I think there's some very serious misunderstanding going on here, deliberate or otherwise, I can't tell. But whatever. Your call.CritialGaming said:
A Skip Button for Boss Fights
- Thread starter maninahat
- Start date
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:
I said "many people" not everyone.
Your opinion. You don't feel any guilt for giving up easily when facing a challenge. Other people certainly do.
Ever heard the phrase "no pain, no gain?"
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.
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.
And you don't think developers consider whether they are sending right or wrong messages in games? I'm pretty sure that they do. Moral lessons are incorporated into games all the time.
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?
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.
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:
You're still casting way too wide of a net.
No seriously. If skipping a section in a game makes you feel bad to any serious degree, you need to lighten the hell up. It's a goddamn video game.
Usually in relationship to which the "gain" is something actually worth a damn, yes.
I repeat my earlier question. Should we take out cheat codes because they teach the lesson that dishonesty is the best way to success?
If an adult learns "give up at the first sign of trouble," from a video game because it can skip a level, that adult probably wasn't very well emotionally developed. And you arguing against this because of the morals it teaches is two steps away from just flat out going "won't someone please think of the children." 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.
No. Not really. I doubt the developers of Doom were sending a message beyond "killing demons is cool."
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.
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?
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:
just put me down for the 'gitgud scrub' camp.
cause why even bother playing the game, or any game for that matter, if your just going to run when the game presents a challenge.
God help these hypothetical snowflakes if the ever go online ...
cause why even bother playing the game, or any game for that matter, if your just going to run when the game presents a challenge.
God help these hypothetical snowflakes if the ever go online ...
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:
I have to overcome adversity at my job, in my personal relationships, when I work out. Why on Earth would I want that in my leisure time as well? Why must my free time be filled with the same adversity as my real life just because you believe it should be. Does me having Skip the Fade installed for Dragon Age: Origins for example in anyway hurt your gaming experience?
That seems to be a thing you are missing. People do like those games, just as I enjoyed LA Noire. Why should an option you don't have to take be such a horrible thing for you?
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 liken them to mods for PC games. If you know where to look, you can find mods to do all sorts of shit to break the game and allow you to cheat. But to me it's different if the developer outright gives you a cheat button and makes it an official part of the game experience.
Never said they did, but I appreciate the acknowledgement you make in the latter part of that sentence.
Some games, not all. RPG's for instance are usually riddled with moral lessons, sometimes to its detriment if it turns too political, IMO.
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?
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.
I'll go fuck off now.
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:
Someone must have invaded and kicked your ass in Dark Souls once, and then did something like this...
... and you just haven't quite gotten over it.
But not everyone who loves a challenge is elitist. Some of them just love a challenge. And not all of them are smug. They silently take pride in what they are able to accomplish, however insignificant it is in the grand scheme of things. Hell, I don't even really PvP, so no gloating here, no one to gloat to. But I screamed at the top of my lungs when I finally beat Fume Knight. And unfortunately that's a feeling all the skip button people will never experience. I'd like to encourage people in those situations to keep trying until they overcome, because it's worth it, IMO. You'd like to encourage them to give up. So we're never going to see eye to eye on this issue.
I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed messages from you. First you sayKerg3927 said:
And then you keep talking to me. Well which is it?Kerg3927 said:
But the conclusions you draw are hilariously wrong, so if you're still around, let me get a word in edgewise.
I hate anyone who would take pride in accomplishment. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that. I'm going to snear that videogames are not accomplishments. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that. The closest I can think is when I said that people should get over it if they feel bad when they skip a level because it's a video game. Because skipping a level in a video game is not something that is worth feeling that bad over.
That is a hilariously inaccurate narrative. It's amazing the shit people make up about me in a desperate attempt to make me look like the bad guy.
Was I talking about people who like challenges? No, no I wasn't, because I did not imply that people who like challenges are elitists. It seems I have to ask the old question. If I'm criticizing people for doing X Y and Z and you're not doing X Y and Z, why are you getting mad at me? My issue was with "arrogant elitism," which is what "git gud or gtfo is." I like Dark Souls, I just don't like people who are smug assholes over how good they are at it, as well as being rude and condescending to people who aren't on their level. I struggle to see how you could have gotten anything else out of my posts. Let the people who fight the Fume Knight decide if the feeling of relief when defeating him is worth it. It's like the Warp Whistle in Super Mario 3. Let people make the choice. I encourage people to give up. More like I think people should have options, controversial as it is.
I keep thinking of two things:
When the gameplay of a boss fight (or similarly difficult part of a given game, such as some kind of escort or stealth mission) is significantly different from the gameplay of other parts of the game, with those other parts being what somebody wants to participate in. Meaning that a Let's Play doesn't fulfil the engagement in those parts of the game that actually doing it does, even if you don't really get much enjoyment out of breaking through the obstacle.
It reminds me of a discussion I recently had about Banjo-Kazooie; I wanted to engage with all of the quirky worlds, with their puzzles and characters and visuals, a lot more than I wanted to collect precise and massive numbers of notes just to get into them in the first place.
The other side is the whole thing about challenge. I can't speak for anybody else, but I know that when a challenge is something I actually care about, I don't need to be obligated to do it. I didn't fight Smough and Ornstein using only a bow because I'd somehow forgotten how vastly easier they were if I used magic.
If it's about the prestige of completing challenges, it just changes from "I'm good because I managed to get through to the next area at all" to "I'm good because I got through to the next area without skipping the obstacle"; it's just a difference of a couple of words.
I mean, one says that it's all about the out-of-game reward of feeling satisfaction out of having completed it, rather than the in-game rewards, so how is that any different if you weren't strictly obligated?
(Also, on the specific note of Dark Souls being completely unforgiving, well, tell that to me before I use the easy farming in Darkroot Garden with its Forest Wardens chasing me in order to fund my purchase of sorceries.
)
When the gameplay of a boss fight (or similarly difficult part of a given game, such as some kind of escort or stealth mission) is significantly different from the gameplay of other parts of the game, with those other parts being what somebody wants to participate in. Meaning that a Let's Play doesn't fulfil the engagement in those parts of the game that actually doing it does, even if you don't really get much enjoyment out of breaking through the obstacle.
It reminds me of a discussion I recently had about Banjo-Kazooie; I wanted to engage with all of the quirky worlds, with their puzzles and characters and visuals, a lot more than I wanted to collect precise and massive numbers of notes just to get into them in the first place.
The other side is the whole thing about challenge. I can't speak for anybody else, but I know that when a challenge is something I actually care about, I don't need to be obligated to do it. I didn't fight Smough and Ornstein using only a bow because I'd somehow forgotten how vastly easier they were if I used magic.
If it's about the prestige of completing challenges, it just changes from "I'm good because I managed to get through to the next area at all" to "I'm good because I got through to the next area without skipping the obstacle"; it's just a difference of a couple of words.
I mean, one says that it's all about the out-of-game reward of feeling satisfaction out of having completed it, rather than the in-game rewards, so how is that any different if you weren't strictly obligated?
(Also, on the specific note of Dark Souls being completely unforgiving, well, tell that to me before I use the easy farming in Darkroot Garden with its Forest Wardens chasing me in order to fund my purchase of sorceries.
)One thought that I've had is that rather than it just being a straightforward and trivial option, it was something that had an in-game cost, in a form facilitated by the kind of gameplay that you prefer or are better at.
As a Dark Souls example, a kind of reverse Bonfire Ascetic; if you prefer fighting the regular enemies and/or exploring the world, they're something that is hidden around various parts of the game or uncommonly dropped by enemies, that you need to exchange in order to get through. Making it something that still engages playing the game, and actually forming its own kind of reward system, without trivialising the gameplay or invalidating the idea of actually fighting the boss.
As a Dark Souls example, a kind of reverse Bonfire Ascetic; if you prefer fighting the regular enemies and/or exploring the world, they're something that is hidden around various parts of the game or uncommonly dropped by enemies, that you need to exchange in order to get through. Making it something that still engages playing the game, and actually forming its own kind of reward system, without trivialising the gameplay or invalidating the idea of actually fighting the boss.
Why?Kerg3927 said:
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.
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:
Would probably be a good idea to also include this mode in review copies enabled but with NDA for reviewers to not post game material containing this mode. Since game journalist struggle to do simplest of things this would let them hop into and dabble in most of what game has to offer.
On the other hand we could expect, that game journalists are competent and professional in their job without crutches (or go bust) and gamers are intelligent enough to purchase games in generes they like (or don't get entertainment out of their purchase), enjoy the content that is pertinent to genere and are wary of games which try to mix things up, i.e. combine generes, create new ones or when they just try out new things to see if they like it.
Me being old and dad I would like to see 2nd option for my children's world to live in. However, given what is going on with this particular industry, 1st option is the one more likely. Sadly. That or complete collapse and slow build up after recession once all of the poison is flushed from the system (which also sucks but in a way that is how cycling economic growth works).
* - this use to be a part of game development. All of that was in almost every game as easter eggs, fluff, achievemnt rewards and other cheat and progress 'codes' that were unlocked by competent/curious gamers, so eventuallly over time every player could use it to access whatever they wanted. It just isn't 'skip' you bring up cheat mode and punch in the code.
Sounds good to me.
I like to breeze through most games with light challenge, Alien: Isolation and DOOM 2016 are the only games that I beat on their hardest difficulties (at least until they added in Nightmare to Alien) and while I love the sense of satisfaction that comes with overcoming great challenge and want others to feel that, I can come up with exactly zero reasons that someone needs someone to play a game the same way I do.
I like to breeze through most games with light challenge, Alien: Isolation and DOOM 2016 are the only games that I beat on their hardest difficulties (at least until they added in Nightmare to Alien) and while I love the sense of satisfaction that comes with overcoming great challenge and want others to feel that, I can come up with exactly zero reasons that someone needs someone to play a game the same way I do.
There should also be a multiplayer mode where you only fight toddlers who can't figure out the controls.
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.
However, with the death of demos, it's no surprise people feel a bit burned spending 60 on a game they can't beat.
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.
However, with the death of demos, it's no surprise people feel a bit burned spending 60 on a game they can't beat.
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:
It can be a lot of fun to play against other people, but kind of disheartening to repeatedly end up with people who greatly outclass you.
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:
I wouldn't really call the straightforward experience of a game such as Journey challenging, but it's still generally acclaimed.
I know that's a particular case where it's about how the whole game is designed, but it's still an alternative to the idea that they're all challenging.