Playing how the game was intended to be played

Page 2 - Love gaming? Join the PC Gamer community to share that passion with gamers all around the world!

How should games be played?

  • As designed by devs

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • As preferred by player

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Options to allow both approaches

    Votes: 12 85.7%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
@BrianBoru and anyone else listening I just read back and realized I was earlier in this thread I was clearly stating that this was the case in many games. I finished by saying that it is rare and that I always said that.

Just to say I remembered wrong and I see that now.

In my defence in the saves thread I did talk about action games specifically, and those have been mostly what I've been thinking about earlier in the context of this conversation.

Feel free to throw some digital rotten veg at me or whatever you feel like.

 
Last edited:

Zloth

Community Contributor
All this and nobody brought up NVIDIA's "how it was meant to be played" marketing line? Fine. I'll do it my way!

NVIDIA's 3D Vision

Playing it how it should have meant to have been played!
 
So here's my 20p since @Brian Boru baited me here.

I feel you should play the games as intended for the first run through at least. In a way they are an art form, a team of people have created something (regardless of you thinking its excellent or atrocious) - I watched the documentary on Netflix about the video game For Honor by Ubisoft being created and I now have a deeper level of appreciation for Devs because of that.

After you've played the game as intended, make it more interesting for yourself and play it how you want to play it. Cheat, mod, save, don't save, make up silly rules whatever the way you find it to be fun, relaxing or challenging.

Play you know... You'll get more than your money's worth out of it this way and have a much fairer review & opinion to offer if asked for.
 
It's not always easy to know how the developers intended for the game to be played though. The example that comes to mind is how in some RPGs the developers expect you to do all of the side quests and balance encounters based on that, while others balance encounters with the expectation that players only do some of the side quests, making you way overleveled if you do all the side quests first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru
It's not always easy to know how the developers intended for the game to be played though. The example that comes to mind is how in some RPGs the developers expect you to do all of the side quests and balance encounters based on that, while others balance encounters with the expectation that players only do some of the side quests, making you way overleveled if you do all the side quests first.
I mean more of in a personal sense of not modding it or don't use game breaking mechanics. I'm sure side quests are always mostly a filler (with the exception of the Red Baron in Witcher 3, at one point I was utterly convinced that's the main storyline). But enjoy it for what the are rather than what they aren't.
 
I feel you should play the games as intended for the first run through at least
So let's say I decide to pick up The Sims 4. You win the internet if you can tell me what the intended game is—devs have supplied 53 alternative 'intentions'—aka DLC—so far.

There is rarely an "intended" version of a big game. There is only the "now" version.
Did you pre-order? Looking forward to the 'promised' version.
Did you buy day 1? Oops that's not what we intended, please download this 100GB patch to get it to the "today" version.
Are you a patient gamer? See Sims 4 example—if you skip any of those 53 DLCs—caught you on a day without hundreds of $ to spare, perhaps—you're not playing as devs intend.

Ever play Civilization games? There are 9 difficulty levels. Infinite maps. Dozens of civs and leaders.
Why supply so many if there's a true 'intended' way to play? If you say it's sandbox, then where do games lie along the spectrum between complete freedom and complete restraint?

Small indie games which are abandoned after release may be a candidate for having an "intended" state, assuming dev doesn't release it to open source. But that's fairly rare—most games are in a state of flux, with the devs themselves being one of the main agents of these changes.

TLDR—there is almost never an "intended" state for a game.
 

Zloth

Community Contributor
I mean more of in a personal sense of not modding it or don't use game breaking mechanics.
If I mod it, then the game changes to what I modded it into, so that is what the game is! ;)

I paid my money, I get to mess around with it any way I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else's enjoyment of the game. I don't care if it's defacing the developer's intended message or whatever. However, I *do* care about my game making sense and working correctly. Developers spend a lot of time on these games, so overruling them by modding shouldn't be done on a whim, especially on the first play-through.
 
So let's say I decide to pick up The Sims 4. You win the internet if you can tell me what the intended game is—devs have supplied 53 alternative 'intentions'—aka DLC—so far.

There is rarely an "intended" version of a big game. There is only the "now" version.
Did you pre-order? Looking forward to the 'promised' version.
Did you buy day 1? Oops that's not what we intended, please download this 100GB patch to get it to the "today" version.
Are you a patient gamer? See Sims 4 example—if you skip any of those 53 DLCs—caught you on a day without hundreds of $ to spare, perhaps—you're not playing as devs intend.

Ever play Civilization games? There are 9 difficulty levels. Infinite maps. Dozens of civs and leaders.
Why supply so many if there's a true 'intended' way to play? If you say it's sandbox, then where do games lie along the spectrum between complete freedom and complete restraint?

Small indie games which are abandoned after release may be a candidate for having an "intended" state, assuming dev doesn't release it to open source. But that's fairly rare—most games are in a state of flux, with the devs themselves being one of the main agents of these changes.

TLDR—there is almost never an "intended" state for a game.
I feel attacked! 😅 - But I don't know mean every game has an intended way, I meant in a sense of as it is released, you don't have to mod the life out of it or download all 53 DLC packs. "As the Devs intended" is based on their creative artform and not having Thomas the Tank steam rolling around in it or using modded weapons in Borderlands for example.

I've only played Civ once I believe, I think it's interesting game with lots of depth. But it's a strategy game, how you win is the way you've intended to play it but the options given to you of how you win is the way the Devs intended people to play it. In my eyes at least..
 
If I mod it, then the game changes to what I modded it into, so that is what the game is! ;)

I paid my money, I get to mess around with it any way I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else's enjoyment of the game. I don't care if it's defacing the developer's intended message or whatever. However, I *do* care about my game making sense and working correctly. Developers spend a lot of time on these games, so overruling them by modding shouldn't be done on a whim, especially on the first play-through.
What game have you played that's required you to mod it to make sense? 🫤 I just feel everyone should give games ago as vanilla as they are on release then go crazy with it afterwards. Play them as YOU intend but at least try it as designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
Ok, I'll bring back up my favorite game, Skyrim. Laugh at me if you want to. :D

My opinion is that the game was meant to be played in first person mode. They offer a 3rd person mode, but I believe it was intended to be played in first person. What do you guys think about that?
That's a great game though!

Out of curiosity, was Oblivion only first person? (I've never played it). I prefer third person for Skyrim, but that's because I actually want to see my character and it's armour otherwise you just see a weapon or a hand. Seems like a stupid reason now though
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
I feel attacked!
It's 1014, Vikings out!

as it is released, you don't have to mod the life out of it or download all 53 DLC packs
We'll have to agree to disagree on this :) I don't buy games new or anywhere close to it—I wait for the early patches, the player reviews, the best mods and the best price.

It would make no sense to me to avoid getting the Day 1 Patch 2-5 years later. Likewise the best mods, especially UI enhancements. Likewise a good sale price for a 'complete' edition, even tho the devs intended me to pay $60, and then hundreds more on DLC.

I just won't play their game, I'll play my game.
 
It's 1014, Vikings out!


We'll have to agree to disagree on this :) I don't buy games new or anywhere close to it—I wait for the early patches, the player reviews, the best mods and the best price.

It would make no sense to me to avoid getting the Day 1 Patch 2-5 years later. Likewise the best mods, especially UI enhancements. Likewise a good sale price for a 'complete' edition, even tho the devs intended me to pay $60, and then hundreds more on DLC.

I just won't play their game, I'll play my game.
You've never been excited enough to buy a game on release day?
 
You've never been excited enough to buy a game on release day?
2 years ago I got the Command and Conquer Remastered collection the day after release, once the initial player reviews confirmed it was stable and bug-free. Then again, it was only $20 for 2 full games and 3 major expansions, exceptional value—C&C is 1 of my 3 top franchises.

Probably have to go back 8 years to find my previous new release purchase—May 22, 2014 for Royal Envoy 3 CE. I used to buy release day until pubs started screwing with us—releasing unfinished product, doing away with demos, holding back parts of the game to sell as DLC, etc.
 
May 11, 2022
31
69
120
My view or principle is if I pay for something then it's mine to do with as I wish (as long as it's legal!). Doesn't matter what it is.

Yet I almost always play vanilla the first time, get as far as I can, use walkthroughs if I get stuck and keep going until I get bored.

Why do I mod games? One reason is to make it easier to play. For example I am very poor at FPS games but I enjoy the atmosphere of Half Life 2 or System Shock (both) so something that tilts the game in my favour allows me to get past the first 10 minutes. Another is additional content for a game I have played to death like BG2 so extra adventures. Or modification to the rule system like resetting to the magic system so that 1st level spells aren't useless as the game progresses. Then there is the convenience rules - being able to identify anything with out sleeping, casting spells or running backwards and forwards with loot to sell to build your cash reserves up. In party games new NPCs can spruce up an old game. One thing I don't bother too much with is graphic changes unless it makes the UI easier to use.

There is a but. If you are not careful you can remove any challenge from the game and then it's like reading a bad novel.
 
If you are not careful you can remove any challenge from the game
You can always make your own challenge. For example, in Far Cry games I don't bother with machine gun types, since they let you stroll around mowing guys down. I also very rarely use mines or C4 or vehicles.

Between your choices like above and the game's different difficulty settings, it should be possible to get the challenge = enjoyment equation fairly balanced.
 
I am joking, I saw you mention him in first post in thread.

Shame the Brian Boru game isn't on the internet yet as a conversion. As otherwise you would both need to find the game and play it somehow online... chess easier in this aspect as the map in the Brian Boru game isn't just a checkerboard


I prefer Kingmaker although I haven't watched a lot of that video... yet.
 
I am joking, I saw you mention him in first post in thread.

Shame the Brian Boru game isn't on the internet yet as a conversion. As otherwise you would both need to find the game and play it somehow online... chess easier in this aspect as the map in the Brian Boru game isn't just a checkerboard


I prefer Kingmaker although I haven't watched a lot of that video... yet.
Competitive Brian Boru Boardgame is the future of eSports.
 
stops laughing enough to think... they play games online I used to only play when there was no choice. Monopoly and Risk were rainy day games... now people have too many games to mention and still want to play these instead... so maybe Brian Boro will make a killing online... just don't tell him.

I got confused how the card distribution worked on turn 1, so hopefully the online version explains that better.
 
stops laughing enough to think... they play games online I used to only play when there was no choice. Monopoly and Risk were rainy day games... now people have too many games to mention and still want to play these instead... so maybe Brian Boro will make a killing online... just don't tell him.

I got confused how the card distribution worked on turn 1, so hopefully the online version explains that better.
Monopoly is a great game! Always an argument and level of distrust with the banker though. I've never played Risk mind.. I believe you've came up with something interesting here, if Brian Boru becomes an overnight success you've got to be rewarded with at least 30%.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brian Boru

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS