It was a metaphor for temptation that leads to regret. Could have just as easily used "cake for a fat person trying to lose weight" or something similar.erttheking said:You are honestly comparing a skip button to being tempted by Satan.
I said "many people" not everyone.And you also assume everyone who ever skipped through a section feels bad about it. Well, I doubt I would.
Your opinion. You don't feel any guilt for giving up easily when facing a challenge. Other people certainly do.And I have this to say people who feel so terrible about skipping through a level. It's a freaking game. Lighten up.
Ever heard the phrase "no pain, no gain?"And if a section of game made you want to skip it, frankly, it didn't sound like it was worth playing. God. I wish you two got this mad about microtransactions.
Never said they have to teach a lesson. But if they are going to teach one, a good lesson is better than a bad one.Lesson? I'm sorry, games have to teach a lesson?
Didn't say children, either. Lessons can be learned by adults, too. Just something to be considered, that's all. IF a lesson is being taught, then teaching people the value of overcoming adversity is better than teaching people that it's okay to give up easily.You are honestly saying this shouldn't be done because it might send a bad message to children? The same logic used by censorship in cartoons? Should cheats not be allowed because they may send the message of "dishonesty is the way to success?"
You say that like it's a bad thing. If a game is designed for and marketed toward good players or players who want to work to become good, is that bad? Are good players or players who want to work to become good a bad thing? If not, then why is it bad if they tell people who complain about the game difficulty to simply put in some effort to get better or go play something else?Not really. "Git gud or gtfo" is arrogant elitism...
You can't win if you can't progress in the game. We're talking about a function that allows you to instantly progress and eventually win by pressing a button at every major obstacle. So yes, it is the proverbial "I win" button.... and "I'm terrible and I deserve to be able to press a button and win" is a strawman because no one has been arguing that point. No one who skips anything claims that they won anything, they just want to be able to move on and continue having fun. The fact that everyone keeps turning this into some kind of zero sum game says a lot about the attitudes behind the scenes.
Arrogant Elitist Tip: There is a ring you can get that allows you to run fast in the marsh.erttheking said:... I don't want to have anything to do with Blightown if I can. The slug through the marsh at the bottom is a pain in the ass, regardless of whether or not it poisons me.
You are still painting skipping over sections in a game as being always bad, even if they're sections that just aren't enjoyable.Kerg3927 said:Snip
Oh, you mean that one I had and the area was still a pain in the ass? Are you going to make points or just waste my time?Kerg3927 said:Arrogant Elitist Tip: There is a ring you can get that allows you to run fast in the marsh.erttheking said:... I don't want to have anything to do with Blightown if I can. The slug through the marsh at the bottom is a pain in the ass, regardless of whether or not it poisons me.
If the person felt bad about using the skip then they could load a previous save and go back and do it again. Though games not having a decent save system is another topic entirely.Kerg3927 said:Yep, the skip button would be sitting there like an evil snake with an apple. Some would have the discipline to keep trying until they persevere, some wouldn't, and many of those who gave up and skipped it would feel shitty afterward and regret it. Like a turd.
Overcoming adversity and being rewarded is a great lesson for anyone of any age. Because of this skip function, many would get a different lesson... give up at the first sign of adversity. Yeah, overall it's not that big of a deal, but it's certainly a step in the wrong direction and sends a horrible message.
Both sides have what they think are valid opinions on this matter, and "Git gud or gtfo!" is certainly as valid as "But I'm terrible and lazy and I deserve to be able to press a button and win!"
At the end of the day, there are other games that you can play if you don't like a particular one, and the developers don't have to cater to everyone. And that's not opinion, it's fact.
I haven't thought much about cheat codes since Doom, 20 years ago, so I don't know. Are those still a thing? I will say that cheat codes have two advantages over a skip button. 1) They are called "cheat" codes, which makes it clear that if you use them you are cheating; and 2) They are out of sight, out of mind. The game doesn't tell them to you, so it's not an "official" part of the game. The majority of gamers are probably unaware of their existence for any particular game. It's not sitting there beckoning to every player to use it every time things get a little tough.erttheking said:I repeat my earlier question. Should we take out cheat codes because they teach the lesson that dishonesty is the best way to success?
Never said they did, but I appreciate the acknowledgement you make in the latter part of that sentence.Developers don't have an obligation to teach the morals you want them to teach, in the same way they don't have an obligation to put a skip in if they don't want to.
Some games, not all. RPG's for instance are usually riddled with moral lessons, sometimes to its detriment if it turns too political, IMO.No. Not really. I doubt the developers of Doom were sending a message beyond "killing demons is cool."
If someone likes the game difficulty as is, how else are they supposed to defend it from attacks and complaints from people like you? I mean a game they love is being threatened. It's natural to go on the defensive. "Please leave this game alone. I love it just the way it is. Please please please." How is that? Better than "git gud"? Less smug?It is. If you're an arrogant elitist, frankly, fuck off. I'm sorry, this narrative about "game designed for good players who want to work to become good" adds around three layers of assumptions to intent of design, all of them being rather self masturbatory. "Are good players or players who want to work to become good a bad thing?" They are if they're unbearably smug and elitist about it. "If not, then why is it bad if they tell people who complain about the game difficulty to simply put in some effort to get better or go play something else?" Because it often comes with a certain level of smugness, arrogance, and "I'm better than you," all over a video game. It also assumes all complaints about difficulty aren't legitimate, as if Fake Difficulty never works its way in.
So you accuse people of making it into a zero-sum game and for using straw man arguments, and then you go right ahead and try to make it into a zero-sum game by using straw man arguments. "Not everyone" ... "everyone who does this" yada yada. Of course not everyone wants the same thing. That's why there are different games for different people.Might I suggest that not everyone is as obsessed with winning as you and Critical are? That they just want to enjoy the game on their own terms? And maybe you can just stop assuming that everyone who does this will avoid every single challenge? Or does that stop you from looking down your nose at them?
Probably not. From what I can tell, you're arguing just to argue, because you hate "elitists" or anyone who would take pride in any sort of accomplishment. And now you're going to sneer that video games are not accomplishments. Neither is bowling, but most bowlers would feel pride if they bowled a perfect game. And you would sneer at them and tell them to fuck off. It's all based on hate. Hate hate hate.erttheking said:
I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed messages from you. First you sayKerg3927 said:Probably not. From what I can tell-
And then you keep talking to me. Well which is it?Kerg3927 said:
Why?Kerg3927 said:Now I don't expect other people to put that much effort into it. But it does bother me when people obviously don't want to put ANY effort into it. They want to just skip stuff - even when they have easy-mode - at the first sign of a challenge. It's makes me sad.
Well I could agree for a 'No challange / spectator mode' where 2 weeks post-launch it unlocks it below super easy mode, and just turns on invurnability for characters, auto-achievement collection, enables skip scene/fight on button press and gives a comprehensive list of story points/area places to hop into at button click or setting combination of it however the 'viewer' see it fit*.Zhukov said:Why?Kerg3927 said:Now I don't expect other people to put that much effort into it. But it does bother me when people obviously don't want to put ANY effort into it. They want to just skip stuff - even when they have easy-mode - at the first sign of a challenge. It's makes me sad.
If you want to treat gaming like a second job and get satisfaction from doing so then great, you do you. Why does it matter to you what other people do when their actions don't affect you or anyone else?
Some people don't game for rewards, for them the game is the reward. It's something they do to make their spare time enjoyable.
You'll notice none of the people here who don't mind the idea of skip buttons are saying that hard modes should be taken away. Only the "hardcore" crowd are trying to deny something to other people.
Despite your sarcasm, in the case of online multiplayer I actually do think a bit of management to ensure games in which players are not grossly mismatched would not be out of order.The Lunatic said:There should also be a multiplayer mode where you only fight toddlers who can't figure out the controls.
Indeed; you only ever need to pay for them once (at least nominally, depending on additional content), so they don't need to be designed just short of being rigged as a way of cultivating addiction and manipulating people into paying the seemingly small price of admission over and over and over again.The Lunatic said:Games are innately challenging. Now, admittedly, it's kinda different from when the price of admission used to be 50p to play an arcade machine.