my dude that would be rad as fuck.
if i could have npc vs npc fights in every game ever i would take that in a heartbeat
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let Us Skip Boss Fights
- Thread starter thumb
- Start date
my dude that would be rad as fuck.
if i could have npc vs npc fights in every game ever i would take that in a heartbeat
Console games used to pretty commonly have debug cheats back in the day. PC games still do commonly have debug consoles.
If you skip half of the book you are not actually reading the book, you doing something else.
Good thing that's not the main argument for it. A lot of the people saying there should be a Skip Boss Fight option acknowledge that they'd absolutely miss out on something by skipping a fight, and yet, there are a lot of reasons to want the option anyway. Try these:
Also, if someone wants to buy a book just to look at the pictures, it's up to them to decide whether or not it was worth paying full price for the book. Same as here, it's not up to you to decide whether it's 'worth it' for someone else to pay full price for a game where you have the option to skip some parts of it.
Also, the 'value proposition' for a game where you get 8 hours in to it, and then get stuck and don't continue any more and quit it forever has got to be lower than one where you get halfway through, miss out on 10 minutes of content, and then continue to play the other 8 hours until the end, right?
Cow Mengde
Banned
What boss fights? There are boss fights these days? Could have fooled me. If anything, we more and better designed boss fights.
Papo Swing
Member
I wanted to contribute and talk about fights. I love some and I hate other with a passion, but I see a lot of arguments more around devs giving gamers full control over the game so that they can do anything and I just can agree.
I feel devs are too involved with gamers these days and it usually causes more trouble than it helps. I say let them execute their vision their work because it is theirs. Judge them on the content not on what you thought they owed you.
I feel devs are too involved with gamers these days and it usually causes more trouble than it helps. I say let them execute their vision their work because it is theirs. Judge them on the content not on what you thought they owed you.
bigjeffery
Member
Is there a reason why we don't see similar calls for inclusivity coming from book/tv/film critics?
Who's skipping half the book? This is an option to skip individual boss fights.
Does it matter to you if someone else is 'skipping half the book'?
What if they're skipping half the book because they're re-reading their favourite section?
What if they're researching the book and need to skip all over the book?
...What's your argument against having a skip boss fight button?
Great news! There are plenty of 2017 games with boss fights. You've got a lot of games to look forward to playing.
Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Zelda BOTW, Nier Automata, Mario + Rabbids, Destiny 2, Cuphead, Hollow Knight, Sonic Mania, Splatoon 2, Metroid: Samus Returns, Nioh, all have bosses. Wolfenstein II and Mario Odyssey will probably have bosses, there are plenty more examples.
You know what? Most players don't finish games. This is something we can do to at least help more players experience more of the games they purchased, without taking anything away from the games that we love. There are other much higher impact solutions like 'make the game much shorter' and 'make the game much easier'. This is one that will mess with the game the least.
Holy Order Sol
Member
bigjeffery
Member
It doesn't really matter to me how people play their games, but I can see why developers and designers would want their game to be discriminating. I don't understand this position that everything has to be for everyone just because it's technically possible to do so.
I don't know... I don't think it's difficulty getting in the way of people finishing games. I think a big part of it is that there are more games than ever to choose from, so it's either too many games trying to get our limited time, or straight-up gaming paralysis... both of which are things that prevent me from finishing a lot of games. Also, my tolerance for games that don't fall into the "great" category will generally get put to the side, but I'll sure as hell *make* time for the ones I deem excellent, no matter how easy, hard, short, or long.
Why don't you just let everyone pick any spot in a game to play from, even. There's a truly vast number of reasons to allow players to pick any part of a game to play that don't involve inability to pass a skill check.
What if you were in the mood to revisit a scene that's dozens of hours in?
What if there's a section of the game you just really don't like playing for any reason?
What if you were a speedrunner trying to get your strats down?
What if you're having a narrative discussion and you want to get the exact phrasing of what this character said so you can better dissect their motivations?
What if you're returning to a save and you've long forgotten what you were doing or where you're going and you'd like to skim through the previous stuff to refresh your memory?
What if you've run into a complete progress-blocking bug that's ruined your save file?
And it's not like this is some arcane ritual to implement, most game developers add a debugging feature to skip around to various points of the game for testing purposes.
What if you were in the mood to revisit a scene that's dozens of hours in?
What if there's a section of the game you just really don't like playing for any reason?
What if you were a speedrunner trying to get your strats down?
What if you're having a narrative discussion and you want to get the exact phrasing of what this character said so you can better dissect their motivations?
What if you're returning to a save and you've long forgotten what you were doing or where you're going and you'd like to skim through the previous stuff to refresh your memory?
What if you've run into a complete progress-blocking bug that's ruined your save file?
And it's not like this is some arcane ritual to implement, most game developers add a debugging feature to skip around to various points of the game for testing purposes.
If somone doesn't finish a game because he doesn't enjoy parts of it would being able to skip these parts suddenly make these people want to finish the game? If I don't enjoy parts of a book I simply stop reading it, I don't want to skip two chapters in hope it gets better. Makes no sense.
If that person would want to finish the game he could. By playing the game. Not skipping stuff. If you play Cuphead and think the bossfights are too hard (They generally don't get easier), do you just skip to the end credits? Great experience right there. Well worth the 20 bucks.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
I'm amazed that this is even a thread. I'm especially baffled at the argument that video games should do away with boss fights because you have the option to skip in movies (except theatres, in which case, this completely voids the "entitlement" argument), books, and certain tv platforms that it means. This is particularly misleading because although you have the option to choose a point in a show/book/film to begin, you get a gimped experience. I cannot begin to tell you the amount of times I've seen people ask stupid questions about plot points, or whine about how their experience was inferior because they didn't take the time to read or watch the medium as a whole. Take away boss battles, and you start to erase one of the unique aspects of games as a medium. At that point, you wonder what is even the point of doing so when you can just create/watch a movie.
This whole thread doesn't make sense. This seems to suggest a paradigm shift where people want to be rewarded for doing as little (or nothing) as possible.
This whole thread doesn't make sense. This seems to suggest a paradigm shift where people want to be rewarded for doing as little (or nothing) as possible.
Regardless of it being the main argument, it was the argument following that comment chain on my part.
And mind you, many counter arguments here are aimed at those who have advocated the idea of content skips ideally being the morally obligated default state of all games regardless of intent.
1-4: This is called chapter select. Yes, it would be nice to see it used more often.
5: A cheat isn't a skip
6: The problem is that a game that caters to this obviously can't use encounters for exposition or story building as it leaves those players shooting themselves in the foot possibly unknowingly. This of course applies to some games more than others, but lets not remove tools from the toolbox.
7. So bad design? Ok, that's a worthwhile point
8. Again we're back to assuming boss battles only function as padding and can't/shouldn't be anything more either as intended emotional stimuli through the gameplay challenge or other content occurring alongside it.
Which is an ironic point because we're not the ones assigning the arbitrary value proposition. Few here have said you aren't getting your money's worth with skips, though it has been questioned why you would if you can get what you're after for free. It's like asking why you'd pay for that full book when the illustrations you're after are being provided for free (but still not saying you can't anyways).
What has been explicitly stated is that by not accommodating the lowest common denominator one has failed in their obligations upon delivering a $60 game. It been stated by some, not you specifically, that by charging for a game there is an obligation to ensure there is no skill or performance metric upon which to fall short.
I simply can't agree that every dev must or even should be hamstrung like that. Especially not at the expense of creating or interactive options designed specifically to be accommodating while still presenting the narrative in full.
This seems presumptuous. You've taken a data point that might not actually even indicate an issue and assumed not only that it was one, but that that issue was directly related to difficulty to a degree that justified reconfiguring the very manner in which we approach games. That seems like the kind of idea that needs more support before we start separating narrative from gameplay as an aspiration to we can make the latter optional to maintain the former for a subset that may not be interested for entirely different reasons.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Summoning and pyro basically does.
WickedLaharl
Member
People getting upset over the difficulty setting names in Wolfenstein is hilarious.
Not everything, and not everyone. I agree that is not necessary in all games. Just this one specific case - skipping boss fights in games where it makes sense to have the option.
For example, read this post where it's clear that my position is that some games should support it where it makes sense.
There are examples in this topic where people have outright stated examples where they used cheats to skip bosses or used God Mode to cheese them and then continued to play the game 'normally'. Also, read the other reasons to add a skip feature. Or where myself and even the article in the OP say that games like Cuphead would be an exception. It's not just 'too hard'.
the article said:
Sure, I agree with you. I know I don't personally generally drop a game due to difficulty, it's usually that I don't think I'll have the time and that I'm not enjoying the game so much. I think that's probably the case for a lot of gamers, who are often adults with jobs and limited spare time. But if even 5% of users get some use out of the functionality to skip a boss, and it doesn't take long to implement, and it doesn't affect anyone else who wants to play the game normally, what's the reason not to include it?
Yeah you get it! There are so many potential use cases for a skip function.
You're right that there are some bad arguments here as reasons for adding level skip. But there are plenty of good ones too.
In the example of Persona 5, there's plenty of gameplay outside of boss battles that would be worth playing, and due to copyright claims, it's hard to get the illustrations for free.
I absolutely agree with you that games with skill or performance metrics can and still should exist, and that that not every dev must incorporate these features. There are some bad arguments here that every game should have a Skip function, and I don't agree with them. However, in so many of the other cases where a Skip Boss can be added, I can't see an argument I agree with that the skip function would be a bad thing to have in the game.
Amibguous Cad
Member
We do, actually. Appealing to the least common denominator is a sign of tight, well-constructed prose. Never use sesquipedalian verbiage when simple words will do. There are some ideas that can only be expressed with the use of jargon and polysyllabic words, but even then you still want to make it as simple as possible while preserving your point. (And people, rightly, tend to view it as pretentious when you use more esoteric words to communicate an idea that could have been just as well served by common ones).
SatelliteOfLove
Member
The only thing arguments like that one are advocating for is my theory that some of our Stone Age-tested brains can't take QoL windfalls as a positive and must make potentially useful things a neurotic negative one.
Haven't read every page so apologies for restating what perhaps others have stated.
My initial reaction is "What? Why would you ever want that? Just watch it on YouTube at that rate." and while I still have some concerns over how it would effect actual encounter design (less incentive to design good encounters when anyone can skip anything on a whim) I'd say if it was a Mario style "You keep dying here, here's some help" that also turned off trophies/achievements and wasn't easily spamable that would probably be fine.
Not sure I buy the argument on movies being able to be skipped around since it seems a more appropriate comparison there would be movies vs let's plays since they're about the same level of interactivity.
Would be very interested to see how a major publisher would try to tackle this.
My initial reaction is "What? Why would you ever want that? Just watch it on YouTube at that rate." and while I still have some concerns over how it would effect actual encounter design (less incentive to design good encounters when anyone can skip anything on a whim) I'd say if it was a Mario style "You keep dying here, here's some help" that also turned off trophies/achievements and wasn't easily spamable that would probably be fine.
Not sure I buy the argument on movies being able to be skipped around since it seems a more appropriate comparison there would be movies vs let's plays since they're about the same level of interactivity.
Would be very interested to see how a major publisher would try to tackle this.
Are "QoL windfalls" for one product the act of wishing for a fundamentally different product?
Is it negative to point out that was essentially condemning the existing product for not being whatever ideal was being sought because of conflict with the apparent intent of that product?
TheRedSnifit
Member
I think it's just that most AAA, linear-narrative games have mediocre gameplay. No big surprise that people want to skip the gameplay in Uncharted or Mass Effect or whatever.
We should be calling for a return to good gameplay, not just trivialize it even more.
I'm baffled that so many people are so vehemently opposed to other people having more options as to how they experience the games that they own when it * literally * does * not * affect * their * experience * at * all *
Did the existence of cheat codes "fundamentally change" every one of the hundreds of games that have them? Because what people are advocating for here is basically a debug menu/ built-in cheat engine with a GUI.
There are a million possible use cases beyond just wanting to skip part of a game. Imagine an architecture student wants to write a paper on Anor Londo but can't get past the Capra Demon, and can't find the footage he wants on youtube. Imagine an animator wants to study the movement of an enemy without worrying about getting hit and dying. In every other creative medium it is trivially easy to examine individual elements of a piece outside of the usual or "intended" context, like studying a frame of a movie or the construction of a sentence in a book. There are practical reasons why this will never be so easy in videogames, but some effort along these lines could be tremendously useful and interesting to a wide variety of audiences. The hostile reactions here seem like a massive failure of imagination.
Did the existence of cheat codes "fundamentally change" every one of the hundreds of games that have them? Because what people are advocating for here is basically a debug menu/ built-in cheat engine with a GUI.
There are a million possible use cases beyond just wanting to skip part of a game. Imagine an architecture student wants to write a paper on Anor Londo but can't get past the Capra Demon, and can't find the footage he wants on youtube. Imagine an animator wants to study the movement of an enemy without worrying about getting hit and dying. In every other creative medium it is trivially easy to examine individual elements of a piece outside of the usual or "intended" context, like studying a frame of a movie or the construction of a sentence in a book. There are practical reasons why this will never be so easy in videogames, but some effort along these lines could be tremendously useful and interesting to a wide variety of audiences. The hostile reactions here seem like a massive failure of imagination.
I would prefer this kind of feature to be common in narrative based games. My father bought A PS3 years ago, beat Limbo on his own, and really wanted to play LA Noire. He couldn't chase down the criminal right off the bat in the story mode so was completely shut out of experiencing a game that is 99% narrative.
Games that are designed to be challenges have every reason not to include that kind of skipping feature, though. Those games are less of a piece of art to digest and more of an experience designed to engage. Climbing Mt. Everest vs taking an elevator.
Games that are designed to be challenges have every reason not to include that kind of skipping feature, though. Those games are less of a piece of art to digest and more of an experience designed to engage. Climbing Mt. Everest vs taking an elevator.
Crownjo
Member
Why stop there? Let me skip stages and boss fights to go straight to the final boss.
Not against it in principle (especially for replays or accessibility), but the tech reasons as to why books, movies etc have this feature are obvious no? The coding required for each and every game to support what people would want (and everyone has a different idea of what skipping stuff would actually entail in an interactive experience) makes this a lot more complex than the inventor of the VHS or DVD coding or drafting a technical schematic on how to skip or rewind one time and then every content creator just using that spec. Video games are very much not books. I find the argument about artist intent kind of boring. Not because it's wrong. Everyone using it is totally right, but it's the case for movies and books too. No you shouldn't skip around a movie on your first watch, but there are so many other reasons why you might that in theory games would benefit.
It's not that honestly, I'm all for people playing the game any way they wanna play it. I just think we need to find better ways at improving the player's skills so they can take on these bosses and find a way that you'll actually wanna fight the boss. Idk it might be me but I'm not seeing as many memorable boss fights today as I did decades ago and it could be hardware but it could be the fact that they seem samey. We need to find ways that the player actually wants to fight the boss and be engaged in the conflict rather than skipping.
If they wanna skip it then it's cool but I'd say that if someone wants to skip a boss then we need to see exactly why they wanna skip it and fix that disconnect. If it's not fun? We need to make it fun otherwise it's like why is it even in the game?
It's a good discussion overall. I'm glad we're at 20 pages.
I'm all for respecting the artistic direction of the game makers. If they want to add a boss skip, tourist mode or some other accessibility options, great. If they want to wall content behind challenges, also great.
I also passionately support the right of users to hack or modify their game purchases for their own amusement (but not cheating in MP).
I also passionately support the right of users to hack or modify their game purchases for their own amusement (but not cheating in MP).
I edited in some other examples, but for instance what if the player actually has some totally different motivation? What if they want to study the architecture of a level, and they really have no interest in the bosses or combat at all? There will obviously be practical limits as to what kinds of tools can be made accessible to the user, but basic "cheats" like infinite health, level select, etc, would be very useful for a variety of purposes.
In fact, I'd argue your suggestion is exactly what other people are afraid of -- that developers will change their "intended experience" to try to interest people who are just not interested. Instead, I would prefer they leave their "intended experience", however they define that, intact, but also make some minimal effort to allow players to fulfill their own idiosyncratic use cases.
As an example, I was just getting my ass-kicked by Bayonetta last night. That game has in no way been "dumbed down", yet it has an easy mode that practically plays itself.
thepenguin55
Member
Should they be skippable or should you just look for games that appeal to you more? While I hate game difficulty elitists Ive also found myself annoyed by the recent discussions about difficulty that have come up because of Cuphead. This article is about something a little different but i feel it taps into a similar vein.
There are certainly games Ive played where I hated the boss fights but (mostly) loved everything else (DeusEx: Human Revolution) and I wouldve loved the ability to skip those bad boss fights but the idea that all games with boss fights should allow you to skip them is simply stupid in my eyes. If you feel so strongly about an aspect of gaming that has been core to many games since their inception then maybe its time to re-evaluate the kind of games you play.
There are certainly games Ive played where I hated the boss fights but (mostly) loved everything else (DeusEx: Human Revolution) and I wouldve loved the ability to skip those bad boss fights but the idea that all games with boss fights should allow you to skip them is simply stupid in my eyes. If you feel so strongly about an aspect of gaming that has been core to many games since their inception then maybe its time to re-evaluate the kind of games you play.
I don't have much to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said, but I firmly believe that difficult games should exist.
I enjoy the challenge. To me, the challenge is the game. Others are allowed to not like those games, in the same way that I strongly dislike walking simulators or visual novels. Not every game needs to be everything to all people.
I enjoy the challenge. To me, the challenge is the game. Others are allowed to not like those games, in the same way that I strongly dislike walking simulators or visual novels. Not every game needs to be everything to all people.
almostjuliuscaesar
Member
games are not movies, tv, or books. they are designed for you to play through them. they are interactive media, the others aren't. idk why ppl make that comparison. even if they did, if you are just going to skip a part of something, why even consume it? letting people play the way they want to play i have no problem with, but the notion of skipping a part of the game doesn't really correlate to skipping a chapter of a book etc
Obviously yes as it creates the desired use cases you pointed out.
But much like the origin of that comment chain, that poster expressed an interest in cupheads art, but none in playing the game cuphead. Or in your first example, the desire to review and critique architecture as opposed to playing the game for the games sake.
Both of those use cases treat the fundamental intended use cases of those games as an afterthought to a user driven purpose.
You're asking for something the game fundamentally isn't.
Why is pointing that out "hostile"?
People keep saying this. But, how on earth does the existence of an easy mode or access to cheats make "normal" model any easier? As one of many examples, Donkey Kong Country Returns effectively gives you level skip options, yet it is a challenging game with a high skill ceiling. In fact, the existence of a level skip option may have freed them to make the game harder to begin with.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "creates the desired use cases", but while obviously playing a game with a cheat is fundamentally different than playing it without a cheat, the possibility of playing with a cheat does not fundamentally change the experience of playing without a cheat. The point is that features that in many cases would very easy to implement could dramatically expand the number of use cases available to players without compromising the intended experience. Literally, make a menu for toggling on debug mode commands and put a warning message on it. Or even put it in a .config file!
What seems hostile to me is the opposition to any kind of even minimal effort going into allowing these non-standard use cases. Sure, there will be games, maybe many, where the required effort really wouldn't be minimal, and it is fine if they don't do that. But for games where it would be minimal effort, why would anyone be opposed?
Why is it so hard to just not play a game that isn't for you though?
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, if developers WANT to include this kind of option that's fine. But the idea that they SHOULD is ridiculous to me. Like it is their moral obligation or something.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
Skipping bosses is a really bad move from an accessibility standpoint. Offering a wider rang of difficulties would be the most inclusive approach, but even a infinite health/lives option/cheat would be better than having players skip content altogether.
TheRedSnifit
Member
~ The Road
~Blood Meridian
~ Grapes of Wrath
~Absalom, Absalom!
~ Heart of Darkness
You don't really see literary critics stating that Faulkner or McCarthy are morally obliged to be less verbose (or even to confirm to standard grammar rules), or that Steinbeck is an "elitist" because he used phonetic dialogue that readers may find confusing. You don't see people saying that Conrad's winding, tautological, and ambiguous writing style is the equivelant of "taking [his readers'] money and running."
That's the difference here. People aren't saying that you should use challenging bosses sparingly because it's hard to get right or some such. They're saying that people should not be forced to confront challenge if they don't want to in any game ever, and then any developer who doesn't conform is being a big meany. We certainly don't suggest that anyone who thinks these books are improved by their writing styles and such is an elitist gatekeeper trying to keep the riff-raff out of their hobby or anything of the sort.
I think that this is an extremely myopic view. Someone could be very interested in learning about or experiencing some part of a game that is not generally "for them". That person might then turn that experience into something worthwhile and interesting to others. Like the hypothetical architecture student might have some interesting insight into the architecture of Dark Souls, and they might post about it on NeoGaf. So developers "should" do that sort of thing in the sense that developers "should" do things that enrich the communities surrounding their games. Does that qualify as an obligation? No, and I don't see that anyone said it did.
Edit: Well I haven't read the entire thread so maybe someone did. If they did then that's pretty dumb.
This is a useless and misleading comparison. If you don't understand a sentence in a book, nothing is preventing you from reading the next sentence. No book has ever *forced* anyone to confront a challenge if they didn't want to, and yet the reader is still able to access any part of the text they want.
Basic cheats like max health, level select and whatnot would be great to have and honestly I think games need to go back to the old days of having that as options, maybe through cheat codes or just something where if you do it, you at least get some sort of "penalty." Say if you use a cheat code sure you can get through the game but you wouldn't get access to a special weapon or 100% or something of that sort. There has to be something there that actually gives something to the players who go with the developers vision while also giving something to players who want to play their own way. This way everyone benefits. It's ok for players to have their own intended experience but with that said if the developers have their own, their own story, just something they want to convey then we have to meet in the middle.
There's ways to please everyone.
EDIT: Actually I wouldn't say "penalty", I'd say a "missed opportunity" instead.
When developing you are developing the total set of interactions, not just those of a single player, thus omission isn't always a lack of minor effort or easy implementation. It may well be conscious. If that conflicts with your use case that reduces intent to a hinderance, it doesn't matter whether it changes playing without a cheat or not. It still won't be in the official product.
Not possible, if you have a singular intended sequence of dependant events, you can't make them user alterable to accommodate those other use cases without compromising your own. If Miyazaki wants you to feel the existentail dread of facing the capra demon, he achieves that by forcing you to face the capra demon as a hypothetical.
If pointing out that creator intent might conflict with your theoretical use cases and pointing out that it's not a simple calculation of effort is "hostile" then hostile I shall remain.
But I never advocated that the idea was universally bad. I simply stated wishing a high skill floor 2D platformer was an art gallery was a good example of this conflict in creator and user use cases. One likely unreconciled by intent.
TheRedSnifit
Member
If you're skipping pages because you don't know what's being said, you can't keep track of which character is which, and you don't even understand the plot, then you aren't actually reading the story (unless you have some inanely loose definition of that, where skipping to the last sentence counts as "reading a book"). Most (probably all, unless it's required reading) readers will just put down a book in frustration if they can't understand what's happening; the writing style has directly prevented them from reading the book.
At any rate, my response was directed towards somebody who suggested that literary critics are calling for authors to appeal to the "lowest common denominator," and that doing so is proof of "tight prose." Which is absurd, as many of the greatest novels written do not do so.
Or maybe that architecture student could do that for a game they actually like playing instead, and we can wait for the architecture student who actually enjoys Dark Souls to come along.
(This is a bad example anyway since Dark Souls is on PC so you can 100% download a trainer and turn on infinite health and cheat your way through it)
My moral obligation comment was partially aimed at the idea that this opens up games to disabled audiences.
Also I remember seeing something about "I paid $60 for a game I should be able to see all of it", but that might have been a different discussion elsewhere.
Who on earth skips books or films the first time reading/watching? If they do then I'd suggest that book or film is a bit crap and not worth their time in the first place. In any case, how would they know what chapter or scene to skip to if they haven't read the book/watched the film in its entirety first? And don't most games allow you to select chapter/mission upon completion anyway? There's little material difference. If it's a case of finding the game too difficult to complete, you can normally play on an easier setting. Games these days have never been more inclusive, article is out of date frankly.
I completely agree. But if they do for whatever want to keep on "reading" nothing stops them. Maybe they really like the typeface. The fact that you can stare at every word in a book without reading it doesn't somehow dilute the experience of actually reading it. I don't see why it would be bad to have similar possibilities for video games.
I never said that a game should be designed around the idea that players should be able to manipulate every possible aspect in any way they can imagine, because obviously that would be technically impossible. But there are many games were tools to manipulate many aspects are already available in the form of debug options and such, and simply exposing them to the user would accommodate a great number of use cases at low cost.
Why don't you want my imaginary architecture student to be happy, Jubbe!?
Also I think that's why DS is good example. Many of these things are already possible, it doesn't degrade the "real" experience of playing the game, everyone understands that it is a fundamentally different experience than "really" playing the game. So I don't see the harm in exposing some of these options in a more *ahem* accessible way that doesn't require mucking about with external tools.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Similar threads
- Locked