Imagine you have to go to the grocery store (interact with an item), but it’s far, so you can’t (the game has bad readability).

Someone makes cars (yellow paint).

Post OP says: fuck cars (yellow paint).

Comment OP says: I think we should be able to choose between having cars or walking (having yellow paint or not).

I’m saying: this option sucks (having yellow paint or nothing), we should have good public transport instead (good art/environment design that doesn’t cause confusion).

Is that a hot take?

Who… are you arguing with?

You?

Did you read any of my comment at all?

Yeah?

I’m saying give the players the choice to enable it or not.

And I’m saying that by giving a choice at all, you’re already failing the players that don’t want it. Aka, not a “everyone wins”.

My point is that yellow paint isn’t bad because it’s ugly or breaks immersion, it is bad because there can be good design that communicates the same thing without being ugly and immersion breaking.

Removing the former doesn’t suddenly bring the latter into existence.

The yellow paint is already here to stay!

I’m arguing that it shouldn’t.

Wrong. If the devs can’t communicate something without copious amounts of yellow paint, that’s a failure of design, not player intelligence.

Not really. Yellow paint isn’t a thing for shits and giggles, it’s there to make the game readable.

Before yellow paint, games needed to have good art direction (instead of “realism”) or good environment design to either make it clear something is meant to be interacted with or to point the player in the right direction.

Simply removing yellow paint doesn’t suddenly improve art direction or environment design, it just makes the game needlessly hard to read.