A Skip Button for Boss Fights

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,387
2,023
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
CritialGaming said:
votemarvel said:
I go back to staple games for examples, so no worries there.

The problem with your example is that if someone has been driven to the point that they are going to consider using a skip option, are they really going to use that Invincibility to learn the bosses move set, his weaknesses, movement pattern. Or are they going to stand there and hammer the strongest attack they have until it is dead. I'm willing to bet that the people who would use the skip option would chose the latter.
Yes that's true, but the player still experiences the spectacle of the fight. In Dark Souls, those boss fights are the grand rush of the game. A skip button outright passes all of that awesome looking shit up. So what if you do the fight with zero danger or risk, you still get to see this awesome boss do cool shit.

My point has never been against skipping the challenge, my point is against skipping the EXPERIENCE.

Look if you are going to skip your way through a game, why are you playing it? Why spend the money on something like that, when you could just see the entire thing on Youtube? Ideally you would only use a cheat to get through a very specific part of the game (underwater level, poison area, asshole boss, etc) then turn the code off and continue to play.
There's something to be said for levels of quality in a game. It could be the game in question has a lot of great parts, and a few really lousy ones as well. A mission that forces stealth upon you in a game not designed around stealth. Or a stealth game that forces you into really poorly designed and tedious boss fights.

It's frustrating when you have to slog through some fairly awful parts to get to the good ones you actually enjoy, which begs the question: Why are these awful parts even in the game? Why can't they be skipped?

I'm currently running into this right now playing Metal Gear Solid for the first time in years. While I realize this series has always had boss fights(because I played MG and MG2 prior to this), it feels like MGS is a game that is simultaneously designed with boss fights as part of the story and yet the game-play is clearly not designed around actual boss combat.

So I'm enjoying it until I run smack into a boss fight and then have to intuit exactly how I'm supposed to deal with this particular bosses gimmick in a way that won't get me killed. And then do it another 4 or 5 times until I get the timing down(and get lucky enough) to beat this particular roadblock and I can get back to the part of the game I'm actually enjoying(the sneaky and Kojima's fairly loose at times relationship with reality). At least this game lets me skip most of the preboss cutscenes, unlike some other games I can think of.
 

CritialGaming

New member
Mar 25, 2015
2,170
0
0
Dalisclock said:
There's something to be said for levels of quality in a game. It could be the game in question has a lot of great parts, and a few really lousy ones as well. A mission that forces stealth upon you in a game not designed around stealth. Or a stealth game that forces you into really poorly designed and tedious boss fights.

It's frustrating when you have to slog through some fairly awful parts to get to the good ones you actually enjoy, which begs the question: Why are these awful parts even in the game? Why can't they be skipped?

I'm currently running into this right now playing Metal Gear Solid for the first time in years. While I realize this series has always had boss fights(because I played MG and MG2 prior to this), it feels like MGS is a game that is simultaneously designed with boss fights as part of the story and yet the game-play is clearly not designed around actual boss combat.

So I'm enjoying it until I run smack into a boss fight and then have to intuit exactly how I'm supposed to deal with this particular bosses gimmick in a way that won't get me killed. And then do it another 4 or 5 times until I get the timing down(and get lucky enough) to beat this particular roadblock and I can get back to the part of the game I'm actually enjoying(the sneaky and Kojima's fairly loose at times relationship with reality). At least this game lets me skip most of the preboss cutscenes, unlike some other games I can think of.
Of course there are sections that can be annoying, but I don't feel like that's a super common situation in games in general. Like there really aren't that many games that have random sections that force you to use either a bad mechanic or a mechanic that comes out of nowhere (i.e. random forced stealth in a God of War-like game). I could see how players would really wish to skip something like that. But if the developers think to put a skip option through a shitty section of the game, I would argue that they should just fix that section of the game or take it out completely.

If a player wants to skip a portion of your game, then you fucked up somewhere in making your game.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
I agree with the notion that if skips or cheats have to be included then it?s a sign of a badly designed game. If narrative is the main focus, you may want to make the game as accessible as possible by designing progression around the narrative. Life is Strange does this very well with the rewind mechanic.

On the other hand where skill and challenge are primary tenets, assists only serve to cheapen the experience, outside of perhaps unlockable cheat codes upon beating a game. Sure, it?s only entertainment, but what type of entertainment? The interactive element is what sets it apart from others. Stifling that process erodes the essence of what makes games significant. It?s almost like if a Cliff?s Notes version was included with every book in case you weren?t dedicated enough to finish it normally.

In short, outside of accessiblity options for disabilities, it?s best to leave the core design of games alone to preserve the medium?s integrity.
 

Chewster

It's yer man Chewy here!
Apr 24, 2008
1,050
0
0
I guess, if people really want it though I haven't ever really played a game that was impossible to beat on the lowest level, aside from maybe some oldschool platformers.

That said, I've been playing a bit of Metal Gear Solid V because it's free on PS+ this month and it is the first I've played since MGS2 and I have been getting the "chicken hat" suggestion a fair amount....
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,387
2,023
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
CritialGaming said:
But if the developers think to put a skip option through a shitty section of the game, I would argue that they should just fix that section of the game or take it out completely.

If a player wants to skip a portion of your game, then you fucked up somewhere in making your game.
I think we agree on this at least.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
Dalisclock said:
CritialGaming said:
But if the developers think to put a skip option through a shitty section of the game, I would argue that they should just fix that section of the game or take it out completely.

If a player wants to skip a portion of your game, then you fucked up somewhere in making your game.
I think we agree on this at least.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
The principle above, while solid, doesn't account for people being idiots and wanting to skip things for irrational reasons. The issue is that the skip mechanic isn't made for normal players but rather to make the game accessible to idiots it seems.


I have a great example of this. I once read a review of Tears to Tiara 2 (a visual novel Srpg hybrid) where the reviewer skipped the story to get to the battles because they don't like stories in games (this game is an 80 hour epic where visual novel storytelling accounts for 80% of the playtime, skipping the story is tantamount to skipping the entire point of the game) and then proceeded to complain that by skipping the story, it caused the game to not make sense and them to not know what was happening when he decided to stop skipping the story and try to read it.

You can NOT account for this stupidity and it clearly isn't the fault of the game when people just don't like stories or reading but choose to play it anyhow. Any at all alteration to the game to please that person would severely diminish it. So yeah, while you should edit content you find a chore to play through, the boss skip feature doesn't to me sound like it's aimed to solve those issues and more at elements you are happy with but which idiots or non-fans are not.


At some point, certain features are integral enough that their removal irreconcilably damages the experience a game is meant to offer and everyone should be able to recognize it when that happens.
 

Kerg3927

New member
Jun 8, 2015
496
0
0
Dreiko said:
The principle above, while solid, doesn't account for people being idiots and wanting to skip things for irrational reasons. The issue is that the skip mechanic isn't made for normal players but rather to make the game accessible to idiots it seems.


I have a great example of this. I once read a review of Tears to Tiara 2 (a visual novel Srpg hybrid) where the reviewer skipped the story to get to the battles because they don't like stories in games (this game is an 80 hour epic where visual novel storytelling accounts for 80% of the playtime, skipping the story is tantamount to skipping the entire point of the game) and then proceeded to complain that by skipping the story, it caused the game to not make sense and them to not know what was happening when he decided to stop skipping the story and try to read it.

You can NOT account for this stupidity and it clearly isn't the fault of the game when people just don't like stories or reading but choose to play it anyhow. Any at all alteration to the game to please that person would severely diminish it. So yeah, while you should edit content you find a chore to play through, the boss skip feature doesn't to me sound like it's aimed to solve those issues and more at elements you are happy with but which idiots or non-fans are not.


At some point, certain features are integral enough that their removal irreconcilably damages the experience a game is meant to offer and everyone should be able to recognize it when that happens.
People are going to want what they want because people are selfish, and they will complain when they don't get it, and they have the right to do that because of freedom of speech. But others also have the right to advise them to STFU.

I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.

I would prefer that developers pick a market for each game and try to make the best game they can for that particular market. If others outside of that target market complain that's it's too hard or focuses too much on story or is too linear or whatever, that's fine. Let 'em complain. Quit trying to appease everyone. By trying to do so, we end up with wishy washy, watered down games that are just frantically trying to check every box they can think of in order to keep everyone happy and maximize sales, but the final product doesn't do anything well.

I think it also disrupts the artistic vision the writers/designers originally had for a particular game when they are constantly having to alter and add or subtract this or that because of the worry that, if they don't, so and so group of people is going to get on the internet and ***** about it.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
McElroy said:
Xprimentyl said:
I personally wouldn't use a skip feature because I do take personal pride in overcoming a challenge, but I certainly wouldn't look down my nose at someone who chooses/has to ingest their entertainment differently. You play for the challenge, some people just want to have casual fun, others just want to follow the story, etc.; if we all paid the same for the game, what's the problem in us all getting everything out of it?
That's the thing, if it increases sales it's a logical step to take. We dread the day we find out that a community has formed around these games - only to see they don't actually play them at all, nor know how to, nor want to ever learn. And then we realize it has happened already: lots of people watch Let's Plays exclusively and we don't give them too much flak. This is game publishers' way to try to get these people to buy their games, branch out from the casual/mobile game market. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.
This is a really cogent point McElroy. I never considered it!
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
The only reason I am buying this next Assassin's Creed is BECAUSE of the Tourist mode. Honestly, these modes are just going to make games more accessible for more people. This translates into more sales for the developer, and people who want to ignore these modes and play on super-ultra-max-hardcore mode can continue to do so. Everyone wins. Inclusiveness is a good thing.

I'll be interested to see how much better this AC sells due to "Tourist Mode" being a thing. I know that's how I'm playing the game, because the combats in AC just don't interest me.
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
Kerg3927 said:
Dreiko said:
I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.
Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
The Gnome King said:
Kerg3927 said:
Dreiko said:
I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.
Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)
To simplify it. Gaming is more akin to sport or chess. Just because you aquired the means of consuming the media doeasn't mean you are capable to play or win. Ofcourse you can faff about and declare you play the version of chess the way YOU want it. But that just makes you look like a spoiled, entitlled brat. Not a chess player.

To make it more complex. Gaming isn't just flat out like sport about ability and competition. There are generes that require practically none of that. If you are a gamer that prefers that, you have wide, diverse, variety of choices already. No need to step over the genere you don't particulary enjoy and try to mold it the way you see fit. Especially if the people who are already interested in that side of gaming ask you to stop.

Got it now?
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
The Gnome King said:
Kerg3927 said:
Dreiko said:
I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.
Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)
To simplify it. Gaming is more akin to sport or chess. Just because you aquired the means of consuming the media doeasn't mean you are capable to play or win. Ofcourse you can faff about and declare you play the version of chess the way YOU want it. But that just makes you look like a spoiled, entitled brat. Not a chess player.
In that comparison, even a less skilled sports person or chess player gets to see the whole game; chess doesn't have locked off content that prevents you from seeing "the end" and There isn't anything to skip in chess. It's designed in such a way that as long as you aren't beaten four moves in, you will get to try every piece and every type of move.

To make it more complex. Gaming isn't just flat out like sport about ability and competition. There are generes that require practically none of that. If you are a gamer that prefers that, you have wide, diverse, variety of choices already. No need to step over the genere you don't particulary enjoy and try to mold it the way you see fit. Especially if the people who are already interested in that side of gaming ask you to stop.

Got it now?
Yes, you're saying we should never ask a game to change because we should approach them with the assumption that this is exactly how they should be made, and if we would like them to be different then that's a problem with us and nothing on the game design. If we don't like it we should find a new game. (Note that this is in contrast with everything we know about games, including chess, which has had its rules adjusted and revised for the sake of playability).
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
maninahat said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
The Gnome King said:
Kerg3927 said:
Dreiko said:
I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.
Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)
To simplify it. Gaming is more akin to sport or chess. Just because you aquired the means of consuming the media doeasn't mean you are capable to play or win. Ofcourse you can faff about and declare you play the version of chess the way YOU want it. But that just makes you look like a spoiled, entitled brat. Not a chess player.
In that comparison, even a less skilled sports person or chess player gets to see the whole game; chess doesn't have locked off content that prevents you from seeing "the end" and There isn't anything to skip in chess. It's designed in such a way that as long as you aren't beaten four moves in, you will get to try every piece and every type of move.

To make it more complex. Gaming isn't just flat out like sport about ability and competition. There are generes that require practically none of that. If you are a gamer that prefers that, you have wide, diverse, variety of choices already. No need to step over the genere you don't particulary enjoy and try to mold it the way you see fit. Especially if the people who are already interested in that side of gaming ask you to stop.

Got it now?
Yes, you're saying we should never ask a game to change because we should approach them with the assumption that this is exactly how they should be made, and if we would like them to be different then that's a problem with us and nothing on the game design. If we don't like it we should find a new game. (Note that this is in contrast with everything we know about games, including chess, which has had its rules adjusted and revised for the sake of playability).
Well no you don't. You can't slum dunk until you learn to do so (you may also be incapable of ever doing so), you can't score a goal until you learn to do so, you can't finish the track until you learn to drive or often even given track layout etc. If you're not skilled enough you will fail until you either get better or give up.
In chess if you don't get to know the rules, you will not start to play the chess nor you will be capable of solving given problem or recognise given gambit.


Please don't tell me what I say and then procede to write something other than what I actually wrote. I never said that you should not ask for a game to change, I asked to be mindful and respectful to people enjoying given genere already when you ask for something which is present in other generes. You try to pretend as if basketplayer coming to chess players and demanding that he should be allowed to slum dunk the ball into the chess board and win is ok. Because he likes scoring the points like that and if they feel that's not ok they can still procede to play as usual. However chess rules should be amended to include his wish of playing the game, cause it makes it more accessible and fun and shorter (all points being true).

It's direspectful, selfish and would destroy the chess as a game. Does it mean there couldn't be slum dunk chess game where you could do that?
Ofcourse not. Go ahead and create such game. Problem here is that this particular gentleman just wanted his own way to play and win in chess game not a slum-dunk-chess game. Likely nobody beside him and select few people would like to play.
But sure, if you want, go on and do so. Create new generes, develop new game types. It is all gaming is about. If it turns out this figurative slum-dunk-chess is more popular than actual chess, great! You added diversity to sports/gaming.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,972
1,652
118
Country
United States
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Well no you don't. You can't slum dunk until you learn to do so (you may also be incapable of ever doing so), you can't score a goal until you learn to do so, you can't finish the track until you learn to drive or often even given track layout etc. If you're not skilled enough you will fail until you either get better or give up.
In chess if you don't get to know the rules, you will not start to play the chess nor you will be capable of solving given problem or recognise given gambit.
He said "Play the full game", not "play the full game well".
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
It's direspectful, selfish and would destroy the chess as a game. Does it mean there couldn't be slum dunk chess game where you could do that?
There was probably a 15th century version of you getting angry over the newfangled "Mad Queen's Chess".
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Ofcourse not. Go ahead and create such game. Problem here is that this particular gentleman just wanted his own way to play and win in chess game not a slum-dunk-chess game. Likely nobody beside him and select few people would like to play.
But sure, if you want, go on and do so. Create new generes, develop new game types. It is all gaming is about. If it turns out this figurative slum-dunk-chess is more popular than actual chess, great! You added diversity to sports/gaming.
We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.
 

CritialGaming

New member
Mar 25, 2015
2,170
0
0
altnameJag said:
We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.
Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,972
1,652
118
Country
United States
CritialGaming said:
altnameJag said:
We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.
Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?
LoL and DotA, two games any scrub can get to the end of due to being free multiplayer games? Unless there's some super secret mode that I dunno about that stops low skill players from completing a match, it's not really applicable, is it? Nobody's saying "scrubs should play EVO".
Cuphead is doing good, but still outsold by newb friendly games.
And despite Demon's Souls popularizing a more open, harder Monster Hunter game, it still didn't break into the top 10 games sold in 2009. That's what I'm talking about.

And which AAA release doesn't win game of the year awards? Bloodborne, as great and relatively newb-friendly as it is, still got outsold by BlOPs3, Madden, FIFA, and freaking Nortal Kombat, a game franchise I constantly forget about.
 
Apr 11, 2020
266
36
33
altnameJag said:
LoL and DotA, two games any scrub can get to the end of due to being free multiplayer games? Unless there's some super secret mode that I dunno about that stops low skill players from completing a match, it's not really applicable, is it? Nobody's saying "scrubs should play EVO".
Cuphead is doing good, but still outsold by newb friendly games.
And despite Demon's Souls popularizing a more open, harder Monster Hunter game, it still didn't break into the top 10 games sold in 2009. That's what I'm talking about.

And which AAA release doesn't win game of the year awards? Bloodborne, as great and relatively newb-friendly as it is, still got outsold by BlOPs3, Madden, FIFA, and freaking Nortal Kombat, a game franchise I constantly forget about.
A counterpoint to this would be CSGO, which has sold 35 million copies to date. I think that makes it the best selling PC game of all time. It has little to do with skipping boss fights, but I find the discussion of easy vs. hard games more interesting.

But honestly regarding sales figures, it's not really useful for gamers. It's for publishers and their shareholders. It's more of a measure of marketing power, or how many baseless assumptions can you convey to the consumer about a game, without actually having them play it.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
CritialGaming said:
altnameJag said:
We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.
Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?
Don't even bother. Not worth it.
 

CritialGaming

New member
Mar 25, 2015
2,170
0
0
altnameJag said:
CritialGaming said:
altnameJag said:
We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.
Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?
LoL and DotA, two games any scrub can get to the end of due to being free multiplayer games? Unless there's some super secret mode that I dunno about that stops low skill players from completing a match, it's not really applicable, is it? Nobody's saying "scrubs should play EVO".
Cuphead is doing good, but still outsold by newb friendly games.
And despite Demon's Souls popularizing a more open, harder Monster Hunter game, it still didn't break into the top 10 games sold in 2009. That's what I'm talking about.

And which AAA release doesn't win game of the year awards? Bloodborne, as great and relatively newb-friendly as it is, still got outsold by BlOPs3, Madden, FIFA, and freaking Nortal Kombat, a game franchise I constantly forget about.
If you are going to point out all the games more successful then you are missing the point. Of course if you compare these games to the powerhouses of the industry they don't hold a candle. But the FACT is that these "ultra" hard experiences ARE successful and do sell very well. So the whole crutch of your point here is faulty.

Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Don't even bother. Not worth it.
Yeah it is my bad. Internet arguments don't follow facts or reason, they follow imaginary measuring sticks set and moved freely by whoever is making the argument at that moment.