A Skip Button for Boss Fights

[Kerg3927]

The example given is Cuphead, a Nintendo difficult game that gives less skilled two choices: play an easier mode which locks off content and prevents you from getting the full ending, or play the regular mode that may well be too difficult to get to the ending anyway. They actually had to make more changes to the game just to punish easy mode players, than if they'd simply kept all the content the same and simply tweaked the numbers (i.e, the number of hits the player can take, the boss's health bar etc).

Hopefully the devs will see that as a perfectly reasonable argument and go "wait, why are we preventing less skilled players from seeing a chunk of our game?"

Doesn't Cuphead have co-op? That gives you another option. Get another player to help you as needed. No need to skip.

 

[Creator002]

Summary: I don't care.

It's like when people complain about fast travel for me. Somebody else using a feature I don't want or agree with doesn't affect me in the slightest. It's inclusion is irrelevant unless it's an automatic feature. For example, motion blur makes me, and many others, sick sometimes and it's on by default and I forget about it often until I see it. Despite that, I've never complained about it's inclusion because it takes seconds to deactivate it and usually don't even have to restart the game.
Not pressing a button to not skip an event takes even less work.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's excuses and that is all it is. Skip buttons can fuck right off. Although I fully support skippable cutscenes that I have seen 100 times already. I'm dying to a boss over and over, let me skip his fucking intro please.

Sorry, but that's how the game is meant to be played.

Adapt and overcome.

EDIT: Kinda set yourself up for that one, mate.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

And yet a button that does the same thing is... bad? Like, a skip button is functionally the same as the old debug cheats anyway, which let you skip past all kinds of content, but because it's an 'official' button now apparently everyone is losing their minds over it. It's fuckin' weird.

My key issue is, if someone is going to make a game, make a fuckin' game. Challenge, rules, victory and fail states, all the stuff that makes it a game by definition. If someone is going to make an interactive story, make an interactive story and brand it as an interactive story; don't get shitty when an interactive story is branded and marketed as a game, and people call out the misleading advertisement. Gone Home was pretty much the ur-example of a (good) interactive story marketed as a game, which generated controversy due to false advertising, here.

Being an interactive story doesn't make a given work inherently inferior or superior. No matter what some people claim to either end. There's room in the market for both, and people need to get over the fact marketing space and audience for both media of electronic entertainment have some overlap.

Likewise, I have no personal problem if works of interactive entertainment have "game" and "interactive story" modes or toggles. When it comes to this issue, I look to MGS3; I have the limited MGS3 Subsistence edition with the "Existence" disc. If I really wanted to, I could skip every cutscene in that game and never touch the codec, and come out the other end having played a hell of a good game...or I can pop in the Existence disc and watch a really fun, campy, three-hour-long spy flick. That should be the gold standard, here.

Then I look at a game like Dragon Age: Inquisition, and I may be in the minority, but I'd rather be able to watch that game Existence-style and only have to interact when it comes to the big decisions. The gameplay is the worst part of that thing, and every time I reinstall or load up the game I get about six to ten hours in and go, "oh, fuck this". From what I hear the game's story fares little better, but I'd like to be able to experience it for myself absent the mind-numbing doldrums of bad gameplay. I paid $60 for the fucker, thinking it would be a decent, y'know, game. How BW managed to make an open-world dark fantasy game's gameplay that bland and tedious, I'll never know; it's not even difficult, even on Nightmare.

The thing is, "skip story" or "skip gameplay" shouldn't be an easy out to excuse shitty gameplay or story. Nor should it be an excuse for developers to skimp on one or the other. If a developer can't do good gameplay, just make an interactive story; if a dev can't make a good story, allow cutscene skipping or just wrote a token plot. In the end, either are equally-valid and should be analyzed in the context of its own sub-medium.

 

[Sonmi]

I'm actually not entirely against the idea, as long as using it locks away content like the ending or the ending level until you go through the whole thing properly. I'd apply the same philosophy to lower difficulty settings as well.

Cuphead had the right idea.

That seems like the worst way to go about it. The whole point of having a skippable/easy mode is to avoid locking away content from people (who would otherwise not be able to finish the game). Making content available only on higher difficulties has always been a bad idea. You want to do something on the hardest mode? Get an easter egg or an achievement.

That's not the way I see it.

From where I stand, allowing players to skip levels/play them on a considerably easier setting gives access to much more of the game than would a standard static game difficulty, which would lead to those players honing their skills at the game and getting more involved in getting to see the rest of the content, which would push them to try to improve at the game, which essentially lengthens the experience, giving you more bang for your buck.

Temporary/incomplete accessibility to the rest of the game serves as a hook to keep players playing (and presumably having fun if the gameplay is solid) for longer.

Doesn't Cuphead have co-op? That gives you another option. Get another player to help you as needed. No need to skip.

Cuphead is considerably harder in co-op, this really isn't a valid option.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

And yet a button that does the same thing is... bad? Like, a skip button is functionally the same as the old debug cheats anyway, which let you skip past all kinds of content, but because it's an 'official' button now apparently everyone is losing their minds over it. It's fuckin' weird.

My key issue is, if someone is going to make a game, make a fuckin' game. Challenge, rules, victory and fail states, all the stuff that makes it a game by definition. If someone is going to make an interactive story, make an interactive story and brand it as an interactive story; don't get shitty when an interactive story is branded and marketed as a game, and people call out the misleading advertisement. Gone Home was pretty much the ur-example of a (good) interactive story marketed as a game, which generated controversy due to false advertising, here.

Being an interactive story doesn't make a given work inherently inferior or superior. No matter what some people claim to either end. There's room in the market for both, and people need to get over the fact marketing space and audience for both media of electronic entertainment have some overlap.

Likewise, I have no personal problem if works of interactive entertainment have "game" and "interactive story" modes or toggles. When it comes to this issue, I look to MGS3; I have the limited MGS3 Subsistence edition with the "Existence" disc. If I really wanted to, I could skip every cutscene in that game and never touch the codec, and come out the other end having played a hell of a good game...or I can pop in the Existence disc and watch a really fun, campy, three-hour-long spy flick. That should be the gold standard, here.

Then I look at a game like Dragon Age: Inquisition, and I may be in the minority, but I'd rather be able to watch that game Existence-style and only have to interact when it comes to the big decisions. The gameplay is the worst part of that thing, and every time I reinstall or load up the game I get about six to ten hours in and go, "oh, fuck this". From what I hear the game's story fares little better, but I'd like to be able to experience it for myself absent the mind-numbing doldrums of bad gameplay. I paid $60 for the fucker, thinking it would be a decent, y'know, game. How BW managed to make an open-world dark fantasy game's gameplay that bland and tedious, I'll never know; it's not even difficult, even on Nightmare.

The thing is, "skip story" or "skip gameplay" shouldn't be an easy out to excuse shitty gameplay or story. Nor should it be an excuse for developers to skimp on one or the other. If a developer can't do good gameplay, just make an interactive story; if a dev can't make a good story, allow cutscene skipping or just wrote a token plot. In the end, either are equally-valid and should be analyzed in the context of its own sub-medium.

...which isn't anything I'm disagreeing with, if anything I agree with most of this (except maybe the DA:I part, I'm one of those horrible monstrosities who actually liked the gameplay in that). I just wouldn't mind games having access to cheats or skips that make the game easier for people, because... fuck, it's their game, let 'em play how they want to. Interactive story, non-interactive story, hard-core game, whatever, developers should make the games they wish to make, I just have no objections to the inclusion of a skip button or cheat codes that allow people to get through challenging sections they can't get through for whatever reason.

It's like, just 'cause someone's got muscular dystrophy and can't make it through the one precise platforming section in a game doesn't mean they shouldn't be barred from seeing the rest of the story, you get me? That's my motivation. Skip buttons shouldn't be an excuse for poor game design by developers (and obviously if you just mash the skip button you probably won't be a very credible critic of the gameplay), but at the same time, if it doesn't impact anyone elses enjoyment of the game... *shrug* I just don't see a problem with it.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Tiny bit torn on this one. On the one hand, I am happy for something to make games more accessible, to be a medium enjoyed by more people, to allow it to be more mainstream, and less people thinking they're for kids, appreciating it as art, etc.

OTOH, it would take a lot out of the game for me to know it could just be skipped if I felt tired of it, but that's probably more personally ingrained in bashing the hell out of games, restart after restart, for that feeling of satisfaction, or just being able to proceed. But it doesn't affect the way I would play a game, thus it shouldn't affect me at all, so what's the problem?

I look at it like this. I played some games as a kid on the Sega Megadrive/Genesis, or at coin-ops that were just too hard for me. Either I ran out of coins or lives, or just couldn't get my head around 'em. Later on, I started playing the ROMS, where I could either 'cheat' with more coins, or save states where I could keep trying to see that it was even possible. I finished these games, years, some even decades later, with that huge satisfaction that I finally got to see the end under my own effort. I basically scammed/cheated my way through. Did I enjoy it? yes. Did I get satisfaction? Yes, though maybe less than if I'd done it the proper way. The only difference is that it was still me at the controls, not skipping.

All in all, I would lean on the 'yea go ahead, knock yourself out' camp, as it doesn't really affect me, just hoping for a positive result out of it, which is somewhat of a longshot in the gaming culture these days.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

I'm not in favour of skip option for part of the content, just because someone is incapable to overcome it.

In MOST games that have boss fights, i.e. most of arcade style games, games in which boss fight is ment to teach valid game mechanic used later on by creator to bump up overall difficulty/complexity level or used as part of consistent world building etc. However if this is just boss rush game or staged game where each stage is its own level with final boss losely cobbled togeather I wouldn't mind having a skip option with possibility to come back and try again later. Also if boss fight is just QTE fight I would want, not a skip option, but exclude box on install options...
In all seriousness, just don't play games you don't enjoy. Finishing the game and completing all of the fights and bosses isn't really a must have. If you feel that way, you may want to consult your local shrink, because it is possible that constant barrage pressure to get all the achievemnts/points/badges turned you compulsive and you need mental help.

 

[Dalsyne]

Actually, it's more like if I said "wouldn't it be great if there was some way to skip through a movie to get to a bit I liked?" and people respond with "Absurd! I always watch a movie all the way through, including the full end credits. What's the point in watching movies if you ignore bits?"

Being able to use a fast forward or a chapter select does not preclude our ability to enjoy movies. Hell, I re-watched the last ten minutes of Jason and the Argonauts so many times as a kid, I literally wore the videotape down.

(Also, I confess, whenever I read Tolkien, I skip the parts whenever characters start singing).

But you didn't do that your first time through, right? You didn't magically know that the last 10 minutes were the minutes that offered you maximum enjoyment and could therefore skip to them every single time.

So this argument is rendered moot by the presence of game saves.

But let's not compare movies to video games, they're different enough that it'll get us nowhere. I think video games are a lot more about manipulating the player's feelings and behavior than any other medium before them. Look at them through that lens, and boss fight design becomes an exercise in overcoming a hurdle, a challenge.Therefore, by skipping a boss fight, you skip the feeling of relief and satisfaction that comes with beating it. And it's very likely that the only reason you'll skip a boss fight is out of frustration - because if you didn't want to spend any effort on the game, you wouldn't have played it to begin with. So there's no satisfaction, only frustration. Your perspective on the game becomes clouded, and you're not having a good time anymore.

"But it's not like that for MEEEEE! Skipping a boss fight is just as satisfying as overcoming the challenge! Unlike any other human being, I feel *nooo* satisfaction when I get past a challenging part!"

Stop lying to yourself.

One thing Dark Souls taught me is you don't always know what's most enjoyable for yourself. Sometimes, the game knows better than you.

Of course, I'm not against offering more organic ways of decreasing the difficulty of a particular boss (see: dark souls summoning system, or clever/creative ways to bypass a boss by doing things in a certain order) but a straight-up no-effort SKIP BOSS button is not the way to go.

Then again, hey, if you want to dumb games down to this mess go ahead, just don't start setting this as the new videogame standard. I'd like at least some of my games to respect the player's skill.

 

[votemarvel]

I remember playing LA Noire. It was the section where you are chased by the bulldozer. I failed that section over and over again until eventually the game went, and I'm paraphrasing here, "you suck, want to skip this bit?"

Being that I was at the point where I was thinking that my controller might quite like to meet the wall at a high velocity, I took the game up on its offer and went on to finish the game, really enjoying it. I never needed to use that skip option in the game again.

The option to skip I think is a good one, if offered after several fails. If LA Noire had not included such a thing I would never have gone on to enjoy everything else the game offered.

I can understand why the 'git gud' crowd wouldn't like the option, to them beating the 'frustration' of trying again and again is as much a part of the experience as finally beating that part of the game. I get annoyed when people don't enjoy inventory management as much as I do in games because they find it tedious, I don't get it because for me it is part of the experience of the game.

 

[jklinders]

*shrug* Why not. As long as it doesn't affect the experience of people who do want the challenge I see no harm here. There is a possibility that some coders might look at this and go "fuck it if people are just going to skip this why should I put my sweat and tears into making it awesome?" My response to that is that they are still hired to do a job and since boss fights are increasingly becoming snore fests consisting of gimmicks and damage sponges anyway if they don't want to do it then replace them with someone who has some actual fucking passion for it.

Some of this backlash is because bosses are becoming gimmicky and damage spongy which requires knowing the sequences and patterns. Sure this is fine for MMO's but single player? Fuck that shit and give me a proper straight up fight with an EQUAL without using cheesy ass cheats and gimmicks.

Maybe if boss fights were actually fun and interesting rather than a gimmicky skill gate no one would be asking for this. But since no one wants to do that I am in favour of a skip button for those who want it.

 

[maninahat]

let's not compare movies to video games, they're different enough that it'll get us nowhere. I think video games are a lot more about manipulating the player's feelings and behavior than any other medium before them. Look at them through that lens, and boss fight design becomes an exercise in overcoming a hurdle, a challenge.Therefore, by skipping a boss fight, you skip the feeling of relief and satisfaction that comes with beating it. And it's very likely that the only reason you'll skip a boss fight is out of frustration - because if you didn't want to spend any effort on the game, you wouldn't have played it to begin with. So there's no satisfaction, only frustration. Your perspective on the game becomes clouded, and you're not having a good time anymore.

"But it's not like that for MEEEEE! Skipping a boss fight is just as satisfying as overcoming the challenge! Unlike any other human being, I feel *nooo* satisfaction when I get past a challenging part!"

Stop lying to yourself.

That's an odd assumption to make. I happily skip things that are frustrating, repetitive, or just plain rubbish so that I can get back to the good parts. Enduring through a tough or unpleasant thing is rewarding, but in the balance of things there are times were I would be happier skipping it (and that possible of a sense of achievement) so that I can get on with the rest of the thing I like. I'm sorry that you find this to be weird, unacceptable behaviour that you have never exhibited in gaming or the rest of your life.

 

[maninahat]

I remember playing LA Noire. It was the section where you are chased by the bulldozer. I failed that section over and over again until eventually the game went, and I'm paraphrasing here, "you suck, want to skip this bit?"

Being that I was at the point where I was thinking that my controller might quite like to meet the wall at a high velocity, I took the game up on its offer and went on to finish the game, really enjoying it. I never needed to use that skip option in the game again.

The option to skip I think is a good one, if offered after several fails. If LA Noire had not included such a thing I would never have gone on to enjoy everything else the game offered.

I passed it without getting the prompt, though I would have happily skipped it and many of the other stupid mini-games thrown in. They were ridiculous - hey remember that scene in LA Confidential where the hero has to tightrope walk across a chandelier to pick up a clue? No? Goodness there were some odd creative decisions in that game.

 

[SoliterDan]

My opinion is simple:

- I have no qualms with this, if they implement this correctly. For example, make "Skip the boss battle" appear after 5-6th defeat. You're clearly can't beat it and you're probably getting more and more frustrated, so just have players the option skip it. You can even say something condescending in that option, like "It's OK, not everyone can be a winner, we understand."

However..

- if the game doesn't implements it like this, and just lets you skip bosses from the get go, what's the fucking point in playing the game entirely? Why not just re-add cheat codes and be done with it?
- This mystical "bigger audience" usually never fucking works, did all of those Call of Duty and Overwatch clones haven't taught you a lesson? You either create a game for a specific market or you create a game for everyone and get a collective "meh". Not everyone can be an exception, you know.
- This argument is a slippery slope. Today we'll get "Let's skip boss battles", then we'll get "Let's skip enemy sequences", then we'll get "Let's just skip levels" and all until "Let me just pay additional 60$ to see the credits".
- Yea, this thing will not be abused to hell by lazy game journalists, no sir!

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I remember playing LA Noire. It was the section where you are chased by the bulldozer. I failed that section over and over again until eventually the game went, and I'm paraphrasing here, "you suck, want to skip this bit?"

That to me sounds self-defeatist and is basically you admitting to the game that you do indeed suck. Imagine if the people playing through Ending E on Nier:Automata had agreed with the ending and decided to quit after the 3 or 4th attempt. Shit like that is supposed to make you say "FUCK YOU GAME I'LL SHOW YOU", not crumple like used up kleenex tissue and give up.

Spoiler if you haven't played it and don't intend to:

Spoiler

Ending E of N:A puts you in a bullet hell twin-stick shooter sequence vs the end credits sequence. At a certain point it become nigh impossible to complete solo and each time you die it'll ask you a question like "Do you want to give up?" or "Are games silly little things?" and you get the choice to continue. Menawhile messages of encouragement to push on left from actual players all over the world that have also played through the sequence, their number increasing each time you die. Eventually after dying and continuing enough time it asks if you want help. If you say yes, more ships representing other people who've played the game and the sequence becomes basically impossible to fail, however only people who deleted their save data at the end of the sequence will be called to help and each time one of their ships blow up it tells you the name of the player who chose to sacrifice their save file to help you. At the end of the sequence you're asked if you want to delete your data to help another player as well. Obviously if you agree with the game at the start and give up you'd never know that this happens.

 

[Zhukov]

The argument tends to go, "But someone other than me might press them, and then they'd get to see a bit of the game that was meant only for the Deserving Champions!" Because, the real nub of it is, it's about exclusivity. It's about keeping the Thems, the riff-raff, the outsider, out. THIS section of the game, this is special to me and only those as great as I am! I DESERVE this bit of the game! Those weaklings do not!"

Yep. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Challenging yourself and overcoming obstacles in order to feel like a "winner" and get rewards is not "idiotic." It's a part of life. Not everyone can be a winner, especially if they aren't even willing to try, sorry.

Oh, there's something wrong with it all right. It's garden variety snobbery and it's rather pathetic.

You're talking about video games. The great accomplishment you're taking so much hilariously unjustified pride in and looking down your nose at others over is the ability to put the correct inputs into a digital toy.

 

[SoliterDan]

Oh, there's something wrong with it all right. It's garden variety snobbery and it's rather pathetic.

You're talking about video games. The great accomplishment you're taking so much hilariously unjustified pride in and looking down your nose at others over is the ability to put the correct inputs into a digital toy.

Yes, because other forms of sports and entertainment aren't the same in this regard....

 

[Zhukov]

Oh, there's something wrong with it all right. It's garden variety snobbery and it's rather pathetic.

You're talking about video games. The great accomplishment you're taking so much hilariously unjustified pride in and looking down your nose at others over is the ability to put the correct inputs into a digital toy.

Yes, because other forms of sports and entertainment aren't the same in this regard....

You're gonna have to elaborate on that if you want any kind of response.

 

[Dalsyne]

That's an odd assumption to make. I happily skip things that are frustrating, repetitive, or just plain rubbish so that I can get back to the good parts. Enduring through a tough or unpleasant thing is rewarding, but in the balance of things there are times were I would be happier skipping it (and that possible of a sense of achievement) so that I can get on with the rest of the thing I like. I'm sorry that you find this to be weird, unacceptable behaviour that you have never exhibited in gaming or the rest of your life.

The point was there's no satisfaction in skipping, just relief that you won't be needing to do that anymore. You may even feel some guilt.

Apply this to challenging boss fights and it becomes really easy to just press the button. One thing I like about the Souls series is how many people come from it with stories of "I nearly threw my controller on that one boss, fought him like 30 times, but in the end I was victorious! This game is amazing!". What would you think would happen if all these people could just press a button and move on? I'll tell you: "Man this game is full of shitty fights, I'm happy I could press this here button and just not do them heh".

You may not like it, but this is what would happen. People do not generally seek adversity, as a group. Those who wouldn't use such actions do not constitute a majority of the playerbase. Those who would, probably don't know they can do it and thus choose to rid themselves of the uncertainty. In any case, the game would suffer for it.

Which also reminds me: how do you think developers themselves would design their games if this becomes common practice?

"Hey this boss has a bullshit attack that kills you half the time and there's no way to stop it"

"Who cares, we put a skip button on it, didn't we? If they don't want the challenge they can move to the next level anyway"

Yes, I'm saying developers are affected by their own design choices. It happens - it happened with Diablo 3's real money auction house as a primary example, and I'm sure it happens all the time, the effects are just not as visible due to us not knowing the circumstances behind development. Hell, it already happens in some games with many difficulty modes - I was bored of Devil May Cry on easy mode but had problems with it on normal mode due to the devs expecting you to play it on easy first, then normal, then hard etc since the upgrades carried over. So I had to endure through a boring game to get to the good one in a manageable way.

 

[Req]

Apply this to boss fights and it becomes really easy to just press the button. One thing I like about the Souls series is how many people come from it with stories of "I nearly threw my controller on that one boss, fought him like 30 times, but in the end I was victorious!". What would you think would happen if all these people could just press a button and move on? I'll tell you: "Man this game is full of shitty fights, I'm happy I could press this here button and just not do them heh".

That's not a great example considering the Souls series has a variation on the skip button already: summons. Sure, how effective they are depends on the fight and the summons themselves, but generally they range between making the fight dramatically easier or outright breaking it.

And that's the kind of "skip" option I'd suggest, one that doesn't outright skip the section, but more or less(or even literally) plays it for you. It gives the player a way to continue if they hit a wall they can't get past, but it technically doesn't skip the section, so any context given by it is preserved. I don't see myself ever using that option, but I don't see it ruining anyone's experience either.