A Skip Button for Boss Fights

[manic_depressive13]

Why not just make it an optional boss? Or incorporate some narrative option to defeat the boss without fighting? I mean a developer could just put a "press to skip" over their boss fight, but that's a lazy and stupid way of doing it that just devalues the experience. So I expect it to be widely implemented over the next 2 years or so.

 

[votemarvel]

Yeah but what you are saying is that you would have liked to skip a piece of the game that was frankly just poorly designed, not really challenging. So again there is a question as to what you allow players to skip and what you don't.

Now I suppose you could get say that if a player fails the same thing X number of times, then the game gives the option to skip. Which I continue to have a problem with because it tempts people with an easy way out, and utterly fucks with all the other mechanics of modern game design. For example Dark Souls provides a player an achievement for just about every boss in the game right? Well if I skip a boss because it is too hard for me, then do I deserve the achievements for any of the bosses after that one? After all, I never earned my right to face the later bosses, I merely skipped my way to them. Some would say that yes the play DOES deserve the achievement for a later boss because they had to fight and actually defeat the boss to get it. But I say NO they DONT deserve any reward or achievement for any accomplishments beyond the part of the game that was skipped because they didn't earn the victory.

If you want to say that skipping if fine if it just provides the experience of going through the game, then fine. But I still don't see why a cheat code can't simply be used instead of an outright skip. I don't like the idea of people missing core content of a game. I'm fine with ultra easy modes, or god modes, because the player will still have to process through the content, they aren't skipping anything. Erasing the challenge is fine so long as the experience of going through the game isn't lost, and skipping removes entire pieces of that game experience.

I don't understand why this has become a "people should be able to enjoy things however they want" because that doesn't work in ANY other situation. Sure you can read a book back to front, fast-forward through a film, but everything has a limitation. At some point there is some extreme that you aren't allowed to cross.

I feel like skipping is that line for video games.

I'll be honest I don't see a skip function being any different than the ability to change difficulty modes during the game.

If I lower the difficulty of a boss am I really experiencing the challenge as was intended or am I robbing myself of the euphoria of finally being able to get past it?

Would not the ability to just make the boss incredibly easy be just as tempting as a skip button to those who would be inclined to take such options.

If story content takes place during the battle I can see your point, but in most cases it is in non-interactive cutscenes. So all the people who would take a skip option would be missing is the frustration of not being able to get past that boss.

Personally speaking I wouldn't have a problem with a skip option being tied to the blocking of achievements. Give a message with the option "By using this you will not be able to earn any further achievements" and let them make the choice as to what is more important to them, seeing the rest of the game or getting all the achievements.

 

[CritialGaming]

I'll be honest I don't see a skip function being any different than the ability to change difficulty modes during the game.

If I lower the difficulty of a boss am I really experiencing the challenge as was intended or am I robbing myself of the euphoria of finally being able to get past it?

Would not the ability to just make the boss incredibly easy be just as tempting as a skip button to those who would be inclined to take such options.

If story content takes place during the battle I can see your point, but in most cases it is in non-interactive cutscenes. So all the people who would take a skip option would be missing is the frustration of not being able to get past that boss.

Personally speaking I wouldn't have a problem with a skip option being tied to the blocking of achievements. Give a message with the option "By using this you will not be able to earn any further achievements" and let them make the choice as to what is more important to them, seeing the rest of the game or getting all the achievements.

Here is the difference.

I'm hate to go back to Dark Souls, but I'm going to use the game as an example again.

Say you have an easy mode in Dark Souls, or better yet a "god mode" where you simply cannot die. A player who can't beat the fight normally can use this mode to practice the boss fight without punishment. They can study the fight, practice the dodging and weaving, memorize and learn the bosses patterns so that they can then go back and do the fight normally and earn their achievements or what have you.

Sure it would make the general Dark Souls experience overall easier, it would allow Dark Souls to suddenly be accessable by everybody. And those players that don't want to bother with the difficulty don't have too and can simply zerg their way through if they want.

A skip doesn't allow the player that option. A skip promotes players to not even try, to learn nothing, to gain nothing from the experience. At least by turning off the difficulty, players can still DO things, learn and get better without the frustration of failure. It allows players to then come back on the real difficulty and give the game a better shot because they will have enough practice to try for real.

 

[EternallyBored]

Honestly though, I think it does players a disservice. People here talk about skill like it's some intrinsic thing people either have or don't, and that's simply not true. Skill is something you learn, something you cultivate, something learned through ttial and error. A big part of games is developing those skills. some of my fondest memories of games are beating a toigh boss after counless failures, after trying different tactics, researching strengths and weaknesses, watching attack patterns, seeing openings, and perfecting your ececution. Anyone can do these things, and people robbing themselves of the feeling of watching that boss finally collapse at your feet, the tension of wondering if it's a fakeout, and FINALLY seeing that victory screen is an incredible feeling. It's just really sad to me that people are giving that up because they don't believe in themselves or lack patience.

Then there's those bosses that are frustratingly designed, balanced, or use mechanics a player never sees again, or mechanics that are rarely used and the player just doesn't like. Those bosses that are just a little too much RNG or require an hour or two of grind before being able to be reliably taken down. Those bosses that require specialized skills or spells that maybe you didn't get but the game doesn't allow you to respec, so the player only then discovers they've got to either bash their head against a wall or start the whole game over again.

I've had the feeling you describe, but I've also had plenty of times where I struggle, developed skills, practiced patterns, grinded for hours, and ultimately, when the boss finally goes down, when I see that victory screen, I feel nothing.

Maybe a vague sense that I wasted my time, that the game I previously liked is now tainted by this one experience, that I was prevented from getting back to the parts I liked about the game, maybe even that I don't want to finish the game anymore, or at least take a break before coming back to it. Even games I really liked in hindsight, I can name examples, of areas, bosses, mechanics, or levels that I would still skip even after beating the game, because they sucked, or were frustrating, an unnecessary difficulty spike, things that prevent me from playing through that game again.

Also, is it worth robbing someone of experiencing the rest of the game, all of the story, gameplay, or other senses of achievement or accomplishment, just to force them through one particular part for a sense of accomplishment that they may not even have if they do it in the end anyway.

I find it's rarely that people lack patience or don't believe in themselves, more that people don't get the same levels of accomplishment or satisfaction from different parts of each game, one man's rush of accomplishment at beating a difficult challenge is another's, "well never going to do that again, that sucked".

 

[votemarvel]

Here is the difference.

I'm hate to go back to Dark Souls, but I'm going to use the game as an example again.

Say you have an easy mode in Dark Souls, or better yet a "god mode" where you simply cannot die. A player who can't beat the fight normally can use this mode to practice the boss fight without punishment. They can study the fight, practice the dodging and weaving, memorize and learn the bosses patterns so that they can then go back and do the fight normally and earn their achievements or what have you.

Sure it would make the general Dark Souls experience overall easier, it would allow Dark Souls to suddenly be accessable by everybody. And those players that don't want to bother with the difficulty don't have too and can simply zerg their way through if they want.

A skip doesn't allow the player that option. A skip promotes players to not even try, to learn nothing, to gain nothing from the experience. At least by turning off the difficulty, players can still DO things, learn and get better without the frustration of failure. It allows players to then come back on the real difficulty and give the game a better shot because they will have enough practice to try for real.

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.

We both obviously see this from opposite ends of the spectrum. I suspect it is because I've never understood the appeal of the frustration genre to which games like Dark Souls belongs.

 

[Kerg3927]

We both obviously see this from opposite ends of the spectrum. I suspect it is because I've never understood the appeal of the frustration genre to which games like Dark Souls belongs.

That pretty much sums up this whole thread. 7 pages and I don't think anyone bent an inch in their stance.

On the one hand, there are people who see games as all about overcoming obstacles, and they believe that rewards should be commensurate with the amount of skill/effort put forth. To them, a skip button is not just a little option thrown in. It's a complete restructuring of what games are and have always been about on a fundamental level.

And even beyond that, there are people who, on a philosophical level, feel that rewards should be commensurate with the amount of skill/effort put forth in ALL matters, whether it's games or real life. And any violation of this philosophy... they're going to be against it, period.

Then on the other hand, you have people who feel like games are not about overcoming obstacles. They are about pure entertainment, just like a movie or a book. Relaxing and wasting time. And they believe that all people who buy the game are entitled to exactly the same experience as everyone else, regardless of skill or effort put forth. Everyone gets the same rewards no matter what. Hell, they don't even look at it as a reward. It's just part of the media they paid for and deserve.

The two sides are not going to reconcile, because they have a completely opposite idea of what games are about and probably completely opposite philosophies on life in general.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

If you're having trouble winning in combat, try getting better at the game.

Read the loading screen tips to get tips while the game loads.

Looks like South Park, despite being late with release, couldn't pass up an opportunity to take the piss out of this recent nonsense.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The skip button exist in the form of handing the controller to someone else to beat the boss for you. High level social mechanic, that one. They should market it more.

 

[Kerg3927]

If you're having trouble winning in combat, try getting better at the game.

Read the loading screen tips to get tips while the game loads.

Looks like South Park, despite being late with release, couldn't pass up an opportunity to take the piss out of this recent nonsense.

Awesome.

 

[Dalisclock]

The skip button exist in the form of handing the controller to someone else to beat the boss for you. High level social mechanic, that one. They should market it more.

That does assume there's someone else available who 1.) Plays that game 2.) Plays it better then you 3.) Wants to hang out with you and 4.) You want to hang out with them.

That or having a homeless guy locked in your basement at least plays better then you and is willing to do so in exchange for food.

 

[Bad Jim]

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.

For a game like Cuphead, it would be enough to have a Konami code style cheat that gives you 10x hitpoints instead of actually making you invincible. This would make winning very easy but would still force you to make some effort to play the game.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The skip button exist in the form of handing the controller to someone else to beat the boss for you. High level social mechanic, that one. They should market it more.

That does assume there's someone else available who 1.) Plays that game 2.) Plays it better then you 3.) Wants to hang out with you and 4.) You want to hang out with them.

That or having a homeless guy locked in your basement at least plays better then you and is willing to do so in exchange for food.

All these assumptions are present when multiplayer is touted as a feature. Hell, for online play you also need other people to also buy the game and to own a game system and even have internet! Somehow, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with regard to their marketability.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

Yeah, and I'm utterly failing to see the problem with that.

Mostly because it doesn't affect me or how I play games in any way whatsoever.

 

[Dalisclock]

The skip button exist in the form of handing the controller to someone else to beat the boss for you. High level social mechanic, that one. They should market it more.

That does assume there's someone else available who 1.) Plays that game 2.) Plays it better then you 3.) Wants to hang out with you and 4.) You want to hang out with them.

That or having a homeless guy locked in your basement at least plays better then you and is willing to do so in exchange for food.

All these assumptions are present when multiplayer is touted as a feature. Hell, for online play you also need other people to also buy the game and to own a game system and even have internet! Somehow, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with regard to their marketability.

But now you're assuming a co-op multi-player feature(as opposed to merely PVP) that interacts with the main game, instead of being a separate mode. So your friend(online or not) can be called in to help you beat the boss.

And while some games do that(Dark Souls), there are plenty of games that don't.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The skip button exist in the form of handing the controller to someone else to beat the boss for you. High level social mechanic, that one. They should market it more.

That does assume there's someone else available who 1.) Plays that game 2.) Plays it better then you 3.) Wants to hang out with you and 4.) You want to hang out with them.

That or having a homeless guy locked in your basement at least plays better then you and is willing to do so in exchange for food.

All these assumptions are present when multiplayer is touted as a feature. Hell, for online play you also need other people to also buy the game and to own a game system and even have internet! Somehow, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with regard to their marketability.

But now you're assuming a co-op multi-player feature(as opposed to merely PVP) that interacts with the main game, instead of being a separate mode. So your friend(online or not) can be called in to help you beat the boss.

And while some games do that(Dark Souls), there are plenty of games that don't.

Nah, that's just an example of something akin to what I was originally said (but not identical) that has been successfully marketed and touted as a feature in the past. I'm not saying they should add a new mode, just that they can sell games based on their difficulty by touting the option of giving your controller to someone else to beat your boss for you instead of adding a skip function. Out of the two, I think the tongue in cheek nature of my suggestion would succeed far more.

 

[CritialGaming]

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.

 

[Dalisclock]

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]

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]

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]

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....