Most editors are going to be confused if we add too many exceptions.
And indeed I wanted to make clearer the criteria in the first place?
"Hackable for anything outside, Native for anything inside". Yeah, so easy!
Then, do in-game console count as native? Oh, and what about those games where you can write commands in normal chat by just putting a slash before?
My personal take on the matter has always been "simplicity" (or difficulty if you want to see the question from the other side of the coin).
I mean.. why else should the user care about the status otherwise? Curiosity for its own sake?
It has to serve a practical need first of all, and whatever "I shouldn't worry" about the feature, or *effort* is needed seems it.
But this "native" TR madness really pushes the boundaries of the examples-based rule.
Not only it is tedious, but also counterintuitive (command line switches seems arguably a cakewalk).
Now, IMO the only way out seems redefining the goalposts of "effort":
- either we take a hard stance on the matter [aka, everything that isn't blatantly overwatch-settings-levels easy, showy and self-explanatory is hackable(but imo, this would fit a hypothetical PCGWKids, if any)]
- or we relax a bit the norms, say either (or a combination?) of:
- "no external tools needed" (no notepad; but game icons, and so parameters, should considered as "parts" of the game, and thus count as native)
- "shouldn't take more than 10 seconds" [to do]
- "shouldn't take more than 5 seconds" [to read how-to]