Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

60 dollars is not an insignificant amount of money to spend on an entertainment product and players have every right to expect that for that amount of money all skill levels will be catered for. If the tools and options available in-game do not allow a player of a particular skill level to progress past a particular point that is a failure of the developer not the player.

Games have long since evolved past the point where most people see them purely as tests of skill or reflexes. To say that players should just get good to see the rest of the game they spent good money on is archaic.

You assume games are about the audiovisual content. No, they are also about interactivity. When you play your game without the challenge and skipping things you are not getting the full value of the game, because the game never was about only seeing what animations there are and what some characters say.

Games don't cost that amount of money because of the audiovisual things in the game. The don't cost that amount of money because someone wrote a story for that game.

They cost that amount of money because of all kinds of coding and programming they did to make the audiovisual things you see and hear to be interactive. The biggest part of making a game is to program the game to make something happen when you as the player do things with your controller. And huge part of the time that is put into the programming of the game goes into making all kinds of different scenarios where the player actively tries to overcome an obstacle of some sort. And more time already went into carefully planning what they will make the player to encounter and what it requires from the player to overcome the obstacle and how much of an obstacle the obstacle needs to be. Programming that is complex and time consuming work. That is the main thing you are paying for when you are buying a video game.

You definitely will not see everything there is to see in the game even if you actually saw every visual thing there is, because part of what you can see in the game comes from the challenging situations.


Imagine going in one of the Escape Room live games.
If you can't solve the game in the required time would you demand the creators to show the rooms you didn't get into and the puzzles you didn't find?
Would you think you are entitled to see everything there is because you paid lots of money to play the game?

Everyone has the same opportunity to finish any game if they have the desire to see it through.

Beyond people who are unfortunately severely physically disabled, there is not a single person on NeoGAF who does not have the ability (has been given the opportunity) to finish Dark Souls. Everyone here can beat Cuphead, if they want. Everyone here can beat Cuphead on Expert mode with all S ranks - if they want. The issue here is not a matter of "opportunity".

Great post, I 100% agree.

 

[DerpHause]

Their target audience would still play the game with no compromises whatsoever.

Like, how's giving us options different than asking a friend to finish a boss fight for me?
If anything, I'm compromising my own the experience. Not the devs. Not yours. Not anyone else's.

So basically you say you have a workaround for authorial intent, so that intent doesn't matter and they should allow you to skip it? Sure, you can argue that, but a dev doesn't have to enable you to render the reason they created the experience moot.

And if you're not interested in the experience they're creating, why are they going out of their way to potentially reduce the population that would experience it as intended through an effortless instant skip in the hopes that someone else who doesn't care about the narrative still doesn't see it?

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Easy mode, story mode, skippable fights...

At a certain point you have to ask yourself why bother with this particular game?

Games aren't cheap, why play something you know you're not going to enjoy?

On the flip side, western developers really should start to git gud with boss encounter designs.

 

[Airola]

Easy mode, story mode, skippable fights...

At a certain point you have to ask yourself why bother with this particular game?

Games aren't cheap, why play something you know you're not going to enjoy?

Because someone has made animations and sounds and has spoken some words and everyone should be entitled to see and hear them all. It's just too unbearable to not see an animation when an animation exists.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Making the game easier would be a compromise.
Giving us an option to skip a fight is not a compromise. It's just an option.

Options, by their nature, are available to the player. Therefore they make the game easier by their very existence. You could perhaps argue that a game is truly only as difficult as its easiest setting. What is including a skip feature if not a compromise to make sure everyone who plays your game will see it through to the end?

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I've read over 100,00 books in my lifetime by skipping to the last word on the last page.

 

[DerpHause]

Options, by their nature, are available to the player. Therefore they make the game easier by their very existence. You could perhaps argue that a game is truly only as difficult as its easiest setting. What is including a skip feature if not a compromise to make sure everyone who plays your game will see it through to the end?

<pedant>Shouldn't that be "see the end" as opposed to "see it through to the end" in the case of a skip as there are parts of the through you explicitly didn't see in that case?</pedant>

 

[Ascheroth]

In the old days of yore if you wanted to watch a certain TV show you had to turn on your TV at the time it aired and watch it from beginning to end. You didn't have time? Tough luck.
The solution to this was not to demand film-makers to change their works.
Instead recording technology got created and you could henceforth record your show and watch it afterwards.

Don't demand that developers include every little thing you can think of in their games, demand that the system that plays the games gives you the ability to modify it to your needs, with mods and cheats.

I mean, if you're going to compare games to movies and books, go all the way instead of stopping halfway.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I've read over 100,00 books in my lifetime by skipping to the last word on the last page.

Ah, and now we can see the truth. Wants-to-skip-contentGAF is secretly BacklogGAF!

 

[Kusagari]

We have Youtube and Let's Plays for every game on the planet now.

If you're going to skip half of a game, what's the point of even playing it? Just watch a Let's Play and be done with it.

 

[Duchess O'Death]

We have Youtube and Let's Plays for every game on the planet now.

If you're going to skip half of a game, what's the point of even playing it? Just watch a Let's Play and be done with it.

If you don't want to skip a boss fight just don't skip it and be done with it.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Because someone has made animations and sounds and has spoken some words and everyone should be entitled to see and hear them all. It's just too unbearable to not see an animation when an animation exists.

I know you are being facetious, but hell, that argument becomes even sillier when you consider the fact that Youtube let's plays exist for almost every game ever now xD

 

[DerpHause]

If you don't want to skip a boss fight just don't skip it and be done with it.

That statement in no way counters the bad value proposition of paying $60 to not play parts of what you paid for.

 

[Manu]

That statement in no way counters the bad value proposition of paying $60 to not play parts of what you paid for.

Especially when the argument used as an excuse to do this "I should be able to experience the whole game" by skipping parts of it.

 

[Ricker]

Guys,I didnt read any of the replies,seriously,but I am willing to bet that the majority said GTFO...am I right...?

 

[CookTrain]

Guys,I didnt read any of the replies,seriously,but I am willing to bet that the majority said GTFO...am I right...?

You skipped the hard part of the thread to get to the part you wanted... posting!

 

[Ricker]

You skipped the hard part of the thread to get to the part you wanted... posting!

I will read it now lol...

 

[Kinyou]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

So if you buy a 1000 piece puzzle do you also demand that you'll be able to complete it without any effort?

The challenge is part of what the dev is selling

 

[GlitchyDegree]

I'm starting to really dislike this Commentocracy thing. Not because of the video itself, Jim is cool, but I'm seeing it used way too often to counter arguments that are completely reasonable and well explained.

Disagree with someone? "Oh, you'll end up on that Jim Sterling thing!", that's rubbish. It's basically shutting up dissonant opinions with the threat of ridicule.

Not to mention that the whole "why does it bother you when people enjoy games differently than you" is a strawman. No one is bothered by the way people play games that are already out, we're talking about games going forward, and design philosophies. We're discussing what the ideal forms of game balance and accessibility options are in our opinions, and what should or shouldn't be required of devs.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

The whole comparison with other media should make this very obvious. You can skip pages in a book due to the nature of books, you can fast forward dvds because that's how they work, you can't go to a cinema and fast forward, because when you don't have control over the hardware playing the movie, you're forced to experience it in the way the creators envisioned, for better or worse. No one expects them to include such option in their dvds in case there's a dvd player that doesn't allow that by default. Would it be cool if cheats came back? Sure. You know what's even more useful than hoping, though? Using Cheat Engine like you did, and applying that to any game you want. If that's only available in one platform, well, that's not the game developer's fault.

If Netflix out of nowhere stopped allowing users to fast forward or use chapter select, would you complain to each film maker or to Netflix? I know it's a terrible comparison that doesn't really makes sense in the context of videogames, but that's precisely the point, it should never have been used in the first place, it's nonsense. By comparing games to other forms of entertainment that are widely recognized as art, you'll push people who are a bit insecure about games being art in their current form to agree with you out of principle. If books and films do it, then it must be the right thing. Except that's not even true between those two art forms, as you can see in the movie theater example, where, unlike books, you're not able to skip anything in its original form.

This is a good post.

 

[zMiiChy-]

I've read over 100,00 books in my lifetime by skipping to the last word on the last page.

That's really impressive.
I envy the amount of free time you must have.

 

[Lemstar]

do able-bodied players trotting out "accessibility" as a shield realize how patronizing and messed up that is
here's a video of someone playing dark souls with one finger so that you guys can stop doing that


That argument about devs/publishers are losing out on maximizing revenue by not going out of their way to appeal to people who'd be put off by difficulty strikes me as concern trolling. When the poster boy for this entire line of discussion is the Souls series, which became the mainstream success it is because of its reputation for difficulty, it makes no sense that diluting it to be a generic medieval fantasy adventure game would have made it more successful.
(Ironically, the Souls games aren't even that mechanically demanding.)

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Guys,I didnt read any of the replies,seriously,but I am willing to bet that the majority said GTFO...am I right...?

If this post was a metaphor for what happens when you skip a key part of a process... all I can say is, well done.

 

[RedSwirl]

Platforms run code. Code has to explicitly create and enable a feature. If we're talking about comparing the inherent differences in media we have to acknowledge that it takes 0 effort to create a video or book one can skip through since the mediums inherently support the act.

One doesn't explicitly need to create the ability to access a page in a series of pages or a image in a sequence of images, that's fundamental to the nature of the way information on those media is packaged. That's not the case for media that's sequentially dependent on occurrences in that instance of the media prior. As such it's not a given that skipping is ever costless to implement on the game or platform level.

I was just lamenting at that whole nature of video games and how it's most pronounced on consoles. On PC this problem is solved by simply giving users more control. On mobile it's solved by the platform forcing developers into certain constraints to make things easier on users.

Right, it's accessibility rather than ubiquity in ownership driven by other, more essential functions on the mobile side, or by open platforms allowing less curation (while ironically falling well behind console in sales in many "mainstream" genres).

I didn't say accessibility was the SOLE reason. I said it was PART of the reason. A primary reason is indeed the fact that you primarily buy a console for one reason. Accessibility in my opinion does play a part though. People buy Kindles and DVD players for one reason, but that by itself doesn't really limit their appeal. Maybe another part of it is the interface, but that brings us back to the whole discussion over why the Wii and Kinect existed. Maybe another issue is how western console gaming is too dominated by action games.

All I'm saying is, there's probably more that can be done to make the basic operation of console video games more accessible to more people. I just don't think adding a level select at the beginning of Uncharted or or Dishonored would ruin it. I think it would help in certain situations and I think hardly anyone would abuse it. I don't think it would change the way people design games at all. Developers would still design them to be played from start to finish. Did level select really ruin how Black Ops III's campaign was designed? Let people do what they want with their games. If someone else skips a boss fight, does that really ruin your enjoyment of a game?

And when I say "mainstream PC games," I'm talking about stuff like Blizzard games, LoL, games of that tier that are played by tens of millions of people. Or even other less well-known PC games that are still played by lots of people who don't normally play console games at all (like simulators for instance).

It seems like we're rewriting history here, or at least creating the assumption that gaming is not a widespread hobby either by excluding casual gaming or presuming that casual gaming isn't being catered to on the platforms most suited to it, thus making consoles a poor alternative for that segment. Rather, it's the fault of games not made for that segment for not being made for that segment somehow.

So is this basically an acceptance that console games in general are only ever going to appeal to a certain audience? I think this is part of why they've failed to grow as fast as other sectors in recent years

 

[Radnom]

Because the developers don't have to spend time, money, or thoughts on cheats.
They make the game however they want to. If the player disagrees with some of that, he can use cheats to circumvent it and play however he wants to.
Again, this makes 1) clear that it's a "on your own risk" thing, because the game isn't designed around it and 2) doesn't need the devs to do anything

Pretty much every game I've worked on has had some form of 'skip' cheat used internally because developers and testers can't play through the entire game every time they want to play a certain segment. You don't know how much time, money or thoughts will be spent on a skip in any given game unless you're working on it, and frankly developer budget doesn't really come into this discussion - this is a discussion about players asking developers for a Skip Boss Fight option. If a developer says "No, we can't or don't want to for whatever reason", that's fine. Of course they don't have to spend time, money, or thoughts on cheats, in the same way that they don't have to spend them on resolution options, or subtitles, or a button to skip cutscenes. They can make the game how they want. But there is a large amount of people here saying they want the option, and for some reason a large amount of people here saying the option shouldn't even exist.

That seems strange to me. It's like if one person posted in a game's OT "I'd like there to be an option to support a Cutscene Skip" and someone else replies "No they shouldn't support it, that'll take developer time to add". The original statement is "I'd like this", the response is a misguided "You shouldn't have it". Even if it did take too much developer time to add and it never gets implemented, the original statement still stands: the game would be more enjoyable for the first poster if a skip was added, and the second poster, not being a developer on the project, has no influence on the outcome either way. It's not up to the random poster whether the expanded audience is worth the development cost, that's up to the dev teams.

This topic isn't about demanding skips be a mandatory feature in literally every game, it's about some people who would enjoy the option to skip boss fights in some games where it could be applicable.

We have Youtube and Let's Plays for every game on the planet now.

If you're going to skip half of a game, what's the point of even playing it? Just watch a Let's Play and be done with it.

Please read the posts in the topic before posting.There are plenty of reasons to have an option to skip boss fights that aren't just 'skipping half the game'.

I've read over 100,00 books in my lifetime by skipping to the last word on the last page.

No you haven't, and that doesn't even come into this discussion. If you skip to the last word of the last page, you didn't read the book, you read the last word. If someone skips a boss fight the first time they encounter it, no, I wouldn't say they beat the game, and I wouldn't expect them to get a trophy or achievement for it. I would, however, let them continue playing the game as though they had beaten the boss. If someone beats Persona 5 and then replays it and skips a boss on the replay using a hypothetical Skip Boss Battle button, they have beaten the game though, and then they played some of the game a second time.

So if you buy a 1000 piece puzzle do you also demand that you'll be able to complete it without any effort?

The challenge is part of what the dev is selling

What?! No! Read the whole topic and come back.

 

[Nickle]

You can skip boss fights. Just mod your copy of the game so that it skips over them.

 

[DerpHause]

So is this basically an acceptance that console games in general are only ever going to appeal to a certain audience? I think this is part of why they've failed to grow as fast as other sectors in recent years

Well, yes, we're always going to be limited to the subset that's willing to shell out $200 - $500 for a dedicated device with the limits of connecting to a TV or other display and requiring a continuous external power connection. That means that console games will probably concentrate where those devices excel rather than compete with lower input fidelity games on more ubiquitous platforms.

When they don't, they become redundant. When they do, they get criticized for not competing with platforms they can't beat because of their nature and limits outside of the software they run.

Realistically yes, you don't make smartphone style gaming a console focus because "why not just make in on a smartphone" is what every 3rd party dev thinks.

All I'm saying is, there's probably more that can be done to make the basic operation of console video games more accessible to more people. I just don't think adding a level select at the beginning of Uncharted or or Dishonored would ruin it. I think it would help in certain situations and I think hardly anyone would abuse it

IMHO this stance only brings to question the actual utility here. Are there a number of people who want to invest in this ecosystem and the only thing holding them back is the desire to actually experience these narratives without any specific order of events? And do the rest of us want those games to be robbed of sequential consequence as a result of facilitating that? How do you even present optional narratives unlocked through choices in a earlier events in a chapter select with no prerequisite point to reference? Or do we abandon that sort of storytelling and state gaming is better for it because it maybe gets more consoles sold. Maybe.

 

[RedSwirl]

For the record, I broke down and finished the last boss of Dragon Age Awakening on Easy. I objectively understand how good the combat system in that game is, I just didn't personally care for it. Combat was the last thing that compelled me to play through Origins and Awakening. If it had a "story mode" I'd probably enjoy it just as much. You still get the chance to create your own character and make your own decisions in the story. I think a "3D visual novel mode" for BioWare games would be great. Although I didn't play Mass Effect on easy, I could have just as easily done so because combat just wasn't what made the game interesting for me, but there are a lot of other interactive things that make Mass Effect compelling for me. On GAF I see tons of people voicing the same opinion about The Witcher 3 because they love the 3D world and interactive story, but hate the combat.

Pretty much every game I've worked on has had some form of 'skip' cheat used internally because developers and testers can't play through the entire game every time they want to play a certain segment. You don't know how much time, money or thoughts will be spent on a skip in any given game unless you're working on it, and frankly developer budget doesn't really come into this discussion - this is a discussion about players asking developers for a Skip Boss Fight option. If a developer says "No, we can't or don't want to for whatever reason", that's fine. Of course they don't have to spend time, money, or thoughts on cheats, in the same way that they don't have to spend them on resolution options, or subtitles, or a button to skip cutscenes. They can make the game how they want. But there is a large amount of people here saying they want the option, and for some reason a large amount of people here saying the option shouldn't even exist.

That seems strange to me. It's like if one person posted in a game's OT "I'd like there to be an option to support a Cutscene Skip" and someone else replies "No they shouldn't support it, that'll take developer time to add". The original statement is "I'd like this", the response is a misguided "You shouldn't have it". Even if it did take too much developer time to add and it never gets implemented, the original statement still stands: the game would be more enjoyable for the first poster if a skip was added, and the second poster, not being a developer on the project, has no influence on the outcome either way. It's not up to the random poster whether the expanded audience is worth the development cost, that's up to the dev teams.

This topic isn't about demanding skips be a mandatory feature in literally every game, it's about some people who would enjoy the option to skip boss fights in some games where it could be applicable.

Totally agree! Developers don't have to spend time and money on an easy mode, but most do. Other people playing on easy mode doesn't ruin it for those playing on normal and hard.

 

[HelenKeller:BlindDeafDTF]

This is basically why we can't get free health care here in America. This whole "I had to earn it, so you do too" attitude. You people are the worst.

 

[DerpHause]

This is basically why we can't get free health care here in America. This whole "I had to earn it, so you do too" attitude. You people are the worst.

No, we can't get it due to attempts to sway voters via intentional misinterpretation for the point of vilification of those for it.

...oh wait...

well played.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This is basically why we can't get free health care here in America. This whole "I had to earn it, so you do too" attitude. You people are the worst.

Fucking lol

Video games and healthcare

 

[newtypepilot]

please don't give publishers any more new ideas on how to implement more microtransactions

PAY 100,000 Ubisoft Tokens to skip boss!!! Buy 1000 Ubisoft Tokens for only $100!! GREAT VALUE!!!

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Totally agree! Developers don't have to spend time and money on an easy mode, but most do. Other people playing on easy mode doesn't ruin it for those playing on normal and hard.

I mean, I can see the opposite argument if you assume:

-the game is more rewarding on a higher difficulty
-Some people that could have toughed it out and gotten to a higher difficulty level, and enjoyed it more, will use the easy mode or boss skip.

I think this is basically where Dark Souls is at. I'm glad most games have a difficulty selector, since, say, PoE's inherent gameplay isn't as rewarding as Dark Souls and I don't personally get a lot out of trying to optimize that system. But if there'd been an easier difficulty on DS, I'd probably have taken it, and it would have been a worse experience for it.

So I think ultimately this is on a game-by-game basis. Some games basically just exist to provide that challenge, and Dark Souls is one of them. There's some merit in letting people explore that world and delve into the lore and stuff that wouldn't otherwise, but it's not worth the cost of losing some players to the worse experience.

On the other hand, I can imagine Bungie making a hardcore version of Destiny, where the ethos was "we said Heroic is the way Halo was meant to be played, and we meant it!" And I'm sure, actually, that the people who beat it on that higher difficulty level would have enjoyed their experience more than the people on normal, but Destiny has a whole lot of other things going for it that are widely appealing, so it wouldn't be worth it.

Cuphead's the obvious other example, where I'm sure there's some merit in the punishing difficulty, but it's such an audiovisual tour de force that restricting it to a very high difficulty is commercially and artistically baffling.

 

[Japanmanx3]

Everyone has the same opportunity to finish any game if they have the desire to see it through.

Beyond people who are unfortunately severely physically disabled, there is not a single person on NeoGAF who does not have the ability (has been given the opportunity) to finish Dark Souls. Everyone here can beat Cuphead, if they want. Everyone here can beat Cuphead on Expert mode with all S ranks - if they want. The issue here is not a matter of "opportunity".

Exactly. This "let me skip this and play what I want to" mentality is a slippery slope only leading to the lessening of video games as a whole. Why pay full price for a AAA game when it can be treated like a interactive film? When everything becomes optional then why even "play"? What is "playing" a video game at that point? Let's Play already exist. I'd be very hard pressed to envision a future where people would spend $60 for a Let's Play AAA release.

 

[RedSwirl]

Cuphead's the obvious other example, where I'm sure there's some merit in the punishing difficulty, but it's such an audiovisual tour de force that restricting it to a very high difficulty is commercially and artistically baffling.

You could say the same for Souls. A lot of people want to just play it to enjoy the art direction and lore. And in my opinion the combat system is still fun in parts that aren't difficult (such as when you're over-leveled). You also have to wonder how many people you lose to easy mode versus how many people just up and quit the game.

This is why I also support the idea of sort of free-roam "tour" modes of open-world games or any game built around exploration. More than once I've encountered people who don't really play video games but are interested in something like GTA or Assassin's Creed just because the 3D space itself looks interesting. That's more people who would potentially buy those games, even if it isn't to actually "play" them.

 

[DerpHause]

Cuphead's the obvious other example, where I'm sure there's some merit in the punishing difficulty, but it's such an audiovisual tour de force that restricting it to a very high difficulty is commercially and artistically baffling.

I'm a bit lost here. It seems the suggestion is that games should only use their challenge as their draw when otherwise uncompelling and creatively barren. Specifically it describes the packaging of a well tuned challenge as baffling because other aspects demonstrate the same level of merit.

If that's the argument here, doesn't that make the claims of a game's context and intent determining whether it should be hard and how/when it should address difficulty curves false in the face of just wanting the aspects of it not actually tied to the gameplay and thus not needing to be a game?

Typically we have artbooks for that function, though that said a world tour of sorts would be nice, but it still leaves the fact that the game isn't what you're coming for.

 

[GlitchyDegree]

This is basically why we can't get free health care here in America. This whole "I had to earn it, so you do too" attitude. You people are the worst.

What is it with these difficulty threads and people making awful false equivalencies?

 

[MrHoot]

Fucking lol

Video games and healthcare

DARK SOULS IS WHY TRUMP WON


:V


But yeah. While I do agree there's always a bit more room to accomodate people without killing the design of the game (which should've been the point of the article, not just "skip boss fight" but I guess the author skipped a good argument as well), this trend of seeing hard games are somehow purposefully excluding people is quite silly. In addition with a big dose of entitlement or wonky comparisons. I would say that the price you pay for the game entitles you to the game itself, not to actually finish it.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

If you're going to do this with games, then reward those who choose the hard way, no hand-holding and no bs; over those who do not and want that "boss skip button"
Do that and I am fine with this.

What is it with these difficulty threads and people making awful false equivalencies?

Politics. I have never in all my years seen it so prevalent on gaming forums. Also, seriously? Comparing Healthcare to Video Games as an argument? Oh, my...

please don't give publishers any more new ideas on how to implement more microtransactions

PAY 100,000 Ubisoft Tokens to skip boss!!! Buy 1000 Ubisoft Tokens for only $100!! GREAT VALUE!!!

Or even, dumb games down and pay for extra difficulties. Looking at Amiibos here.

 

[Kinyou]

What?! No! Read the whole topic and come back.

Did you read the post I was responding to? It's silly to expect the dev let every player pass the challenge if the challenge is exactly what's being sold.

 

[zashga]

Article seems weirdly hostile to me. Seems to spend about half its time preemptively attacking people who disagree with it.

I'm not opposed to games that include features to help players who want to skip harder stuff; Nintendo in particular has been pretty good about this with Mario games in recent years. As long as you can turn those features off and they don't pester you about it, that doesn't bother me at all.

However, I don't agree that it's something that should be demanded from every game. It's fine for a game just to be intentionally challenging and not offer you an option to skip ahead or lower the difficulty. Ironically, Dark Souls is a notoriously hard game that doesn't get much credit for leaving a lot of its difficulty entirely up to the player. Your experience in Dark Souls is vastly different if you play through solo with an empty off-hand versus going through the whole game with a shield and two summons. I tend to favor that approach to having an explicit easy mode or chapter select system.

 

[Emitan]

That statement in no way counters the bad value proposition of paying $60 to not play parts of what you paid for.

I got stuck in Dark Souls and could never beat Nito. I agree. I should have been able to skip that part so I can see the rest of the game!

 

[DerpHause]

I got stuck in Dark Souls and could never beat Nito. I agree. I should have been able to skip that part so I can see the rest of the game!

Did you summon help?

Do you somehow consider the parts you would skip as not part of the $60 package?

 

[Emitan]

Did you summon help?

no because games for windows live is a piece of shit

 

[Giga Man]

I'd rather skip stages and go straight to the boss fight to be honest.

 

[DerpHause]

no because games for windows live is a piece of shit

I know nothing of this issue. I played on console where the developer included options work without that framework. Looks like you got bit by a bad port rather than a difficulty curve robbing you of the rest of the content.

Edit: Fun fact. I never beat DS1. Stopped at 4 kings. Still think it's a great game and would pay full price again, and that's directly related to the daunting challenge at the solo level which led me to my current issue, finding games that scratch that same coop PvE itch. Probably never would have occurred with a difficulty slider.

 

[Mr-Joker]

I skipped the final boss fight in Donkey Kong Country Returns because I simply wasn't able to defeat it and when you die you restart the boss fight without Diddy so it becomes much more harder.

Honestly I have no problem in games allowing player to skip part of the game that they don't like or struggle with.

 

[zMiiChy-]

This is basically why we can't get free health care here in America. This whole "I had to earn it, so you do too" attitude. You people are the worst.

Equating video games to health care?
What a sensible argument.

 

[Radnom]

Did you read the post I was responding to? It's silly to expect the dev let every player pass the challenge if the challenge is exactly what's being sold.

Ah, you're right, I don't agree with the post you're responding to. I agree it's too much to ensure every player can see every aspect of every game. I'm sorry for taking your quote out of context.
For reference:

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

So if you buy a 1000 piece puzzle do you also demand that you'll be able to complete it without any effort?

I mean, I can see the opposite argument if you assume:

-the game is more rewarding on a higher difficulty
-Some people that could have toughed it out and gotten to a higher difficulty level, and enjoyed it more, will use the easy mode or boss skip.

I think this is basically where Dark Souls is at. I'm glad most games have a difficulty selector, since, say, PoE's inherent gameplay isn't as rewarding as Dark Souls and I don't personally get a lot out of trying to optimize that system. But if there'd been an easier difficulty on DS, I'd probably have taken it, and it would have been a worse experience for it.

So I think ultimately this is on a game-by-game basis. Some games basically just exist to provide that challenge, and Dark Souls is one of them. There's some merit in letting people explore that world and delve into the lore and stuff that wouldn't otherwise, but it's not worth the cost of losing some players to the worse experience.

At the moment less than 15% of Dark Souls players on Steam beat the final boss according to the achievements - you could also argue that 85% of players are already getting the worse experience.
I'm not going to disagree with you that someone who skips a boss isn't getting the same quality experience as someone who plays through all the game - same as how skipping a section of any other medium isn't going to give the full effect. But surely it'd be better than only letting a fraction of players through? Those 15% wouldn't be affected, their game would be intact - and of course, there'd absolutely be a large amount of the 85% who still don't continue playing even with the skip.
Maybe some of the people who skipped some fights on the first round would come back through for a second play and beat the game again, properly this time.

You are absolutely right that it's a case-by-case basis though. I could argue in favour of say, Spelunky not having skips or difficulty selections (I think that one could go either way). Dark Souls is a pretty complicated example for a lot of reasons, and I think it's a decent defence for "Not every game should have a skip boss fight button". Same with Cuphead - Cuphead having a boss skip sounds like a pretty crazy suggestion to me (An easier difficulty, though, might not be as crazy). In fact, the author of the original article even states:

And when your game is made of boss fights tied together with string, then yes, it’s plainly idiotic for a hater to buy it.

So I completely agree with you that it's case-by-case, and so does the article's author.
That also means there are some cases where yes, a Skip Boss option would be a great addition.

Exactly. This "let me skip this and play what I want to" mentality is a slippery slope only leading to the lessening of video games as a whole. Why pay full price for a AAA game when it can be treated like a interactive film? When everything becomes optional then why even "play"? What is "playing" a video game at that point? Let's Play already exist. I'd be very hard pressed to envision a future where people would spend $60 for a Let's Play AAA release.

Why pay full price for a AAA game when it can be treated like an interactive film? Wouldn't that be a decision that people who want to treat it like an interactive film should make for themselves? Also, don't a lot of games come under a pretty similar umbrella of 'interactive film'? Adventure games, Telltale games, David Cage games etc.

I don't see how it's a slippery slope at all. It doesn't take boss fights away, it just adds an option to skip it for whatever reason (not just 'it's too hard'). Just because you can't see the value in it doesn't mean there is no value in it, as there are a lot of people trying to explain in this very forum.


Alright, so a lot of the arguments against having the option to skip boss fights tend to focus on certain cases where it wouldn't work, like Cuphead, or might be more difficult to justify, like Dark Souls. How about ones where it would absolutely work?

Here's a very specific proposition:

Let Us Skip Boss Fights in Persona 5.

• No intrinsic link between difficulty and theme like Dark Souls.
• There's already an Easy Mode.
• There's already a 'skip cutscene/dialogue' option that can be used even the first time through.
• Highly replayable so a skip will likely be well-used.
• No multiplayer.
• A lot of people who would love the storytelling sections don't like turn based RPG combat.
• There's still a lot of gameplay outside the bosses so there would still be a 'point' to playing outside of watching Let's Play videos.
• The game doesn't teach you necessary mechanics during the scenes.

The implementation would be as follows:
When launching or loading the game, choose an option to allow Boss Skip. This is so that players won't be 'tempted' by the option.
During a boss fight, press Start to pause, then choose it from an option menu.
A message pops up saying "It's highly recommended you complete this fight rather than skip it! You will not receive any more trophies with this save file." If you choose to continue, the boss fight will be skipped as though you beat it, and the victory cutscene will play.
The game will continue as normal, rewards given as normal, but no more trophies will be rewarded.

Players who don't want to skip battles won't even see the option during their game. People who do want the option can see it and use it for whatever reason they want, i.e. too hard, too easy, too long, boring, beaten it 100x before, trying to get to the next segment etc. etc.

Are there any arguments against that specific case? How about for these other games:
Horizon Zero Dawn
Zelda BOTW
Nier Automata
Mario + Rabbids
Wolfenstein II
Mario Odyssey

 

[n0razi]

I say, let us have full control over as much of the game as possible. I can chapter select any movie, show or book I purchase, what makes games different?

Yep, every game needs a full debugging console available in realtime

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Especially when the argument used as an excuse to do this "I should be able to experience the whole game" by skipping parts of it.

This. It makes no sense.