route is the way to go.

More advanced players can tinker and those that don't care don't even have to know it exists.

The other advantage is that if you ever get feedback after release about gameplay imbalances, you just need to include a small text file as opposed to a complete .exe or binary diff patch.

[Alan Au]

As mentioned, let players do it, but restrict multi-player to versions with "matching" settings.

- Alan

[DoomMunky]

I'm for it, as well. I love learning about this kind of feature after I've been playing for a while and have got the basic ruleset down; when I change stuff I really know what I'm working with.

BUT I must say, uncovering the feature (like with an alert when the game is over, or a discrete option on the Settings menu or in the manual) is preferable to knowing from the beginning that it is there, which creates in me the uncontrollable desire to tweak stuff from the beginning. Which is fine, if that's where the interest in the game ends up for me, but it can take away from your 'intent' with the game.

[eliandi]

I say do it, but clearly label the page "Advanced Gameplay Options" or somesuch. Editablility is what makes PC games better (to me) than console.

You might want to consider allowing an easy way for a player to download a specific set of gameplay mods (rather than forcing the player to fiddle the dials himself). Like most games, some hardcore players will develop game mods that change the nature of the game and extend its lifetime, and I would want that to be simple for the casual user.

[NowhereDan]

I am all for this. It should definitely be behind at least one warning about how you might break your game, but it's a great gateway to modding that I think people will really enjoy having the option to play with. The same way cheat codes and mods can extend the amount of enjoyment you can get out of a game, this can only add value.

[Shadarr]

Just make sure you mention that changing advanced settings may unbalance the game. For some players like my girlfriend, that's a plus.

[jpinard]

I'm hoping within the next 2 months for it to be done, depending on balancing and testing. I'm leaning towards sticking lots of this stuff in, behind a 'advanced options' box or similar.

I'm kind of tired of editing files. Just slap a warning on there in the advanced tab (include a "reset to default" option) and go nuts giving us lots of stuff to configure. I think this is the best way to go. Multiplayer is easy.

Option #1 - Hardcode parameters so when you choose the mp option, they're selected and cannot be over-rided.

Option #2 - In the multiplayer game setup dialogue, have them be options both players have to agree to... or if one person initiates/hosts the full game - have the choices selected be viewed on the join game screen.

[cliffski]

Just pointing out, it is actually a single player game. God knows how stuff like RTS games handle this for multiplayer, presumably hard coded and encrypted?

[Phred]

Personally I'd say you should make the settings menu a bit more difficult to find than having it available when you start a new game. Mainly because some users will tweak anything that presents itself easily for tweaking then mysteriously forget they changed it and bitch about the out of balance play on boards like this. Look at the thread where someone claimed Bioshock was too easy, though they had deliberately picked the easy mode, for an example.

How about making the settings accessable from a seperate scenario editor?

[cliffski]

indeed, its a tricky one. only final testing with real live users will tell I guess.

[Alex Hutchinson]

In commercial terms, has this been shown not to work? will people moan at me that the game is unplayable, or that I'm just being a cheapskate by not balancing every combination? Does the upside of making the casual modder really happy outweigh the downside of people who flail around and break the game, then blame me?

I think this is the key point - my gut feeling is that one of the big reasons PC gaming has been quietly dying (or loudly dying, as on this site) is that PC developers often decide to shirk the hard work of game balance / tweaking by offloading it to the player. Most 'normal' (I hate the term 'casual gamer') players want to play the version that the developers believe is the strongest / most fun / most interesting and are intimidated by too many options up front.

I think that if most of the changes a player could make would be negative or unbalancing, and lead in your opinion to a worse experience, then you're asking for commerical challenges.

On the other side, if you want to make something for the hardcore PC crowd then you should be fine. :)

[Quitch]

I think this is the key point - my gut feeling is that one of the big reasons PC gaming has been quietly dying (or loudly dying, as on this site) is that PC developers often decide to shirk the hard work of game balance / tweaking by offloading it to the player. Most 'normal' (I hate the term 'casual gamer') players want to play the version that the developers believe is the strongest / most fun / most interesting and are intimidated by too many options up front.

I agree, though just as often lousy documentation is an equal reason. See Depths of Peril for the way an options screen should be done, full tooltips with brilliant explanation AND (most important) recommended settings!