A Skip Button for Boss Fights

[Dalisclock]

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.

I think we agree on this at least.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

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.

I think we agree on this at least.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The principle above, while solid, doesn't account for people being idiots and wanting to skip things for irrational reasons. The issue is that the skip mechanic isn't made for normal players but rather to make the game accessible to idiots it seems.


I have a great example of this. I once read a review of Tears to Tiara 2 (a visual novel Srpg hybrid) where the reviewer skipped the story to get to the battles because they don't like stories in games (this game is an 80 hour epic where visual novel storytelling accounts for 80% of the playtime, skipping the story is tantamount to skipping the entire point of the game) and then proceeded to complain that by skipping the story, it caused the game to not make sense and them to not know what was happening when he decided to stop skipping the story and try to read it.

You can NOT account for this stupidity and it clearly isn't the fault of the game when people just don't like stories or reading but choose to play it anyhow. Any at all alteration to the game to please that person would severely diminish it. So yeah, while you should edit content you find a chore to play through, the boss skip feature doesn't to me sound like it's aimed to solve those issues and more at elements you are happy with but which idiots or non-fans are not.


At some point, certain features are integral enough that their removal irreconcilably damages the experience a game is meant to offer and everyone should be able to recognize it when that happens.

 

[Kerg3927]

The principle above, while solid, doesn't account for people being idiots and wanting to skip things for irrational reasons. The issue is that the skip mechanic isn't made for normal players but rather to make the game accessible to idiots it seems.


I have a great example of this. I once read a review of Tears to Tiara 2 (a visual novel Srpg hybrid) where the reviewer skipped the story to get to the battles because they don't like stories in games (this game is an 80 hour epic where visual novel storytelling accounts for 80% of the playtime, skipping the story is tantamount to skipping the entire point of the game) and then proceeded to complain that by skipping the story, it caused the game to not make sense and them to not know what was happening when he decided to stop skipping the story and try to read it.

You can NOT account for this stupidity and it clearly isn't the fault of the game when people just don't like stories or reading but choose to play it anyhow. Any at all alteration to the game to please that person would severely diminish it. So yeah, while you should edit content you find a chore to play through, the boss skip feature doesn't to me sound like it's aimed to solve those issues and more at elements you are happy with but which idiots or non-fans are not.


At some point, certain features are integral enough that their removal irreconcilably damages the experience a game is meant to offer and everyone should be able to recognize it when that happens.

People are going to want what they want because people are selfish, and they will complain when they don't get it, and they have the right to do that because of freedom of speech. But others also have the right to advise them to STFU.

I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.

I would prefer that developers pick a market for each game and try to make the best game they can for that particular market. If others outside of that target market complain that's it's too hard or focuses too much on story or is too linear or whatever, that's fine. Let 'em complain. Quit trying to appease everyone. By trying to do so, we end up with wishy washy, watered down games that are just frantically trying to check every box they can think of in order to keep everyone happy and maximize sales, but the final product doesn't do anything well.

I think it also disrupts the artistic vision the writers/designers originally had for a particular game when they are constantly having to alter and add or subtract this or that because of the worry that, if they don't, so and so group of people is going to get on the internet and ***** about it.

 

[Weaver]

I personally wouldn't use a skip feature because I do take personal pride in overcoming a challenge, but I certainly wouldn't look down my nose at someone who chooses/has to ingest their entertainment differently. You play for the challenge, some people just want to have casual fun, others just want to follow the story, etc.; if we all paid the same for the game, what's the problem in us all getting everything out of it?

That's the thing, if it increases sales it's a logical step to take. We dread the day we find out that a community has formed around these games - only to see they don't actually play them at all, nor know how to, nor want to ever learn. And then we realize it has happened already: lots of people watch Let's Plays exclusively and we don't give them too much flak. This is game publishers' way to try to get these people to buy their games, branch out from the casual/mobile game market. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

This is a really cogent point McElroy. I never considered it!

 

[The Gnome King]

The only reason I am buying this next Assassin's Creed is BECAUSE of the Tourist mode. Honestly, these modes are just going to make games more accessible for more people. This translates into more sales for the developer, and people who want to ignore these modes and play on super-ultra-max-hardcore mode can continue to do so. Everyone wins. Inclusiveness is a good thing.

I'll be interested to see how much better this AC sells due to "Tourist Mode" being a thing. I know that's how I'm playing the game, because the combats in AC just don't interest me.

 

[The Gnome King]

I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.

Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.

Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)

To simplify it. Gaming is more akin to sport or chess. Just because you aquired the means of consuming the media doeasn't mean you are capable to play or win. Ofcourse you can faff about and declare you play the version of chess the way YOU want it. But that just makes you look like a spoiled, entitlled brat. Not a chess player.

To make it more complex. Gaming isn't just flat out like sport about ability and competition. There are generes that require practically none of that. If you are a gamer that prefers that, you have wide, diverse, variety of choices already. No need to step over the genere you don't particulary enjoy and try to mold it the way you see fit. Especially if the people who are already interested in that side of gaming ask you to stop.

Got it now?

 

[maninahat]

I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.

Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)

To simplify it. Gaming is more akin to sport or chess. Just because you aquired the means of consuming the media doeasn't mean you are capable to play or win. Ofcourse you can faff about and declare you play the version of chess the way YOU want it. But that just makes you look like a spoiled, entitled brat. Not a chess player.

In that comparison, even a less skilled sports person or chess player gets to see the whole game; chess doesn't have locked off content that prevents you from seeing "the end" and There isn't anything to skip in chess. It's designed in such a way that as long as you aren't beaten four moves in, you will get to try every piece and every type of move.

To make it more complex. Gaming isn't just flat out like sport about ability and competition. There are generes that require practically none of that. If you are a gamer that prefers that, you have wide, diverse, variety of choices already. No need to step over the genere you don't particulary enjoy and try to mold it the way you see fit. Especially if the people who are already interested in that side of gaming ask you to stop.

Got it now?

Yes, you're saying we should never ask a game to change because we should approach them with the assumption that this is exactly how they should be made, and if we would like them to be different then that's a problem with us and nothing on the game design. If we don't like it we should find a new game. (Note that this is in contrast with everything we know about games, including chess, which has had its rules adjusted and revised for the sake of playability).

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

I don't necessarily have a problem with easy modes and a skip button in some games, if that's what the developer wants to do. What I have a problem with is people who feel like they are entitled to see 100% of EVERY game they pay for, regardless of the effort they put into it. No, they are not.

Really? What makes gaming such a different form of media that paying for it doesn't entitle you to see/access everything you paid for? That sounds unnecessarily elitist, which is always amusing. (Are gamers just so protective of their games because they lack skills in other areas of life...? I definitely don't feel like anything is being taken away from me if somebody decides to play, say, Grim Dawn on Easy Mode and skip the boss fights. That's not how I play, but I'm an adult and I've learned that people have different preferences than I do when it comes to how they live. It was a revelation.)

To simplify it. Gaming is more akin to sport or chess. Just because you aquired the means of consuming the media doeasn't mean you are capable to play or win. Ofcourse you can faff about and declare you play the version of chess the way YOU want it. But that just makes you look like a spoiled, entitled brat. Not a chess player.

In that comparison, even a less skilled sports person or chess player gets to see the whole game; chess doesn't have locked off content that prevents you from seeing "the end" and There isn't anything to skip in chess. It's designed in such a way that as long as you aren't beaten four moves in, you will get to try every piece and every type of move.

To make it more complex. Gaming isn't just flat out like sport about ability and competition. There are generes that require practically none of that. If you are a gamer that prefers that, you have wide, diverse, variety of choices already. No need to step over the genere you don't particulary enjoy and try to mold it the way you see fit. Especially if the people who are already interested in that side of gaming ask you to stop.

Got it now?

Yes, you're saying we should never ask a game to change because we should approach them with the assumption that this is exactly how they should be made, and if we would like them to be different then that's a problem with us and nothing on the game design. If we don't like it we should find a new game. (Note that this is in contrast with everything we know about games, including chess, which has had its rules adjusted and revised for the sake of playability).

Well no you don't. You can't slum dunk until you learn to do so (you may also be incapable of ever doing so), you can't score a goal until you learn to do so, you can't finish the track until you learn to drive or often even given track layout etc. If you're not skilled enough you will fail until you either get better or give up.
In chess if you don't get to know the rules, you will not start to play the chess nor you will be capable of solving given problem or recognise given gambit.


Please don't tell me what I say and then procede to write something other than what I actually wrote. I never said that you should not ask for a game to change, I asked to be mindful and respectful to people enjoying given genere already when you ask for something which is present in other generes. You try to pretend as if basketplayer coming to chess players and demanding that he should be allowed to slum dunk the ball into the chess board and win is ok. Because he likes scoring the points like that and if they feel that's not ok they can still procede to play as usual. However chess rules should be amended to include his wish of playing the game, cause it makes it more accessible and fun and shorter (all points being true).

It's direspectful, selfish and would destroy the chess as a game. Does it mean there couldn't be slum dunk chess game where you could do that?
Ofcourse not. Go ahead and create such game. Problem here is that this particular gentleman just wanted his own way to play and win in chess game not a slum-dunk-chess game. Likely nobody beside him and select few people would like to play.
But sure, if you want, go on and do so. Create new generes, develop new game types. It is all gaming is about. If it turns out this figurative slum-dunk-chess is more popular than actual chess, great! You added diversity to sports/gaming.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well no you don't. You can't slum dunk until you learn to do so (you may also be incapable of ever doing so), you can't score a goal until you learn to do so, you can't finish the track until you learn to drive or often even given track layout etc. If you're not skilled enough you will fail until you either get better or give up.
In chess if you don't get to know the rules, you will not start to play the chess nor you will be capable of solving given problem or recognise given gambit.

He said "Play the full game", not "play the full game well".

It's direspectful, selfish and would destroy the chess as a game. Does it mean there couldn't be slum dunk chess game where you could do that?

There was probably a 15th century version of you getting angry over the newfangled "Mad Queen's Chess".

Ofcourse not. Go ahead and create such game. Problem here is that this particular gentleman just wanted his own way to play and win in chess game not a slum-dunk-chess game. Likely nobody beside him and select few people would like to play.
But sure, if you want, go on and do so. Create new generes, develop new game types. It is all gaming is about. If it turns out this figurative slum-dunk-chess is more popular than actual chess, great! You added diversity to sports/gaming.

We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.

 

[CritialGaming]

We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.

Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.

Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?

LoL and DotA, two games any scrub can get to the end of due to being free multiplayer games? Unless there's some super secret mode that I dunno about that stops low skill players from completing a match, it's not really applicable, is it? Nobody's saying "scrubs should play EVO".
Cuphead is doing good, but still outsold by newb friendly games.
And despite Demon's Souls popularizing a more open, harder Monster Hunter game, it still didn't break into the top 10 games sold in 2009. That's what I'm talking about.

And which AAA release doesn't win game of the year awards? Bloodborne, as great and relatively newb-friendly as it is, still got outsold by BlOPs3, Madden, FIFA, and freaking Nortal Kombat, a game franchise I constantly forget about.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

LoL and DotA, two games any scrub can get to the end of due to being free multiplayer games? Unless there's some super secret mode that I dunno about that stops low skill players from completing a match, it's not really applicable, is it? Nobody's saying "scrubs should play EVO".
Cuphead is doing good, but still outsold by newb friendly games.
And despite Demon's Souls popularizing a more open, harder Monster Hunter game, it still didn't break into the top 10 games sold in 2009. That's what I'm talking about.

And which AAA release doesn't win game of the year awards? Bloodborne, as great and relatively newb-friendly as it is, still got outsold by BlOPs3, Madden, FIFA, and freaking Nortal Kombat, a game franchise I constantly forget about.

A counterpoint to this would be CSGO, which has sold 35 million copies to date. I think that makes it the best selling PC game of all time. It has little to do with skipping boss fights, but I find the discussion of easy vs. hard games more interesting.

But honestly regarding sales figures, it's not really useful for gamers. It's for publishers and their shareholders. It's more of a measure of marketing power, or how many baseless assumptions can you convey to the consumer about a game, without actually having them play it.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.

Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?

Don't even bother. Not worth it.

 

[CritialGaming]

We've got a fairly simple metric by which the popularity of a game is measured, and it's not in favor of the "punishingly hard" types of games.

Cuphead has been hugely successful. League of Legends and DOTA are incredibly hard games to get into and learn, yet they are also unbelievably popular. Bloodborne won game of year awards, and Demon's Souls arguably started an entire genre.

All of those are incredibly hard games, so WTF are you talking about?

LoL and DotA, two games any scrub can get to the end of due to being free multiplayer games? Unless there's some super secret mode that I dunno about that stops low skill players from completing a match, it's not really applicable, is it? Nobody's saying "scrubs should play EVO".
Cuphead is doing good, but still outsold by newb friendly games.
And despite Demon's Souls popularizing a more open, harder Monster Hunter game, it still didn't break into the top 10 games sold in 2009. That's what I'm talking about.

And which AAA release doesn't win game of the year awards? Bloodborne, as great and relatively newb-friendly as it is, still got outsold by BlOPs3, Madden, FIFA, and freaking Nortal Kombat, a game franchise I constantly forget about.

If you are going to point out all the games more successful then you are missing the point. Of course if you compare these games to the powerhouses of the industry they don't hold a candle. But the FACT is that these "ultra" hard experiences ARE successful and do sell very well. So the whole crutch of your point here is faulty.

Don't even bother. Not worth it.

Yeah it is my bad. Internet arguments don't follow facts or reason, they follow imaginary measuring sticks set and moved freely by whoever is making the argument at that moment.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If you are going to point out all the games more successful then you are missing the point. Of course if you compare these games to the powerhouses of the industry they don't hold a candle. But the FACT is that these "ultra" hard experiences ARE successful and do sell very well. So the whole crutch of your point here is faulty.

Never said that they weren't successful. Jamie said

Ofcourse not. Go ahead and create such game. Problem here is that this particular gentleman just wanted his own way to play and win in chess game not a slum-dunk-chess game. Likely nobody beside him and select few people would like to play.
But sure, if you want, go on and do so. Create new generes, develop new game types. It is all gaming is about. If it turns out this figurative slum-dunk-chess is more popular than actual chess, great! You added diversity to sports/gaming.

And I was pointing out that his description was more in line with the ultra hard than the casual experience.

Yeah it is my bad. Internet arguments don't follow facts or reason, they follow imaginary measuring sticks set and moved freely by whoever is making the argument at that moment.

Dude, we're talking about the accessibility of difficult single player games and you tried to use massively popular free-to-play multiplayer games that literally any mouth-breathing casual can and does play as support for the ultra-Hard? Stones and glass houses.

A counterpoint to this would be CSGO, which has sold 35 million copies to date. I think that makes it the best selling PC game of all time. It has little to do with skipping boss fights, but I find the discussion of easy vs. hard games more interesting.

But honestly regarding sales figures, it's not really useful for gamers. It's for publishers and their shareholders. It's more of a measure of marketing power, or how many baseless assumptions can you convey to the consumer about a game, without actually having them play it.

Counterpoint to what? CS:GO is very popular, much like the original Counter Strike, but it isn't a hard game. Anybody who boots it up can get to the end of it. Depending on the server, they don't even have to press any buttons to get to the end of the game. It's as hard as DotA, which is as hard as Overwatch, high is as hard as Splatoon, which is as hard as TF2.

Unless there's some single player mode I dunno about, obviously.

 

[CritialGaming]

snip

My point about DOTA and Lol was that getting into those games is very difficult. Not only because the community is notoriously toxic, but additionally the mechanics are complex. That was the point about difficulty there, and yet they are extremely popular.

But if you wanna just compare to single player paid experiences then fine. But you've put so many stipulations upon the requirement that yeah, with those rules then fine obviously the ultra hard games aren't as successful.

If I can't use Souls games as examples because they are "AAA" okay. How about some indies like, Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, Enter the Gungeon, Salt and Sanctuary. All very difficult indie titles that have seen great successes (for indies).

Anyway you slice it, the truth is that people DO want challenging experiences. While not everyone will want difficulty for every game, every time, they do want these challenging experiences. And the games that offer those experiences do sell, despite having "easy" modes or not.

Either way it doesn't matter because this was about skip buttons, and skip buttons are 100% bullshit. Cheat code your way through it, play on casual difficulty, whatever I don't care. Just don't skip it.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Counterpoint to what? CS:GO is very popular, much like the original Counter Strike, but it isn't a hard game. Anybody who boots it up can get to the end of it. Depending on the server, they don't even have to press any buttons to get to the end of the game. It's as hard as DotA, which is as hard as Overwatch, high is as hard as Splatoon, which is as hard as TF2.

Unless there's some single player mode I dunno about, obviously.

The counterpoint was to LoL and Dota being free. CSGO being the top selling PC game of all time surprised me, especially considering its outdated early 2000's gunplay.

Like I said, I'm not talking about skipping boss fights, but rather the market of hard games. Presenting your game as competitive or "hardcore" works. I just want to make the point that these markets are pretty big. IMO they are also more interesting and are of greater value than something you blast through in 6 hours and chuck aside.

Source and 1.6 weren't nearly as popular as CSGO is now. In fact CSGO used to be the least popular of them all with like 20,000 consecutive players, and I thought it was a flop. Yet somehow CSGO exploded with a ridiculous amount of new players. Now you have kids realizing that CoD wasn't as "MLG" as it they thought it was jumping aboard. They fixed it by balancing the game around the competitive scene and the feedback of competitive players.

Second reason is forced matchmaking and ranking system, forcing people to play with competitive rules, so that the casual CS player was exposed to competitive CS side. Back then you had to download a 3rd party client, which I would assume very few people would be interested in. Add in a replay system and marketing for tournaments with big prize pools, and you have the quintessential competitive fps shooter today.

In the end games such as LoL, Dota, and CSGO are so popular because of prestige and the MMR treadmill. They are games where being good is a badge of honor, as silly as it sounds. They are games that people play well past the point of being fun, simply because they want to be a certain rank. Playing these games casually is not really a thing, and playing casually while matchmaking is a punishment, as you will fall into potato tier.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

snip

My point about DOTA and Lol was that getting into those games is very difficult. Not only because the community is notoriously toxic, but additionally the mechanics are complex. That was the point about difficulty there, and yet they are extremely popular.

"Getting into" DotA and LoL is just a matter of booting up the client. Then you can play the whole thing, regardless of skill level.

But if you wanna just compare to single player paid experiences then fine. But you've put so many stipulations upon the requirement that yeah, with those rules then fine obviously the ultra hard games aren't as successful.

If I can't use Souls games as examples because they are "AAA" okay.

wha...?

How about some indies like, Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, Enter the Gungeon, Salt and Sanctuary. All very difficult indie titles that have seen great successes (for indies).

Anyway you slice it, the truth is that people DO want challenging experiences. While not everyone will want difficulty for every game, every time, they do want these challenging experiences. And the games that offer those experiences do sell, despite having "easy" modes or not.

I...never said they didn't want challenging experiences? I'm mostly arguing that adding easy modes or skip bossfight buttons aren't going to hurt those experiences, because they wouldn't. Hell, people add their own challenge modes to "easy" games all the time, and it doesn't hurt the easy games.

Either way it doesn't matter because this was about skip buttons, and skip buttons are 100% bullshit. Cheat code your way through it, play on casual difficulty, whatever I don't care. Just don't skip it.

And I put unskippable boss fights on the same level as unskippable cutscenes.

Something I don't really care about but wouldn't mind if other people could get past them.

In the end games such as LoL, Dota, and CSGO are so popular because of prestige and the MMR treadmill. They are games where being good is a badge of honor, as silly as it sounds. They are games that people play well past the point of being fun, simply because they want to be a certain rank. Playing these games casually is not really a thing, and playing casually while matchmaking is a punishment, as you will fall into potato tier.

Not saying hard games aren't popular, just saying that low skill levels are a deterrent to "finishing the game".

Unless there's something I'm missing, being a total potato doesn't prevent you from experiencing the totality of the game.

Heck, Splatoon 2 might be more hardcore than CS:GO, considering they gate off a play mode until you're skilled enough.