Anyone play that Mega Man 11 demo?

[Immryr]

ohhhhhh right. the bold part should be completely ignored..... i see, only the sentence after the big bold section is important. sorry, my mistake.

also i don't think i'm missing durandal's point at all. read his two posts back to back. the only thing he is complaining about is that having these things in the game makes online discussion of the games difficulty either confusing or pointless. it seems you missed the developers intention there.

personally i don't really think that a difficulty select can be said to be an empirically better way of doing things than just having options in a game which you can chose to use or ignore based on your own enjoyment. bil for instance doesn't think worse of ninja warriors again for having kamaitachi in the game rather than another difficulty level.

[kitten]

ohhhhhh right. the bold part should be completely ignored..... i see, only the sentence after the big bold section is important. sorry, my mistake.

i said "just as important." if you're going to deliberately be completely useless and just dish out sarcastic rejoinders, i beg you to at least read the thread.

also i don't think i'm missing durandal's point at all. read his two posts back to back. the only thing he is complaining about is that having these things in the game makes online discussion of the games difficulty either confusing or pointless. it seems you missed the developers intention there.

no, it's not.

to be clear, here, this is not some "make the game bad" button that i'm choosing to push like a dolt, it's a button i feel has heavily informed the design of the game and made it worse.

the question of whether the game is better with or without it is also a really pressing one, too. one that requires time, analysis, and effort to be put into a game that is probably compromised one way and broken the other. it's not just "well, idiot, play it without pushing the button and you suddenly have fun," there's a lot to discuss (protip: we are on a forum, that's what you do on a forum) about its impact on the design. this somewhat naturally brings about the question of what the devs were thinking and why it was implemented as you wonder which way is supposed to be more fun and meaningful and if the good parts are a fluke or not.

sumez seems to believe the button was largely designed purely as a "win" button and that it barely informed most of the game. i disagree. this is probably the key disagreement of this page and where the discussion should be aimed, though i feel things are kind of at a boring point until the full game is released.

[Immryr]

to be clear, here, this is not some "make the game bad" button that i'm choosing to push like a dolt, it's a button i feel has heavily informed the design of the game and made it worse.

the question of whether the game is better with or without it is also a really pressing one, too. one that requires time, analysis, and effort to be put into a game that is probably compromised one way and broken the other. it's not just "well, idiot, play it without pushing the button and you suddenly have fun," there's a lot to discuss (protip: we are on a forum, that's what you do on a forum) about its impact on the design. this somewhat naturally brings about the question of what the devs were thinking and why it was implemented as you wonder which way is supposed to be more fun and meaningful and if the good parts are a fluke or not.

sumez seems to believe the button was largely designed purely as a "win" button and that it barely informed most of the game. i disagree. this is probably the key disagreement of this page and where the discussion should be aimed, though i feel things are kind of at a boring point until the full game is released.

i haven't played the mega man 11 demo, i'm not talking about it's specific use in this game.... i'm talking more generally about game design. (and from what i took from durandal's posts, so was he)

ohhhhhh right. the bold part should be completely ignored..... i see, only the sentence after the big bold section is important. sorry, my mistake.

i said "just as important." if you're going to deliberately be completely useless and just dish out sarcastic rejoinders, i beg you to at least read the thread.

well, you actually said i had ignored the substance of the post, which i completely disagree with. as i said before if you read durandal's two posts back to back the main thing he is opining is the confusion of online discussion.

[Sumez]

bil for instance doesn't think worse of ninja warriors again for having kamaitachi in the game rather than another difficulty level.

Kamaitachi is an option that you pick in the beginning of the game, and are stuck with. You can play with two other characters which both remove the option of playing with Kamaitachi.

If Mega Man 11 just had an option to entirely disable gear powers, (or reward you for not using them) that's enough for me. I don't mind its inclusion if the game itself makes not using it a part of its deisgn.

the question of whether the game is better with or without it is also a really pressing one, too. one that requires time, analysis, and effort to be put into a game that is probably compromised one way and broken the other. it's not just "well, idiot, play it without pushing the button and you suddenly have fun," there's a lot to discuss (protip: we are on a forum, that's what you do on a forum) about its impact on the design.

This.
You can recognise the fact that the game is fun to play without using the button, but still lament and discuss its inclusion. It's what I've been trying to do this whole time.

sumez seems to believe the button was largely designed purely as a "win" button and that it barely informed most of the game.

The former, yes. The latter, not entirely. In fact, almost the contrary:

the stage is intentionally designed so that using slowmo will trivialize every element, which means that not using is by definition also a key element to the design.

[Blinge]

You can recognise the fact that the game is fun to play without using the button, but still lament and discuss its inclusion. It's what I've been trying to do this whole time.

People here often forget to do the first part.

It seems to me the only purpose of fixating so heavily on optional mechanics is to pass one's lofty judgement down on the game.
It seems a bit head-up-own-ass, to me.
Good thing Durandal's long "effort post" response sounded very muffled like it came from this exact location.

That's why there exists an alternate universe where in a thread discussing one of the boss fights in Dark Souls: Prepare To Not Die Edition, some dweeb will chime in

On that note - Summoning is a thing I can do in Souls which effectively trivialises every boss, hell, most areas.
The developers put it in, so it's intended. I should then definitely use this every time right?
In fact, ignoring this function greatly improves my enjoyment of the game.

I guess the developer fucked up and the games' popularity/my enjoyment is a happy accident.

[Sumez]

It's all a question of how you present it.

This isn't the "you died 10 times, would you like to just fly over?" powerup from Super Mario 3D Land.

This is a central mechanic, that's pretty much advertised as the defining element of this Mega Man iteration. Like I said, it's more like if sliding in Mega Man 3 made the game suck.

I can understand Kitten's issue in regards to it feeling like the stages are designed around using this ability. Unlike Dark Souls bosses which are clearly designed as single player challenges.
We disagree on wether it feels like you are actually "expected" to use it though.

[Obscura]

On that note - Summoning is a thing I can do in Souls which effectively trivialises every boss, hell, most areas.
The developers put it in, so it's intended. I should then definitely use this every time right?
In fact, ignoring this function greatly improves my enjoyment of the game.

I guess the developer fucked up and the games' popularity/my enjoyment is a happy accident.

The game makes you solo a boss before unlocking summoning. Also, have fun with 4K if you summon on them lol.

[Immryr]

That's why there exists an alternate universe where in a thread discussing one of the boss fights in Dark Souls: Prepare To Not Die Edition, some dweeb will chime in

On that note - Summoning is a thing I can do in Souls which effectively trivialises every boss, hell, most areas.
The developers put it in, so it's intended. I should then definitely use this every time right?
In fact, ignoring this function greatly improves my enjoyment of the game.

I guess the developer fucked up and the games' popularity/my enjoyment is a happy accident.

why couldn't i have thought of this incredibly obvious example? the ninja warriors again analogy was definitely a bad one.

I can understand Kitten's issue in regards to it feeling like the stages are designed around using this ability. Unlike Dark Souls bosses which are clearly designed as single player challenges.
We disagree on wether it feels like you are actually "expected" to use it though.

summoning is present in all five souls games, i'd say that makes it a pretty central mechanic. i don't use it though, cause it makes the game less fun for me. same with coop in MHW, actually.

whenever people go on about developers intentions it always makes me think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydV8KIMWdY

[Blinge]

why couldn't i have thought of this incredibly obvious example? the ninja warriors again analogy was definitely a bad one.

Obvious? Oh that's easy, I just used my genetic advantage of being a dumb fuck.

The game makes you solo a boss before unlocking summoning.

Jesus. talk about pedantic.
Uhh, okay? Well basically every other boss is summonable so.. majority rules = developer intended you to summon for every single one.

[Obscura]

The developers locked summoning behind a limited resource, made it open you up to invasion, don't let you use it until you've proven that you can at least do something without it (the first boss being impossible to summon against is significant! read: http://danbo.vg/2017/10/03/no-skip-button.html ), and made certain bosses harder if you summon. "Every single one", sure.

[Immryr]

humanity is not a limited resource

[Obscura]

Only DaS 1 lets you grind rats for it AFAIK. In the other games, you have either a limited number of items, or you have to win an invasion (which is limited except in DeS and DaS 3, and if you can win an invasion reliably, you probably don't need to summon on the bosses anyways), or you have to help someone else beat a boss, which, again, probably means being good enough to be the "carrier" (rather than the "carried") anyways.

There's no true "easy way out". One way or another, you're going to have to succeed at some challenge on your own.

EDIT: And, yes, I'm aware that DaS 2 doesn't have the mandatory solo-fight on the first boss. One of the very few ways that one is inferior in design to its predecessor.

[Blinge]

Lol Immy, that video is.. oh my god. Both the commenter and streamer.
Maybe gamers don't deserve salvation

"Every single one", sure.

Oh shit I've been Obscura'd!
I didn't say THAT, bro.

It doesn't matter, the reality of most people's Souls experience is that the majority of bosses could be trivialised by summons, NPCs yes but especially human players, that the game can be beaten with next to no effort, and you get a humanity for winning! Great!

You know what, I WILL summon for 4K.
I managed them with a zwei and no armour, just because an ego-ridden bellend on my steam couldn't do it himself.
so yeah. bring it on.
I'll try it in NG+ with my idiotic challenge build I made thanks to a friend. (only levelled VIT, using a lightning dagger.)
I'll try it for fun when I feel like playing again, mind you.

Edit: God damnit, I let Obscurbro drag me into this hair-splitting contest, this is really off the point.

I'm merely pointing out that you don't have to use every tool given to you, and if I spoil my Dark Souls by summoning for everything, that's my fault, not the devs.

[Sumez]

I'd say Obscura still has a point, even if he's not presenting it well. Summoning in Souls does rely on a resource. Even if it isn't finite, and isn't terribly difficult to find, it still relies on a resource. The slowmo button in Mega Man 11 doesn't, which is the original issue that was brought up. You can pretty much use it ad infinitum.

The two definitely aren't comparable.

This is more like there's a huge overpowered weapon lying in front of the first bonfire you find, and no one prevents you from using it to make the entire game a cakewalk.

[Blinge]

Okay.

but i absolutely must use all my humanity to summon, every time.
I have no choice in the matter.

[Sumez]

Besides, I wish summoning wasn't possible in Dark Souls, too.

[kitten]

It seems to me the only purpose of fixating so heavily on optional mechanics is to pass one's lofty judgement down on the game.

oh my god. i went into pretty significant detail in the very first post i made in the thread about how i feel it has impacted design and is more than a constantly-accessible button to trivialize things.

levels are significantly longer and pacing is altered because of that, and i would attribute both of these things partially to the inclusion of the time slowing mechanic (or view the time slowing mechanic becoming a thing as a result of both of the previous things). when you have a 16:9 viewport, you can see much further ahead (and also have to deal with enemy respawning as punishment for backtracking much less) - this leads to a tendency to over-prepare for upcoming encounters and have both a charge shot & time slow ready. people already frequently complain about the charge shot in 4/5/6 reducing those games, but this is that accused problem being significantly exacerbated (imo, people should hate e-tanks & shops, not charge/slide). i personally think charging all the time is a mental beast of burden and that the game isn't designed around doing that, but it's at the very least a red herring that dupes a lot of people.

i feel as if the levels in rm11 are divided into long, dull stretches punctuated with more abruptly challenging rooms because these mechanics are present. it's not like the charge shot where level design stayed very similar after its introduction and stage length was almost identical, you can demonstrably see here that the game has mutated to something i feel only maintains superficial resemblance to rockman. the boss is now a serious ordeal rather than a fast & frenetic but simple challenge and the structure is way, way off. while i am fine with the game not being "true to rockman" so long as it's a good action game, it's not a good action game in the demonstrated level.

a longer length (an average rockman stage is often under 3 minutes and this is more than 6 or 7) and poor pacing in an action game are extremely detrimental because the entire game is ostensibly focused on an exciting marathon session. if i want to pick away at something, give me a series of hyper-focused and miniature challenges like super meat boy, not this extraordinarily common modern conception of the classic action formula stretched two or three times as long. when you overbloat everything, nothing is satisfying, anymore.

never have i gone "man, game fucking sucks just because it has a win button." i have gone into serious & lengthy thought from a history of having played these games completely into the ground (quite possibly more than anyone on the forum) and having thought about the nuances present in each that make me prefer one or the other. i'm not some braindead hater of different venues for rockman, either, and have been an outspoken fan of both rockman 8 and rockman rockman.

also holy fuck did i just watch this thread get "like dark souls"-'d??? ;_______; god, y'all! god!!! change course, fast! aaaaa!!!

[Sumez]

I'd "like king's field" it if I could

[FinalBaton]

I hadn't thought about it but it's true that it's harder to make those action platformers in 16:9 than in 4:3. Regarding the level design, it's rythm and keeping it compact seems harder. Especially when it's zoomed out like this. Here's hoping the MM11 devs are gonna figure it out and crank out good level designs!

[kitten]

^ i feel like widescreen and rockman just do not get along. rockman rockman's (mega man powered up's jp name, so you don't think i'm erroneously typing the name twice) perspective cuts a little more off the top to keep things zoomed in, which works a bit but is still a problem. rockman as a series (somewhat uniquely among classic action hits) alternates really heavily between vertical & horizontal challenge segments, and the challenges and enemy designs were definitely defined by the 4:3 aspect ratio. i mean, imagine how different contra for the fc would be if it were suddenly 16:9 - the pincer enemies constantly spawning from both sides of the screen would immediately become non-threatening and you'd have to think of different ways to further suggest player momentum.

i don't know why aspect ratio is not more commonly a focal point of modern action game criticism when it literally & figuratively acts as a hugely important framing device for how design is going to be from the ground up.

I'd "like king's field" it if I could

pretend i recorded & posted a gif of the first few seconds of king's field IV and just ran into that hidden spot of lava made to kill beginner players, here

[iconoclast]

Are we just going to ignore the fact that gear powers are barely any different from robot master weapons, which could be used to trivialize all of the old games. It's always been more fun to go buster only for the most part and you were never rewarded for it until the titles/achievements in MM9 and 10. Not to mention energy tanks and such.

[kitten]

robot master weapons are not only heavily limited on their resources but also almost none of them "trivialize" any of the games. a lot of weapon sets are actually pretty useless (e.g. the buster is more useful than almost anything in 3). gears can also be compounded with robot master weapons for additional effects.

e-cans are a good example, but i feel like rm1 is fairly convincing evidence the games mostly (with few exceptions) treat them like a concession to bad players (given how little pacing/design changes its general structure after they're introduced), as opposed to 11, which definitely has level/enemy/boss design affected by the slow-mo button whether you choose to use it or not.

i really wish that the fc rockman games didn't let you get e-cans or at least didn't let you farm them - 8 tried to work around that in a pretty clever way, i felt. you ever watch the gccx episodes on rockman 1-4? watching arino actively sabotage his fun with the game to farm those is just... grueling. i think it takes him longer to beat 3 & 4 than 1, despite 1 being much more challenging, specifically because of his obscene time spent farming.
dragon quest damaged the poor man's brain!

[Durandal]

I've never actually played a Soulsy game. Or Megaman. What little I know about them is through osmosis.

To pretend to get back to Megamen; the most optimal way to play isn't necessarily always the most fun way to play, but it should be. Using all mechanics to their maximum potential and learning 2 play ought to feel rewarding. It'd honestly be weird and most likely wasted potential if the most counter-intuitive way of playing is the most fun way to play. Who knew about Contra: Hard Corps unrealized potential as a dancing game?

And I'd definitely blame developers for allowing players to optimize the fun out of the game. It's natural for people to play games as optimally as possible, and developers should anticipate this by aligning optimality with their vision or discouraging it entirely in favor of creativity. If there's nothing in-game to suggest why you shouldn't do Thing, why shouldn't you? If a game is more fun when played This way, why isn't the game heavily encouraging you playing That way to begin with, or making sure that you know you're playing like a scrub when you don't play it That way? It's not like Challenge Modes aren't a foreign concept either.

I don't really give a damn whether anyone plays Castlevania 1 as a horror game or a pretend-RPG, but online it should be decided for clarity's sake whether you are talking about The Hardest Fucking Boss In The Game-Death or That Guy You Just Chuck Holy Water At Until He Dies-Death. They're essentially two different interpretations of the same boss fight with no official canon, both of which aren't invalid, so any serious discussion concerning the game design here has to get selective with reality. Obviously not spamming Holy Water makes you look cooler, but then why can you spam it in the first place?

There's those kind of negative opinions about games which after some questioning you discover are because they played the game in an Unfun Way instead of this other equally as arbitrary set of house rules, where the fault lies on the developers for allowing the player to win in an Unfun Way in the first place without making it clear that's an Unfun Way To Play. They ended up playing a different game entirely and a worse one at that, but they aren't even aware a better one exists in the same sleeve because the game doesn't make sure they know. They won't even think "I can see what other people see in this game, but it's just not for me", because they already "beat" the game. Even if they are being scrubs, I can't blame them for being dissatisfied.

[Marc]

The widescreen is a huge change. I played it last night without using the gears, and other than the boss it was easy even for me, and I suck balls at Mega Man. Funnily enough it doesn't bother me as much as it does you guys for that exact reason. Saying that, I'm the strange one that really enjoyed that oddball Castlevania game on X360.

[kitten]

Saying that, I'm the strange one that really enjoyed that oddball Castlevania game on X360.

ah, same, actually. it kind of gave action & pacing an actual, purposeful presence in CV again and it was really enjoyable to grab a group and see how quickly you get the different levels (almost like dungeon instances in an mmo or diablo or something) down to a science. i didn't mind the super manipulative loot gerbil wheel because i felt it complimented a natural urge to keep replaying the stages until you got them almost perfected with a friend or two. the base game was not very good and none of it is fun solo until you get some certain equips (like at least the most basic speed shoes), but a lot of the dlc (especially the earlier dlc, i wasn't really feeling the fuma/cv1 stages) understood the game's strengths as some sort of co-operate instance runner.

i feel like it was something that by no means should have been as good as it was, honestly. really ugly, hodgepodge-ass piece of work that recycles so much it looks like a fan-game even compared to the DS games, but it works!!

[Vanguard]

there are something like 30 moons where ground-pounding a portion of the level reveals a moon, not a moon where you need to ground pound 30 times. in almost every instance, they're not exciting to discover nor are they exciting to get to, but they contribute to what you need to exit the level and continue the game and many other gates. you cannot ignore them and you cannot have prescient knowledge of which moons are fun and where to find them. they heavily inform the design for the game.

if you can truly completely ignore something and still have fun with the game, i think how much the game suggests you do that or has its design informed by this decision is a very important consideration. you don't need to jump a hundred consecutive times on the dojo guy's head in super mario rpg, but you also don't even need to know that is there. it's almost completely an ancillary, silly little thing you can do for a bonus that frankly makes the game worse because it lowers the already minimal difficulty and is a huge pain in the ass to get. the moons in odyssey are how you engage with the game at every turn, however. you're going to get a lot of chaff on your play no matter what, and "ignore it" doesn't fix how much it informed the game's design, nor does it solve that i did do everything fun in the game and still didn't see what the big deal was. when i did all the dumb shit in SMRPG, i didn't hold it against the game but a tiny, tiny bit in thinking it didn't really need to be there or could have been easier to just blow through.

"ignore it," left alone and by itself, is a useless and even very annoying dismissal or deflection - and, more often than not, used to deflect something you cannot ignore, at least on a first play (and mario odyssey is a 30 fucking hour game to do everything in, so i'm not giving it the replay benefit. i frankly think even the fun stuff would be joyless on a re-attempt). at the very least, acknowledge what detriment the element does have on the game and if you think it potentially adds something under a certain context or is heavily outweighed by everything else. i love classic action games, i'm used to needing to readjust my staunch perspective a little bit to enjoy something, even when i'm stubborn as hell about it. heck, i'm used to being someone who has to tell someone else that an otherwise valid criticism they have for a first play melts when going for the real substance. but even still, i always acknowledge a criticism that commonly damages a play perspective, especially when the game diverts the majority into that play perspective.

Ah, well that's fairly reasonable. Haven't played much of it myself, but I think I get what you mean about the 100 jumps in SMRPG. When a game offers a reward for an unfun task, it's usually best to ignore it, but you still get that feeling of missing out on something. It's even worse in challenging games or competitive games where you might not be able to do without the reward. If it's all just for an achievement or to make your save file says 100% then I don't care and I don't think anyone else should either.

Why is it such a profound intellectual leap of faith to just say "oh, guess i'll just play without these tools, more fun that way."

It's not but there's more to it than that. The levels and enemies and such were presumably built with those abilities in mind. Sometimes it's fun to figure out how to solve problems using the wrong tools but a lot of the time it's a pain. You're also likely reducing your performance ceiling, how high you can score, and how quickly you can clear the game.

Another problem with self-imposed restrictions, even ones that are unambiguous improvements, is that the player has to figure out what needs to be changed to fix the game. First of all, this is not the player's job. Second, those who don't recognize what the problem is (or that there is a problem) end up with an inferior game. Probably the most benign and beneficial of all self-imposed restrictions is the 1CC rule, but even then there are tons of people don't know that arcade games are generally meant to be played that way so they never try. I used to assume arcade games were made to steal your money as aggressively as possible and so for a long time I missed out on enjoying some of the best games ever made.

I've never actually played a Soulsy game. Or Megaman. What little I know about them is through osmosis.

To pretend to get back to Megamen; the most optimal way to play isn't necessarily always the most fun way to play, but it should be. Using all mechanics to their maximum potential and learning 2 play ought to feel rewarding. It'd honestly be weird and most likely wasted potential if the most counter-intuitive way of playing is the most fun way to play. Who knew about Contra: Hard Corps unrealized potential as a dancing game?

And I'd definitely blame developers for allowing players to optimize the fun out of the game. It's natural for people to play games as optimally as possible, and developers should anticipate this by aligning optimality with their vision or discouraging it entirely in favor of creativity. If there's nothing in-game to suggest why you shouldn't do Thing, why shouldn't you? If a game is more fun when played This way, why isn't the game heavily encouraging you playing That way to begin with, or making sure that you know you're playing like a scrub when you don't play it That way? It's not like Challenge Modes aren't a foreign concept either.

I don't really give a damn whether anyone plays Castlevania 1 as a horror game or a pretend-RPG, but online it should be decided for clarity's sake whether you are talking about The Hardest Fucking Boss In The Game-Death or That Guy You Just Chuck Holy Water At Until He Dies-Death. They're essentially two different interpretations of the same boss fight with no official canon, both of which aren't invalid, so any serious discussion concerning the game design here has to get selective with reality. Obviously not spamming Holy Water makes you look cooler, but then why can you spam it in the first place?

There's those kind of negative opinions about games which after some questioning you discover are because they played the game in an Unfun Way instead of this other equally as arbitrary set of house rules, where the fault lies on the developers for allowing the player to win in an Unfun Way in the first place without making it clear that's an Unfun Way To Play. They ended up playing a different game entirely and a worse one at that, but they aren't even aware a better one exists in the same sleeve because the game doesn't make sure they know. They won't even think "I can see what other people see in this game, but it's just not for me", because they already "beat" the game. Even if they are being scrubs, I can't blame them for being dissatisfied.

Excellent post.

[Blinge]

Excellent post, sure, he makes some good points.
However - I've never played the games but let me espouse my views about them in an authoritative voice regardless.
Classic shmupsfarm.

Player agency is a thing, if you want to experience the thing exactly 'as intended' every time, go watch a movie.

[Marc]

Excellent post, sure, he makes some good points.
However - I've never played the games but let me espouse my views about them in an authoritative voice regardless.
Classic shmupsfarm.

Player agency is a thing, if you want to experience the thing exactly 'as intended' every time, go watch a movie.

I lean more to this side. I mean, I don't get the big obsession with how a game 'should' be played - if you played it and had a good time, job done. If you played it and didn't, most of us here have enough intelligence to work out of there's a way of having a better one, or moving on. I mean it's like cheesing with the poison bow in DS2 - it reduces entire sections of the game to absolute minimal danger, but if that's how someone wants to play (I did, first run) then fair enough - whatever works.

[Durandal]

Player agency is a thing, if you want to experience the thing exactly 'as intended' every time, go watch a movie.

Ironically, it's again up to developer intent how much player freedom and agency is encouraged or allowed in the first place. If you're playing something like a sandbox game, then you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you tried looking for an intended way to play (other than not dying, sometimes not even that), as the intent in something like Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress is clearly to make up your own goals, as there aren't any victory conditions at all. With intricate character building systems the intent is often to figure out yourself how you want to play the game considering you're not pushed to play the game in any certain way (if the game is properly balanced around this idea, that is). Every build is usually equally valid outside of the really mismanaged ones, but at least there often exists no ambiguity in what build you're intended or not intended to play the game with (none).

The agency of the player in this case is acknowledged by the game and tools are provided to let the player enact whatever she comes up with. If player agency in this case is choosing to ignore certain mechanics or imposing whatever kind of restriction on yourself, wouldn't it be a more interesting prospect if the game actually gave you a reason to selectively cripple yourself?