It's not an attitude in the first place, it's realism. Been reading these forums for years and the amount of options that have been asked for features is obscene and don't expect it to happen for everything they are asked for (excluding modding possibilities). Your correlation with the philosophy of Google on apps is irrelevant, because no game functionality would be limited by the lack of most of these options. There is a difference between intuitive design and simply limiting game features or app functionality.
This isn't "realism", it's both an attitude and a philosophy. You can try to label it irrelevant to the discussion, but the fact you're defending it belies your point.
7DTD appeals to a very specific subset of gamer, and if the discussions down the years here are any indication, we like our options. I agree that not everything can or should be an option, but in this case, the gun mod system needs to avoid extremes or it really should be a game option. After 4.5 years of development, endgame content should be the focus, not adding more grind mechanics that serve to artificially delay the gameplay.
I don't disagree, as I said, I have yet to form an opinion on this specific matter.
The post I replied to in this particular quote is 1,029 words in length. That is quite long for you to not have an opinion on the matter.
I agree that the absolute wet dream for a corporation is being able to tell the customer what they really want and take advantage of that fact to increase their profits by lowering quality or increase their sales by selling the customer something which he does not want or need, which is actually a bad thing for the customer. However, again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. This is you enjoying a work of art, a movie, a gourmet recipe, a song - video games are not that different. In fact they are more complex and it is not easy to create an addicting, engaging and memorable game that will captivate multitudes of people. Or do you claim you could just add your touch and improve all of the above if you had the option to do so?
Again, this is very relevant to the discussion. You're using the idea as justification to keep game options limited, and in this particular case, it is misguided.
I'll return to your previous post again to clarify my viewpoint:
It is actually very common for this to happen. Of course, it is safe to say that most of the time people choose what they like because they enjoy it and in the end that's what they do - enjoy it. But this is not always the case. Many times people (including me), choose what they seemingly regard as something they would enjoy but that very thing hurts their own way of playing in the long run.
The solution to that is to change the options up the next time you play, not to remove the option in the first place.
In general, while player feedback must be taken at heart by the developers, there has to be a balance in how the developers actually listen and act on that feedback and not blindly implement anything even the majority of players seem to want. I've seen many games suffer from misguided player-driven decisions - of course I've also seen many games suffer from developers not listening at player feedback or not taking it seriously.
Agreed completely on this point, but I don't agree that it applies here. Unremovable weapon mods will needlessly drag out the hunt for weapons. Saying that will no doubt attract people that love the idea and really want it. Making mods removable/not removable a game option lets us both play the way we want without impacting each other.
One of them was loot abundance and he insisted that it should be on high because he didn't like the meager loot he would find in the lower setting and getting more loot, thus creating more items and getting rewarded more overall, was very enjoyable to him. The funny thing is, what he obviously enjoyed made him get bored of the game in the long run. While the overabundance of supplies was great at first, because the gratification was instant it subsequently was short and unrewarding for him. He realized this after a couple of playthroughs, asked for the setting to be changed and wished he hadn't burned so much time playing with that setting.
At risk of repeating myself - the solution to that is to change the option, not delete the option itself. Why would you make that argument?
What I am saying is that players (especially those new to this game) don't always know how the length/progression of the game will play out, how their subconscious will react, exactly when they will get bored or how to pace themselves in order to get the maximum enjoyment they can from a game.
That's why I suggested that we have an "Advanced" page on the main game options screen. In deference to those hypothetical new players, the default game screen should populate with the default options, and there should be a checkbox to check or a specific button to push to enable the advanced screen. You could even have a warning pop up stating "Warning, for experienced players only! Changing these options will affect your gameplay significantly, tread with caution!"
Not including the options at all because of a fear that players will "mess themselves up" is not a solution.
I won't analyze it, but just say that most people would wish that they instantly arrive at their proverbial destination, but in truth, the opposite will offer them so much more.
Seems you have an opinion after all: you favor the primitive stage of the game. I find being locked with low quality stone tools, being unable to run for long, and being unable to mine effectively to be terribly boring and I refuse to play that way; I found the progression curve of A9-12 to be much more palatable. Doesn't mean I don't take a really long time to build that perfect megastructure, or find 24 different traders so I can keep stocked on ammo, or build a new base in a new area because I like the landscape. As this is a sandbox, the endgame options really are unlimited.
To primitive players, getting concrete means the game is ending. To endgame builders, getting concrete means the game is just getting started.
I could go on with examples all day but I think I made my point. None is perfect. People can make choices without accounting for long-term or subliminal consequences. Options are great overall, but give players too many options, especially about key elements of the game and they can ruin their gameplay experience.
So your opinion on the matter is, don't have too many options. We can all get behind that one. However, in the context of the gun mod system, we need options, not a forced design decision.
