Support NeoGAF

[Marmelade]

I remember when people complained about the feature when it was originally added to Mario and DK games. If you don't like it, don't do it. For certain games, I'd like the option to skip a boss.
For example, I felt like I was ramming my face in the wall trying to fight Dancer in DS3. I eventually just stopped playing it, because I couldn't figure it out. and now I"m hesitant to even start up the game again, because I know I'd have a hard time. I'd prefer to skip and just move on. Maybe try again later when I've gotten further into the game and actually feel ready.
I don't need people to tell me to "Get Gud" because I don't have all the time in the world to spend trying over and over until I finally "understand" how to get through something tough.

Well you don't deserve to play dark souls 3 according to some people here.
Doesn't matter that you actually like the game and would just like the opportunity to skip that particular boss, not a huge chunk of gameplay, no, just that boss.
You don't actually even like that game.
I know you think you do, but you don't, trust them.
Others will talk about easy modes when it's beside the point.

 

[AzaK]

Agreed, I pretty much loathe all boss fights for the first reason he mentioned - they are incongruous to the game in almost all circumstances.

 

[DerpHause]

Fuck that. I don't want to play with other people. My souls experiences are solo. I also hate it when people invade my realm. Ruins the game for me, so I turn off the online aspect.

So you'd rather slam your head into a wall and fault the game for the decision you yourself made than use the mechanics built into the game specifically for your scenario?

And the game should be changed to accommodate that whim?

Ok.

Well you don't deserve to play dark souls 3 according to some people here.
Doesn't matter that you actually like the game and would just like the opportunity to skip that particular boss, not a huge chunk of gameplay, no, just that boss.
You don't actually even like that game.
I know you think you do, but you don't, trust them.
Others will talk about easy modes when it's beside the point.

I mean, if you can't be bothered to turn online on and summon help for one boss, yeah. Through I ordinarily don't find myself fond of questioning motivations, I'd say refusal to engage with fundamental mechanics of the game then blaming the game for that does call into question the degree you enjoy the game.

If the value of failing solo outweighs the use of the games features for the ability to see the rest of it then you voluntarily abandoned the game of your own volition.

 

[starchild excalibur]

I know what you mean. I signed up for a baseball league this summer. I couldn't believe they didn't give me the option just to take 1st base. I didn't want to have an bat I just wanted to be a baserunner.

What a silly, flippant response to a pretty well-articulated point. Yes, let's compare requesting more options in a single player experience to putting you in a competitive advantage over a team sport.

So you'd rather slam your head into a wall and fault the game for the decision you yourself made than use the mechanics built into the game specifically for your scenario?

And the game should be changed to accommodate that whim?

Ok.

Is anyone here saying that developers should be forced to include these options? Or is there mostly just the expression that it would be a nice option? That those who seek to not utilize those changes can play the game as is, and those who want to can do so?

 

[Boss Doggie]

It bothers me more that people compare video games to books and movies as though all of those forms of entertainment are somehow interchangeable with the same hook and aspect.

This is stupid, this wouldn’t affect the design at all...just add a damn “skip boss fight” option...and instead of fading into the boss fight to begin, it skips to the end. This would be like BOTW skip button where you can skip the in between dialogue for the ending dialogue...

the fact that you assume all bosses are segmented already showa the flaw in the thought process as well as the imposed game design. Bosses aren't just segments - they can pretty much be more than that.

And to your BotW example, lets apply that to say, the various Hinox or Talus - which are considered bosses too. The openworldness would be ruined because when they surprise yoy suddenly the game cuts and you find yourself near a dead monster.

The "more options is good" argument is a vacuous one. It has no substance, and could be said about anything wanted from any game ever. Furthermore it's predicated on a hypothetical scenario where adding extraneous things is effortless and doesn't diminish the end product.

this, very much this

 

[Alcotholic]

So you'd rather slam your head into a wall and fault the game for the decision you yourself made than use the mechanics built into the game specifically for your scenario?

And the game should be changed to accommodate that whim?

Ok.



I mean, if you can't be bothered to turn online on and summon help for one boss, yeah. Through I ordinarily don't find myself fond of questioning motivations, I'd say refusal to engage with fundamental mechanics of the game then blaming the game for that does call into question the degree you enjoy the game.

If the value of failing solo outweighs the use of the games features for the ability to see the rest of it then you voluntarily abandoned the game of your own volition.

I view the online aspect a hinderance as opposed to actually helpful. I'm sorry that I haven't engaged with it in the way as it's intended.

 

[DerpHause]

Is anyone here saying that developers should be forced to include these options? Or is there mostly just the expression that it would be a nice option? That those who seek to not utilize those changes can play the game as is, and those who want to can do so?

No, you're saying that because he hit a wall the dev in that instance should have included the option despite the fact that they already created an alternative he refuses to engage with by mocking those who point out that he did just that, refuse to engage with the options presented.

Fundamentally speaking you're talking about options while ignoring that one was included, one that fits the setting and experience they tried to create, just not the one you/he/she want(s).

All we're suggesting is that maybe that does actually speak to the person's value of the experience rather than a lack of options by From.

Maybe it doesn't. I don't know, I'm a filthy summoning casul after all.

Edit: Ok, due to confusing user names I attributed Marmelade's post to you, hence the accusation of mocking. Rereading I see it was a different poster and apologize, starchild excalibur.

I view the online aspect a hinderance as opposed to actually helpful. I'm sorry that I haven't engaged with it in the way as it's intended.

Nothing you need to apologize for. As those favoring skips like to point out, you using or not using a feature has no effect on me. Your enjoyment of the game was the only thing hindered here. I'm just saying you did and still do have a choice.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

First, who cares what you think about what people do with your book THAT THEY PAID FOR. Seriously, why even bring that up? They own it. It doesn't affect you at all. They can do whatever they want.

Second, comparing a story to a boss fight makes no sense. Nothing in a story prevents the reader from continuing. A boss fight that the player can't get through, or doesn't want to get through, does. That is far more detrimental to the creator's intention for the game than a player simply skipping that part.

Finally yes, you should be able to skip boss fights. This is especially true for games that use an entirely different mechanic for the boss fight than for the rest of the game. People requesting this option typically liked the vast majority of the game...EXCEPT for the totally out of place boss fights. When the alternative is for the player to put down the game in disgust and never buy another one in the franchise, there is no possible reason not to allow this option.

I brought up books because the OP compares games to other forms of creative media.

And no, you shouldnt be able to skip boss fights. I am never going to agree with you on this. People whining about boss fights have thousands of games to choose from. If the dev makes a game hard, then it is that dev's prerogative, and trying to force an easy mode into everything is idiotic.

Millenials et al need to end this tiresome crusade against all things difficult. Life isnt fair. Deal with it. Some games are hard. Deal with it. Lots of games are easy. Play those instead if you cant get through the more difficult ones. There are plenty of games I cant get through, despite having played games for 30+ years. I SUCK at bullet hell games and rhythm games, for instance. But those games serve their respective fanbase, and I have no right to demand a 'bypass the hard stuff' ability.

I support any dev that wants to create the next Guitar Hero, Dark Souls, Cuphead, Super Meat Boy, etc, 100%.

 

[jg4xchamp]

Early disclaimer: no if they suddenly added this stuff to video games, it wouldn't suddenly make them bad or unplayable. Assuming it was an optional thing and the bosses were still quality; no harm, no foul on my end. I can still enjoy my game, much in the same way the white tanooki suit helps in Mario Galaxy 2. I can accept that part of the equation.

That all said, no, fuck no even. It bothers me that a journalist/critic with a platform would ask for it, and is fundamentally dismissing a good chunk of the art form he happens to talk about. It shows a lack of appreciation of the fundamentals that built the medium of games, in the first place.

First and foremost - Not all art is meant for everyone. Big produced blockbusters naturally want to aim for as many eye balls as possible. But the films that people who appreciate cinema as an art tend to gas up in any given year aren't built that way. If anything they trust their audience to either have a level of understanding of cinema or pay attention in a manner that the Avengers/Transformers crowd isn't going to do.

Games can work similarly. I can't stand walking games, but the medium isn't better without them. It's fine that they exist and have an audience (plus it creates job opportunities for other designers/artists), much in the same way that difficult games do as well. Plenty of quality of boss fights exist, I'd say they are about as rare as good gameplay. As in: most boss fights are bad, because most games are bad. Simply do the math, what percentage of a years releases are actually good games? You know how many games come out in a year? K, back to my main tangent lol

Gameplay is the language of the medium, and difficulty can be (and is) part of that. It was ridiculous that Helper said you should be able to skip the combat. Yeah whatever consumer wise it's a nice option, and yeah my game isn't ruined just by having the feature. But you do yourself a disservice but experiencing watered down art that way. Actually learning how to play a game, grasping its systems, and handling a boss is pretty core to what the medium is. If the game is about learning these set of mechanics, n the story is built around those mechanics, and then brings up this central point of conflict, that happens to be a boss. Well now handle the boss as a player.

And if you aren't good enough, then you're not good enough. To say that you don't have to be good/competent at games to truly appreciate some of them is a bit of a disservice. You may grasp what's special about how DMC3's combat works or how Street Fighter works or what's cool about Starcraft 2, but I'd go out on a limb and say it's probably a different feeling being able to pull the advanced stuff off, and putting in the work to do it. That is a different understanding and appreciating of the art form, and it is central to what the medium is. Again, I don't care if games suddenly had this option, but I am a bit annoyed that Walker is writing it as some "us vs them" routine if you disagree, because fuck that, it's not.

I have no problem with whoever the fuck "them" is, but I do have a problem when people dismiss the value of gameplay n difficulty as being core to what the art form is. Because it isn't the stories people, those aren't inherent to the medium. It be nice if once in awhile, the more narrative driven side of the gaming community would just accept that they aren't good enough to handle whatever game. If you want to make the argument for "more disabled friendly gamers" ...hey I'm all for shit like bindable controls, difficulty options in games, guides exist, and hey maybe bring back cheat codes. Hell I'm for making games for that type of audience that doesn't really want the reflex driven experience (even if I don't like playing them), in the same way that I think it kind of sucks, that only Nintendo makes quality kid friendly games these days, with a rare Insomniac outing here n there and the random blue moon sonic game.

 

[Xist2inspire]

While I'm generally in favor of gaming (but not necessarily games) being more accessible, and critical of gaming elitism, this article seems like such an unnecessarily dramatic shift to the other side that I can't fully agree with it.

-For one, video games are not movies,
books, or music. Even if you want to make that comparison, a person who skips through entire parts of movies, books, or songs on their first experience and sometimes beyond will usually be looked down upon by those who actually experienced the media as intended. Sound familiar? While it's nice and empowering to have the option to do whatever you want, one must be mindful of the fact that there is usually an intended way to do things. That's life in a nutshell, honestly. A person who purposely skims through the material should not expect to be treated the same and reap the same rewards as the person who does. And a person who does expect that is every bit as arrogant and entitled as the elitist who enforces "how it should be" to an absurd level.

-One unfortunate side effect of gaming's audience getting older, busier, more critical, and more determined to validate their hobby as "art" is that the actual gameplay part of gaming tends to take a backseat to other things. Nowadays it seems like more people want to to experience games in more traditional ways, ways similar to movies/music/books etc. As such, the story and graphics often take precedence over...y'know, playing the game. While there is a place in the industry for desires like this, arguing for the entire medium to adopt these principles really shows a lack of respect for what games are, and indeed, a lact of respect for any form of challenge in general.

-Despite my misgivings on straight-up letting players blow through the actual gameplay, there are ways to make things better. Level selects should always be available after beating the game, because after you've beaten it (on any difficulty), why not let the player go back to wherever they want? Games also have the benefit of being able to adapt to the level of the person playing, so make use of that! Maybe offer a new, easy-to-understand hint after every boss battle death, give the player an increasing number of power-ups after a substantial amount of deaths, or yes, maybe even allow the player to skip it if it becomes clear that they're just not going to beat it. Now none of these need to, or even should, become standard, but it's important to keep in mind that there's a vast middle ground between straight-up "git gud" and "any challenge is optional."

-Going back to my statement that there is a place for "low-gameplay" (but not "no-gameplay") experiences in gaming, it honestly irritates me to no end that the argument for more inclusive experiences in gaming always centers around warping all or most existing products into generic, homogeneous messes, as opposed to expanding gaming's reach by giving other products the same (or at least a reasonable amount of) marketing and respect as the products "for the gamers". The reverse is also true, as I've seen so many arguments on how to improve a series boil down to "throw out anything that could possibly be considered casual", another flawed stance. X does not have to cease to exist for Y to flourish, and if that ever is the case, then something's seriously wrong with at least one of the two. There's room in this industry for just about everything, but this "all-or-nothing" mindset that most fans of gaming, critics of gaming, and creators/publishers of gaming seem to all share is beyond toxic.

-About the "options are always good" mindset...while it is nice to have them, they are not always a complete positive, nor are they essential, especially for art. At some point, you will have to face the work of art on it's terms, not yours, and determine if it's for you or not. And if it's not, that's totally fine. It's not necessarily your fault, and it's not necessarily that work of art's fault, it's just not for you. Offering "options" to change that only warps the work to suit your purposes. I can't change an album's songs to a genre I like better. I can't rewrite the script to a movie or the plot of a book. Those are essential aspects of how the work interacts with me that can be modified, but not changed or ignored, lest they lose some of their impact. By "can be modified", I mean things like difficulty settings, which are akin to re-releases of classic novels which use language that is easier to read. But again, you can't go too far. One could reduce some of the greatest novels ever written to children's books, because "options," but so much would be lost in the process that it begs the question of "why?" Many poorly-done movie/novel adaptions suffer from things like this. While the "option" to view the subject material in a new medium is nice, in reality, the essential aspects of the work don't always translate well. Sometimes all "options" do is deliver a mangled, dumbed-down experience for no real reason other than to force something that isn't for someone on them.

 

[Radnom]

As someone who likes coop and offering help, that's probably less than totally true.

I reckon you're right here. I think when it comes to the skipping boss fights argument, as much as I support it, Dark Souls is a pretty good case for why it shouldn't be global. And I think when it's something that would take huge resources to support, or if the developer simply doesn't want to do it for their own reasons - sure. I see games like Spelunky avoiding a difficulty option on purpose.

Most of the games I mentioned - Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Zelda BOTW, Nier Automata, Mario + Rabbids, Wolfenstein II, Mario Odyssey - I think you could put a 'skip boss', or 'skip gameplay section' button in all of those games. They don't have the online elements or the focus on dark-mood-tied-intrinsically-with-punishing-gameplay Dark Souls has as an argument against its inclusion.

I still think it would be ideal for Dark Souls to have a skip boss option - but I can also recognise times where it might hurt a game for the biggest fans more than it would help bring new people in, and might not be worth the work that needs to be put in to make it happen. Online games or games with online functionality are pretty good contenders for skipping accessibility options in some cases.

I know what you mean. I signed up for a baseball league this summer. I couldn't believe they didn't give me the option just to take 1st base. I didn't want to have an bat I just wanted to be a baserunner.

I don't even know what this means or how it relates. We're talking single player video games here, not real life team sports?

And to your BotW example, lets apply that to say, the various Hinox or Talus - which are considered bosses too. The openworldness would be ruined because when they surprise yoy suddenly the game cuts and you find yourself near a dead monster.

I'm thinking - and I'm guessing a lot of others here are also thinking - that this would be an option - you would pause, choose 'skip encounter' from a menu, and then the game would cut. It shouldn't surprise anyone.
If they wanted to be really clever, they could remove the option to skip if it's an encounter the player is expected to lose (i.e. running into a higher level monster in Xenoblade) and replace it with a 'run away' option instead.


Another thing to consider, this option doesn't even necessarily need to be skipping hard encounters. Think about how in Earthbound, when you are over leveled, you destroy enemies on contact instead of even loading up the combat screen. That's the equivalent of 'skip encounter' because it'd be too boring and repetitive to play it over and over.

 

[DerpHause]

Most of the games I mentioned - Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Zelda BOTW, Nier Automata, Mario + Rabbids, Wolfenstein II, Mario Odyssey - I think you could put a 'skip boss', or 'skip gameplay section' button in all of those games. They don't have the online elements or the focus on dark-mood-tied-intrinsically-with-punishing-gameplay Dark Souls has as an argument against its inclusion.

Of the games you mentioned, I've played Nier:A and HZD. While I agree HZD could endure a boss skip without consequence, I'm not sure I'd agree on Nier:A, not without a fundamental rework of how exposition and plot/character development occur during some fights. Some fights mind you, others not so much.

And as someone who enjoys games I'd like to see more approaches like Nier:A as opposed to less to accommodate skips without affecting story/world/character building. It's that sort of disjointed sequence that the article actually complains about, and yet it's that kind of design that allows for the authors request to function.

Which feels a bit ironic to me.

 

[Perineum]

Whatever. Put it in a super liquid casual mode I guess.

The ONLY reason I see this as a thing is for the disabled. Otherwise this should not exist. You are playing a game to enjoy all parts of it, and if you can't complete some part, like bosses, then simply turn the difficulty down or go play something more suited for your skill set.

Not everyone has to play a Souls game from start to finish, complete it, and enjoy it. The game market isn't a one size fits all glove. I suck at RTS, I tried for a year to learn and play SC2 when it came out. I made it to Diamond back when Diamond was the highest you could go if I recall correctly. Fighting games? I couldn't even do a SRK back when SF4 came out. I worked hard as hell to get good at fighters over years and years of playing and getting my ass kicked.

Do I think RTS needs to get rid of macro to make it easier for me? Do fighters need one button everythings? No. Hell no. You are stripping the experience down to barely anything.

It is ok to suck at something, get frustrated, and leave it alone. There is thousands of games out there for a variety of players fashioned for all tastes.

So again, skipping bosses fine if you pack it it only liquid casual mode for the disabled players out there trying to enjoy an experience as best as they can. To be fair though that just shits on disabled players like BrolyLegs who overcome those handicaps and come out champs due to dedication. He probably would scoff at skip boss options, because he wants to play the same game as you, and kick ass at it even though he has to work harder to do so.

 

[Radnom]

Of the games you mentioned, I've played Nier:A and HZD. While I agree HZD could endure a boss skip without consequence, I'm not sure I'd agree on Nier:A, not without a fundamental rework of how exposition and plot/character development occur during some fights. Some fights mind you, others not so much.

And as someone who enjoys games I'd like to see more approaches like Nier:A as opposed to less to accommodate skips without affecting story/world/character building. It's that sort of disjointed sequence that the article actually complains about, and yet it's that kind of design that allows for the authors request to function.

Which feels a bit ironic to me.

Yeah - there are definitely cases, especially in modern games, where boss fights have been particularly well integrated into the story. Maybe the method for 'skipping' the boss is actually to set the player to god mode and the boss's hit points to 1 so that it's very quickly resolved but the player still needs to manually trigger the stages of the fight and thus trigger the exposition. Or maybe the cost for skipping the boss battle is that you miss out on a potentially great bit of interaction, in the same way that skipping a cutscene might have you miss out on something important.

Whatever. Put it in a super liquid casual mode I guess.

The ONLY reason I see this as a thing is for the disabled. Otherwise this should not exist. You are playing a game to enjoy all parts of it, and if you can't complete some part, like bosses, then simply turn the difficulty down or go play something more suited for your skill set.

That's the ONLY reason? You disagree with these other reasons?

• Played it before, find the boss tedious/not fun
• Played it before, find the boss too easy and don't want to waste time
• Played it before, already perfected it, trying to learn to speed run the section after it
• Want to show a friend a cool moment later in the game
• Sometimes it's fun to cheat - 'IDDQD' is legendary as a famous cheat code. There are probably thousands of people that could still input a GTA cheat code from memory. This person's using God Mode in Doom to blow off steam. I had an example earlier of Civilization including cheats menu in the game's menu that I really enjoyed playing around with as a kid. Lode Runner: The Legend Returns in my display picture had a similar thing, cheats from a dropdown. If I recall correctly, there was a skip level option. It didn't ruin the game.
• Some people enjoy the story parts of the game more than the boss battles. Maybe they really enjoy the story of Horizon: Zero Dawn but find the bigger battles too stressful.
• Maybe the boss battles are broken or don't support the player's preferred gameplay style, i.e. the Deus Ex Human Revolution example I brought up in a previous post.
• And then, maybe this one boss battle is simply too hard for the player and they don't want to play it.

Do I think RTS needs to get rid of macro to make it easier for me? Do fighters need one button everythings? No. Hell no. You are stripping the experience down to barely anything.

I don't see how 'Skip Boss Battle' relates to removing macro from an RTS or making fighting games one-button. You're stripping the discussion down to barely anything.

 

[Afrodium]

It bothers me more that people compare video games to books and movies as though all of those forms of entertainment are somehow interchangeable with the same hook and aspect.

I wouldn't say that being able to flip to any page to a book or fast forward to any part of a film are hooks of those mediums, just things you can do of you want to. There's a general understanding that you don't read a book by flipping to random pages or watch a movie by selecting the coolest scene in the select, and therefore those options don't really impact the overall way people consume the content. You've always had the option to skip verbose passages in books or grisly movie scenes, but you don't due to an understanding that you're not supposed to. I don't see why some option to skip to any part of a game couldn't be treated exactly the same and easily ignored by anyone who doesn't want to do that.

 

[lumzi23]

The point is how much of a game do you actually skip of a game before the act of playing it actually becomes meaningless.

I feel that not every game needs to have the same design. I personally believe in the spectrum approach for games. Some games like Dark Souls don't need an easy button. Some like your average Bioware game don't need well defined protag characters. Your average Bethesda RPG takes that further by giving you complete control of character creation (gender, race, species). Others like your Uncharted, Metal gear and Tomb Raider give you well establish main characters.

Some games tell their stories through cutscenes, others through dialogue trees. Some don't have stories. Others are "walking simulators" that are more for story/experiences.

My issue with this guy statements is that they sort of seem unilateral. Like every game should have those things.

What joy it would be for me personally if every game was a Bioware style game in the vein of Kotor. Or if every multiplayer game was to my taste. But what about all the other people out there who like other things. Should they have to play only the kind of games I like.

The author makes an argument regarding something like a "what if I pressed the button" situation that the people against this might encounter. From what I have understood from people over the years, part of thing about a challenging game is finding every which way to overcome the challenge. I guess his solution that you can turn of these settings in the menu before the game starts is valid...

But where does the line end? Where does it become a situation where the entire game has no identity. "I don't like scary games so let me turn Alien: Isolation into Super Mario Bros?" Sounds preposterous but I think it is pulling at the same strings that the author is mocking. Where is the line? I personally don't care for Boss Battles but I am not calling for them to be completely removed from gaming. It seems different from what he is saying but is it really? I don't like scary games so the next Resident Evil should have what, a 'no fear' mode? A walk around the colorfully reimagined locale painting it with bright colors? There is already a game for that, it is called Splatoon.

Just like I have Kotor (maybe a third one if Bioware stop messing around) and that guy has Persona and this guy has Dishonored etc.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I don't think every game has to have this or that.

 

[jrDev]

The "more options is good" argument is a vacuous one. It has no substance, and could be said about anything wanted from any game ever. Furthermore it's predicated on a hypothetical scenario where adding extraneous things is effortless and doesn't diminish the end product.

I’m sorry, what specifically is extraneous about having a skip boss fight button lol?

 

[Wookieomg]

I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of skipping major components of a game simply for more accessibility's sake. While I am all for more people getting to experience entertainment, the comparison being made between like.. movies or books, to video games, just doesn't work out in my mind.

Idk if this point has been made yet, but the interactive nature of video games vs the passive nature of movies/books are very different mediums. So wanting to turn an interactive experience - that generally speaking, requires a modicum of input skill from the player - into what boils down to a cinematic, passive experience.. seems counterintuitive for the medium you're wanting to change things in.

Though I'm also in agreement that once you buy a product, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. However, if said product involves an interactive nature that requires some form of activity from the player beyond mere passivity like films or books, then I don't know if asking for the simplification of that medium makes much sense. Kinda defeats the purpose imo.

 

[Boss Doggie]

I wouldn't say that being able to flip to any page to a book or fast forward to any part of a film are hooks of those mediums, just things you can do of you want to. There's a general understanding that you don't read a book by flipping to random pages or watch a movie by selecting the coolest scene in the select, and therefore those options don't really impact the overall way people consume the content. You've always had the option to skip verbose passages in books or grisly movie scenes, but you don't due to an understanding that you're not supposed to. I don't see why some option to skip to any part of a game couldn't be treated exactly the same and easily ignored by anyone who doesn't want to do that.

See the thing is that those aren't the only entertainment media for people to consume, it's just that people use those things because they go for a quick, selective, biased comparison. You don't see them, say, refer to TV programs or movies which require more fiddling with stuff like recording in order to "skip" or buying a home release, or stuff like watching live concert or opera. It's why I'm against making broad comparisons to entertainment media.

It's why I believe the comparison of boss fights to cutscenes (and not just cutscenes, but longwinded dialog scenes) is terrible.

I'm thinking - and I'm guessing a lot of others here are also thinking - that this would be an option - you would pause, choose 'skip encounter' from a menu, and then the game would cut. It shouldn't surprise anyone.
If they wanted to be really clever, they could remove the option to skip if it's an encounter the player is expected to lose (i.e. running into a higher level monster in Xenoblade) and replace it with a 'run away' option instead.

Another thing to consider, this option doesn't even necessarily need to be skipping hard encounters. Think about how in Earthbound, when you are over leveled, you destroy enemies on contact instead of even loading up the combat screen. That's the equivalent of 'skip encounter' because it'd be too boring and repetitive to play it over and over.

I am viewing it under the optional view. That's why I said that it is still a bit of an annoyance since you're immersed and somehow options pop out. It's why people still complain about the weapon changing in Zelda. Like that aspect is intrinsic in the openworld style. It's like asking for a bubble option midway in a bullet hell.

EB example is more of QoL than actual "skip boss" narrative. No differen tthan say, Pokemon's quick run away or Super Ninja Boy's "make them pass" option.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Bring back cheat codes. Problem solved.

Seriously, I miss cheats so much. They allowed less skilled players (of which I am one now, and was even more so as a child) to actually see all that a game had to offer, and provided fun extras to allow you to enjoy the game in different ways.

It really would solve this whole thing if devs started providing them again.

 

[Kintaro]

Funny how some love to compare games to movies/music/books but only do it with it is convenient for their argument. Like, they wish it continue to be special, but want it to still be like other forms of entertainment.

But sure. Go for it. I am not sure how into it the industry will be though considering it already faces a challenge in getting people to part with $60 to begin with. Now you risk giving them the option to skip everything? Not sure how that would work out.

But more options the better in the end.

 

[Perineum]

Yeah - there are definitely cases, especially in modern games, where boss fights have been particularly well integrated into the story. Maybe the method for 'skipping' the boss is actually to set the player to god mode and the boss's hit points to 1 so that it's very quickly resolved but the player still needs to manually trigger the stages of the fight and thus trigger the exposition. Or maybe the cost for skipping the boss battle is that you miss out on a potentially great bit of interaction, in the same way that skipping a cutscene might have you miss out on something important.



That's the ONLY reason? You disagree with these other reasons?

• Played it before, find the boss tedious/not fun
• Played it before, find the boss too easy and don't want to waste time
• Played it before, already perfected it, trying to learn to speed run the section after it
• Want to show a friend a cool moment later in the game
• Sometimes it's fun to cheat - 'IDDQD' is legendary as a famous cheat code. There are probably thousands of people that could still input a GTA cheat code from memory. This person's using God Mode in Doom to blow off steam. I had an example earlier of Civilization including cheats menu in the game's menu that I really enjoyed playing around with as a kid. Lode Runner: The Legend Returns in my display picture had a similar thing, cheats from a dropdown. If I recall correctly, there was a skip level option. It didn't ruin the game.
• Some people enjoy the story parts of the game more than the boss battles. Maybe they really enjoy the story of Horizon: Zero Dawn but find the bigger battles too stressful.
• Maybe the boss battles are broken or don't support the player's preferred gameplay style, i.e. the Deus Ex Human Revolution example I brought up in a previous post.
• And then, maybe this one boss battle is simply too hard for the player and they don't want to play it.

I don't see how 'Skip Boss Battle' relates to removing macro from an RTS or making fighting games one-button. You're stripping the discussion down to barely anything.

Upon completing the game I see no issue with turning off bosses in a separate mode. Cinema mode or speed run mode, or chapter select or whatever.

The core experience needs to be a fluid one from start to finish and one that should require completing the base content. Not one that lets you cherry pick what you want to do as if they were shitty side quests in a open world game. Bosses are generally integral to the core game experience crafted the designer wants you to experience at least once from start to end.

Once you beat it all bets are off though, and is fine.

 

[aBarreras]

even better idea, why dont the games play for you on boss fights and you just enjoy a truly cinemantic piece.

 

[vocab]

I think the issue is that some games shouldnt do bosses at all. When I play an rpg I expect boss fights.

 

[Japanmanx3]

The "more options is good" argument is a vacuous one. It has no substance, and could be said about anything wanted from any game ever. Furthermore it's predicated on a hypothetical scenario where adding extraneous things is effortless and doesn't diminish the end product.

Hear, hear. All games are not meant to be for everyone. That's ok.

 

[PaulloDEC]

The ONLY reason I see this as a thing is for the disabled. Otherwise this should not exist. You are playing a game to enjoy all parts of it, and if you can't complete some part, like bosses, then simply turn the difficulty down or go play something more suited for your skill set.

This reminds me of my experience with Bloodborne and the item duplication glitch. Had I not used that glitch to boost myself a little, I'd likely have stopped playing out of frustration only a couple of hours in.

Instead, I ended up completing the game and had a fantastic, challenging time doing so. It's one of the best experiences I've had on the PS4.

And yet there's people who'd tell me I shouldn't have been allowed to have that great experience, because it's the wrong way to play the game. That I should've gone and played something else, because not every game is for every person.

 

[jrDev]

This reminds me of my experience with Bloodborne and the item duplication glitch. Had I not used that glitch to boost myself a little, I'd likely have stopped playing out of frustration only a couple of hours in.

Instead, I ended up completing the game and had a fantastic, challenging time doing so. It's one of the best experiences I've had on the PS4.

And yet there's people who'd tell me I shouldn't have been allowed to have that great experience, because it's the wrong way to play the game. That I should've gone and played something else, because not every game is for every person.

.

 

[zeexlash]

The comparison to books and movies seems to be where this falls down, yes you can skip ahead in those but why would you, and who would advocate doing that?

It's the nature of the medium itself rather than something the author has put in, so an equivalent to a boss skip option might be selling an alternative version of a novel with certain chapters missing, which obviously seems ridiculous..

 

[texhnolyze]

I don't want to play with other people. My souls experiences are solo. I also hate it when people invade my realm- Ruins the game for me. So I turn off the online aspect.

How about getting help from NPC summons?

I'm actually on the same boat as you. I never play my Souls game online because I hate it when people invade my game. Even in DS2 I had to tinker with my PC's firewall so that I can stay online while actually offline in-game. However, when I'm totally stuck on a boss fight, I won't hesitate to summon an NPC to help.

 

[myco666]

Why just bosses? Why not regular combat sections, puzzles and exploration too?

 

[yanipheonu]

A central premise to many video games is that it is a challenge that you are participating it. This includes the possibility of failure.

If you fail at the boss, you've failed to meet the challenge. You played a game and lost. You can choose to play again or give up.

Certainly some games will have optional bosses, or may even allow for skipping a particular section.

But many games remain a challenge that can lead to failure. It's just something you have to accept with most games.

 

[GasProblem]

Just bring back cheat codes. If someone finished the game and just wants to blast through it while being invincible, let them. If someone has an younger brother/cousin that really enjoys a game but can't get through it on it's own, let them enable some cheat codes to make it easier. I appreciate Nintendo for adding things like Mellow mode to Yoshi or an auto pilot to Mario Kart 8.

 

[Jintor]

iddqd baby

i played through doom, og-ass shareware doom, with cheats enabled like a baby. i ain't afraid to admit that. i had a fucking blast

 

[DrunkShogun]

It's single player mode so the player can do whatever they want I guess. At the same time I don't think any developer owes it to theyre audience to change their game if they don't want to.

 

[Alcotholic]

How about getting help from NPC summons?

I'm actually on the same boat as you. I never play my Souls game online because I hate it when people invade my game. Even in DS2 I had to tinker with my PC's firewall so that I can stay online while actually offline in-game. However, when I'm totally stuck on a boss fight, I won't hesitate to summon an NPC to help.

I didn't know NPCs were available. Sweet.

 

[sephiroth7x]

I am totally for this...

Not because I would use it because I know I wouldn't... I enjoy boss fights and I enjoy the journey of the game and the feeling that I have earned my place in the game.

But it opens the game up for so many people who may just want to experience it and being stuck at one point sucks you out of the game. I know so many people who 'get stuck and give up' that the rest of the game is ignored and they miss great scenes and stories due to this.

It might, (maybe?), make developers try new ways of trying to keep people from skipping? Spend more time crafting better bosses or fights rather than making bullet sponges. Its interesting anyway... and if it brings more people into gaming then I am all for it!

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Games like Cuphead and Shadow of the Colossus are John Walker's worst nightmare.

You jest, but you're pretty much right. Why do you think we've suddenly seen an influx of these types of articles and threads?

Like I said earlier, "Games should be for everybody" actually means "All games should be for one specific audience." What we're seeing now is that audience seeing a fairly high-profile game (Cuphead) that sticks to its artistic ideas doesn't cater to this audience. And just like RPG Codex types lashing out at everything that isn't a '90s PC game, this audience is lashing out towards anything that doesn't fit snugly within their comfort zone.

 

[Metal B]

Who jumps forward in a movie, book or series the first time? Stories like games build on the parts, which came before them. Imagining skip one part, just makes the overall experience worse from that point on forward. In good games boss battles are a final test of your skills, which you learned through a stage. After that point the game-designer can be certain, the player has mastered those skills and can build around them new challenges.
If the player could just skip those parts in the first playthrough, it could create a downwards spirale, where the new challenges become unnecessary harder, since the player skipped important tests.

After the first playthrough the player should be able to skip parts, either through savepoints or other options.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

How about we also skip work, and just use the money to do whatever?
How about we also skip medicine and just get healthy right here, right now?
How about we also skip game development, just give me the game so I can skip the boss fights and everything else?

Seriously though, do something. Earn that ending, you goddamn cheap bastard.

I can understand people wanting to skip cutscenes, because you don't do anything in them.
I can understand people wanting to start at the boss phase they were last because they died to the boss's final attack.

But outright wanting to skip boss fights?
What kinda pussies are these people?

Back in my days we couldn't even save the game!
So get off my lawn with your cheap ass "skip the boss fight" nonsense bullcrap.
[/grumpy old ass oldschool gamer]

 

[autoduelist]

I don't understand why people think everything needs to be tailored for them.

Some literature has advanced vocabulary, symbology, and required knowledge to understand. Comprehension is not a given - it would require effort on the part of the reader. Some easy examples are Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow. Heck, even Don Quixote requires a fair amount of background knowledge to truly understand it.

They don't need an 'easy' mode. If you don't want the challenge, or can't handle the challenge, or don't have time for the challenge... that's on you. Go read something else.

Reading the cliff notes won't solve your problem. Anyone who thinks reading a summary of a book is the same as actually reading it is wrong.

I mean, let's just think of a puzzle game... anyone using a guide to just speed run a game like Portal or The Witness or whatever isn't actually -experiencing- the fulfillment of solving puzzles. Sure, they're experiencing something... but it sure as hell isn't the game itself.

So why should action games be different? Why do they need a skip button? If you can't handle the difficultly of the game, find another game. I can platinum D*Souls. I can beat Nethack. I'm trash at fighting games. I'm great at dual stick shooters but not that great at shmups. I don't ask for games I'm bad at to have an easy mode... because clearly if they're acclaimed then that just means they're not my thing.

So be it. Find what you love, do what you love, enjoy what you love. And leave the stuff other people love alone.

 

[Hoshigumi]

Lets face it, how long would it be before they were charging micro transactions to skip boss fights.

And you KNOW people would pay for it.

 

[Steiner84]

this is the worst idea ive heard all week.

 

[Vitten]

lol, this shit is getting ridiculous. Games are already so easy this generation and some people still aren't satisfied.

I really don't understand why they bother playing games in the first place. Just watch a playthrough on Youtube and call it quits. Or perhaps go and read a book or something.

 

[daninthemix]

I have always advocated giving people access to the content they've paid for, irrespective of skill or difficulty preference (they may well have the skill, but find checkpoint retries a tedious, unentertaining process that defeats the purpose of the entertainment product they've purchased).

 

[matrix-cat]

I don't know why people get upset by this kind of thing. I generally find bossfights to be the high points of games and I'd don't think I'd ever use the option, but of course it should be there. Same with difficulty modes, accessibility options, full button-remapping, subtitles and any number of other things. If it's buried in a menu and defaults to off then it will never affect you in any way.

Remember that thread about "Why does gaming still have an uncool stereotype"? It's stuff like this; people who want to keep their little club exclusive by not allowing anyone in who doesn't have two working hands and the requisite decade of muscle memory built up.

 

[Earthpainting]

lol, this shit is getting ridiculous. Games are already so easy this generation and some people still aren't satisfied.

I really don't understand why they bother playing games in the first place. Just watch a playthrough on Youtube and call it quits. Or perhaps go and read a book or something.

I don't know about that. I heard that some of these casual scrubs even have vision correcting spectacles. If you ask me, if they can't read or watch anything by their own abilities, they should pick another hobby like listening to music, unless they have hearing issues, in which case they should just stand in place and blend into the scenery for their leisure time. Accommodating these people is enabling their laziness and lessens the accomplishments of the people who can appreciate the purity of the media. Personally I blame the education system, which compromised the classical Latin-Greek education by offering easy alternatives, creating generations of weak-minded lesser beings.

 

[palazuelos]

Life doesn't allow us skip problems and challenges. Why the games should do?

 

[King Tubby]

I don't see why it would be a problem for a game to have a "super-easy mode" or an option that lets you skip a difficult part, if it doesn't affect the experience of people who don't use them. Whenever a game asks if I want to play on Easy after dying a few times, I just reject the prompt; I don't become upset that the game can potentially be "dumbed down" for people who aren't as good as I am.

I don't think every game necessarily needs it, or that developers should make too much of an effort to include it if it's too difficult, but I also don't see how its inclusion negatively affects my enjoyment of the game. Hell, being able to skip really boring, tedious elements of a game might make me more willing to go back and replay certain games.

Of all the issues people have with MGSV, for example, I never heard anyone bring up the Chicken Hat.

 

[Opinionatedfish]

I would make it an option you purchase via dlc.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I don't know about that. I heard that some of these casual scrubs even have vision correcting spectacles. If you ask me, if they can't read or watch anything by their own abilities, they should pick another hobby like listening to music, unless they have hearing issues, in which case they should just stand in place and blend into the scenery for their leisure time. Accommodating these people is enabling their laziness and lessens the accomplishments of the people who can appreciate the purity of the media. Personally I blame the education system, which compromised the classical Latin-Greek education by offering easy alternatives, creating generations of weak-minded lesser beings.

Would you say that movies should compromise their visual identity because some people have trouble distinguishing between colors? Would you say that Cormac McCarthy should make an Easy Mode version of Blood Meridian with all the big words taken out, even though this would massively compromise the book's identity and storytelling?

I don't get why developers are morally obliged to make it so that anybody can complete their games, artistic vision be damned.