A Skip Button for Boss Fights
- Thread starter maninahat
- Start date
And I?d counter that when he?s saying skippable, he?s assuming the boss fight is entirely omitted which is not necessary. Should you choose to skip a boss fight, why wouldn?t a tool-assisted run of the boss suffice? The AI would be restricted to whatever items/weapons/tools you currently have at your disposal and essentially do a ?flawless victory? against itself while you watch and take in any exposition or anything else of significance; tool-assisted speedruns are already a thing. Also, each year, someone pits the Super Bowl-bound team against each other in simulation in the latest Madden to see if it might determine the winner.sageoftruth said:
If you do an assisted boss fight to make the boss trivial, then what's wrong with just having an easy mode? or perhaps if you fail too many times on a fight the game offers you an invincibility mode for the fight for you to simply get through it?Xprimentyl said:
I think the verdict is simply there are far better solutions than an outright skip button. If a person is sooooo badly equipped to play through a game, then they are better off spending their money on other hobbies. But I also don't think that the video game player base has very many people so utterly terrible at gaming that a developer should waste money for extra programming of features that literally skip content that was far more expensive to create.
That was less a reflection on women and more on my lazy-ass girlfriend who thinks fuckin' Sound Shapes is an ordeal.Cycloptomese said:
It's all good. I mostly just couldn't resist. Also, my wife once bragged about beating Fable 2.Johnny Novgorod said:
The verdict is that ?skip? need not necessarily mean ?omit;? there are any number of ways to address getting past a difficulty spike or boss for inexperienced/incapable players that need not affect the game for anyone else, so simply making those players ?suck it up, buttercup? and not afford them the option is an unnecessarily dick-ish and elitist move. Just because ?you? (and that?s speaking generally, not at YOU, CritialGaming,) prefer to and can play a game without assistance doesn?t mean everyone absolutely has to, no questions asked. I keep saying, it?s ENTERTAINMENT; holding it to some inordinately high and austere standard is taking games way too seriously. A couple people in here have drawn direct correlations between easy modes and people?s actual life character? Seriously? If you think how one chooses to enjoy a video game is any indication of how they must behave in real life, then couldn?t you draw the same correlation between, say? video game an real life violence? ?ZOMFG, NO, OF COURSE NOT! THAT?S CRAZY TALK!!!!? Oh, ok; double standard?CritialGaming said:
Exactly this. Folks in here are talking like an option they think is silly for someone who?s not them is somehow innately wrong. I?m not a fan of Easy modes personally, but it doesn?t bother me that they exists neither do I think less of someone who opts to play an Easy mode; more power to ya?, you bought the game too, go have your fun! And as for comparisons to other forms of media, don?t care if you eat your books, smell your movies and taste your radio, doesn?t affect me, your choice, enjoy yourself.McMarbles said:
I can agree with this.CritialGaming said:
There are already easy modes in most single player games. I would guess that the percentage of people who literally are not capable of beating a game on easy mode is very small. And for most of those, the main reason is probably simply that they are too lazy to put any effort into learning to play at even a basic level.
As far as people with disabilities, is skipping bosses going to even help with that? They still have to play the game. If they are still struggling on easy mode, I'd say making the easy mode even easier is a better solution than just skipping content. But not every sport or game is for everyone. Sometimes people just have to go play something else.
Video games are not movies or books. They are interactive. They require that you DO STUFF in order to complete it. You take away the DOING STUFF requirement and it is no longer a game. The comparison between the mediums is not a good one.
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.
Cuphead had the right idea.
*sees RPS outrage*
*checks if it's John Walker clickbaiting again*
No surprise there, he is the Dark Souls of hack videogame journalists.
*checks if it's John Walker clickbaiting again*
No surprise there, he is the Dark Souls of hack videogame journalists.
I mean, I thought games having difficulty options was already the solution to this. To lessen the challenge so you can still experience a boss battle, but not be decimated if you're not up to the task enough.
Of course, there are games without difficulty options, but they usually have some kind of crutch for those that either don't want the full challenge or simply can't physically/mentally take the challenge.
*sigh* I don't know. I'm conflicted. The enthusiast in me is like "WAT?! NO! THEY MUST ENDURE LIKE I HAVE AND TRIUMPH!" but the other part of me is all open about player choice in games. But even this is a bit far. I mean, a boss battle IS part of the content. If you skip it, you're still skipping content.
Of course, there are games without difficulty options, but they usually have some kind of crutch for those that either don't want the full challenge or simply can't physically/mentally take the challenge.
*sigh* I don't know. I'm conflicted. The enthusiast in me is like "WAT?! NO! THEY MUST ENDURE LIKE I HAVE AND TRIUMPH!" but the other part of me is all open about player choice in games. But even this is a bit far. I mean, a boss battle IS part of the content. If you skip it, you're still skipping content.
This is probably correct.Imre Csete said:
He's trying to turn this into an SJW-type debate. He's taking an issue that was probably never much of an issue and painting it with SJW colors in order to create a heated debate out of nothing. And it apparently worked.
We've got...
1) But what about the really, really bad or lazy players? What about them? They should be able to complete games, too. If we don't stand up for the little guy, who will??? *torches out*
vs.
2) Really? Give me a f---ing break. Git gud or gtfo.
The reality is that easy-modes have already addressed this issue. They typically allow all but the most terribad players to play through games and complete them. If there is an issue with a particular game, it's likely because that game's easy mode is not tuned easy enough. So complain to that particular developer and ask them to tune it easier. Problem solved.
No need to drastically change the medium. It's fine the way it is. Hopefully developers who saw that article laughed it off as the click bait that it was.
There's not that many games where skipping a boss is even that big of deal anymore.
I mean, there's a ton of bosses on the SNES Classic that I would love to skip, where they're just pallet-swaps but the only real companies that do pallet-swap bosses or two first level bosses at the same time later in the game are Wayforward and Platinum Games. Both you could argue are providing throwback gameplay so boss repetition is partially expected.
I mean, there's a ton of bosses on the SNES Classic that I would love to skip, where they're just pallet-swaps but the only real companies that do pallet-swap bosses or two first level bosses at the same time later in the game are Wayforward and Platinum Games. Both you could argue are providing throwback gameplay so boss repetition is partially expected.
And to add to this, I feel for people with disabilities. I'm sure we all can empathize with that. But there is still a rule of "adapt and overcome" and there have been many instances of people playing with horrible debilitations. Some get help from outside sources, others just learn how to get around it if they have a passion too.Kerg3927 said:
For example the kid who had some sort of problem with one of his hands that prevented him from using a controller, Sony made him a custom one-handed PS4 controller, even though the kid managed to play most games using one hand.
How about the blind player who plays fighting games competitively?
Or the man who was 100% paralyzed and could only move his tongue, who played and streamed himself playing World of Warcraft PVP.
I mean for fucks sake he could literally play only with his fucking tongue and his breath! How bad do you have to be to not be able to get through a fucking easy-mode?
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.
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.Sonmi said:
The example given is Cuphead, a Nintendo difficult game that gives the 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).Kerg3927 said:
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?"
