There's a difference between using cheats and asking developers to cut out boss fights.
As far as I can tell, the OP article is about skipping boss fights and not cutting boss fights from the game, so...
There's a difference between using cheats and asking developers to cut out boss fights.
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.
One reason why they understand that it's a fundamentally different experience than "really" playing the game, because it requires mucking about with external tools.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.
I don't like it. It's basically removing all reward from the game. Completing challenges and being rewarded with new content for it is a very satisfying experience. If you just hand me everything on a silver platter from the get go it kind of neuters the game.
I don't like horror games, you won't see me demanding "not scary modes" so I can play them.
This whole debate seems dumb to me and I can only assume it's mostly driven by the egos of "hardcore" gamers, many of whom probably used the stuff above. In any case, these things existed and difficult games still had value.
That's really about not wanting to play a game as opposed to not being able to play a game.
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.
That's the funny thing with games as a medium. In a lot of games you have to be a certain standard that the creators have decided upon to see everything.
As a developer do you say "Sorry mate, you're not good enough to see 50% of this game. Why don't you find something that's more suited to your ability?" or [I]"Ok, you're struggling here but you've paid for the game and we want you to see it through, how about a helping hand to get past this section?"[/I]
Personally I love a good boss fight but if someone really struggles I think they should be able to receive some help if they need it. Hell, I remember how many times it took me to beat Alma in Ninja Gaiden and I would have happily used a skip fight option after the 20th failure!
Obviously this isn't applicable to every game. In the likes of Dark Souls etc the boss fight is an intrinsic part of the experience rather than just a pause to test your abilities. Then of course there's games like SotC that would be very, very different if you could skip boss fights!
Boss fights is a part of the game experience as a whole package... skipping it will destroy the experience completely and ruin it.
So.... please stop asking to ruin games because they are already kinda ruined with all the hands holding and shit in most recent games.
If you are too scared to play the game it is totally about not being able to play it.
I still don't understand this point.
Games are not all about "see what's next"... I think people forgot that the GAMEPLAY is (usually) the core of the videogames... if people skip sections because they can't "git gud" they skip the heart of gaming...
If a game have just a "section/boss" that is too hard then the problem is the game itself, otherwise it's just the game not right for you...
I can see your point but I'd disagree as not playing a game because it's scary is still a choice. It's saying "I don't enjoy this genre so I'm not playing it" i.e. avoiding something you won't enjoy as opposed to "I physically do not have the ability/dexterity to play this." even if you enjoy the rest of the game.
A horror game would be fundamentally changed if there was a 'non-scary' mode. Most boss fights are generally a block to progression of a story, skipping them generally doesn't affect the narrative to any substantial degree.
Obviously changing horror game to non horror game is much bigger change than skipping bosses. However this doesn't affect people who want to play the scarier mode because they just can play on normal mode. The more options the better. Right?
youtube lets you skip whatever you choose
As I said there are two school of thought but just as gameplay is core to a lot of gamers there are those for whom the narrative is just as important as gameplay. You only have to look at the success of what are, perhaps unfairly, labelled as 'walking simulators' to see that there are a lot of people who value story.
Hell some of my favourite memories are of games with little of what most people define as gameplay. One of my top 5 games of the last generation 'Journey' involved little more than walking forward and occasionally jumping but that's one of the most memorable games I've played in years.
I'm not implying there's a perfect solution either way but there are certainly options open to developers if they want their customers to see the majority of what they have created.
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.
In a lot of cases yes, but fundamentally changing the whole of a game is bit much for me!
But letting to skip bosses will eventually lead to skipping any content. After all this whole subject is about skipping content you don't like. So if you don't like fighting mobs, doing puzzles, explore the world and whatever you should be able to skip any of it, right? Why should people who dislike boss fights to be the only ones to have the ability to skip things they don't like? Having the ability to skip anything would fundamentally change any game. Imagine MGS or any stealth game where you could just skip the stealth sections. Would it be a stealth game anymore?
But letting to skip bosses will eventually lead to skipping any content. After all this whole subject is about skipping content you don't like.
Not at all. It's a discussion about skipping - or getting help to pass - specific content (boss fights) that people are unable to defeat because of a lack of ability rather than laziness.
It's a big jump to say that if developers decide to offer help, help that doesn't have to be taken, to defeat areas that generally spike up the difficulty considerably to the preceding sections that it will then naturally lead to offering people the ability to skip any part they want.
a game with skippable boss fights would definitely feel like less of a "video game" to me, but I realize that this is mainly down to my own experiences and hence, bias
Dont press the button (imagine how satisfied youll feel when you know all those filthy casuals skipped the boss fight but only YOU had the stones to actually beat it!)
Yeah, that's been my underlying point. Do we view the original opinion subjectively rather than objectively?
A lot of people hold the same view as you that it lessens the experience, people should either 'git gud' or play something else, and that's a perfectly valid stance to take.
On the flip side people can also say "I don't agree with it but does that mean other people shouldn't have the option?" Playing devil's advocate we can say that's an equally valid view?
Why are you talking about laziness? Player can find puzzles, regular enemy encounters or pretty much anything too hard. People are different and have difficulties with different things. It is not like bosses are some universal thing that people have problems with and only things people have problem with. So why developers should limit their help to just bosses when anything can be too hard for a player?
No its not. Having the ability to skip content as an option or mode does not take away from the experience of anyone who does not choose it.
You literally just stated "this whole subject is about skipping content you don't like." Saying 'don't like' clearly implies not wanting to do something rather than not being able to. "I don't like exercise", "I don't like my job", "I don't like flying", "I don't like sprouts". The inference from your statement is about skipping sections you don't want to do rather than can't. Therefore, whether it was what you were meaning, I don't think it's unfair to say there's a difference between inability to do something and unwillingness to do something based on what you wrote.
As I keep saying, we're talking about boss fights - specific sections where the difficulty generally spikes up a lot. I'm not going to start debating whether or not developers should, by extension, allow any part of a game to be skipped as that's going off the original point.
The author of the article states that he hates boss fights. He wants a skip button because he doesn't like them. He says it is not his inability to beat them but that he just doesn't like them.
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?
As I keep saying, we're talking about boss fights - specific sections where the difficulty generally spikes up a lot. I'm not going to start debating whether or not developers should, by extension, allow any part of a game to be skipped as that's going off the original point.
From the author's article...
"I also hate them for other people, those who arent as good at games as I am (I am average good at games), for whom I know these are not boss fights, but end points. They are massive impassable obstacles between them and the fun they could be having afterward."
I don't know how much clearer than could be in terms of discussing people not being able to get past them?
Exactly.Not playing games because they are hard is as much a choice as not playing horror games. I might enjoy immensely gameplay in horror games but too scared to play them. Like there are people who love Souls games but just can't play Bloodborne because they find it too scary.
Obviously changing horror game to non horror game is much bigger change than skipping bosses. However this doesn't affect people who want to play the scarier mode because they just can play on normal mode. The more options the better. Right?
I would argue that there are numerous sections in the Souls games which are considerably more frustrating than any of the boss fights. Take the various instances of Anor Londo and the knights with Dragonslayer Greatbows, for example. These sections are far more likely to offer an impassable impediment for players than any given bossfight.
And here's another point. For a Souls game, I would argue that allowing players to skip content would certainly take away from the overall community experience of the game. Although the 'git gud' mantra is obviously shitposting, it does hark back to an intrinsic feeling of camaraderie that comes with running the gauntlet of a difficult game.
I won't deny that it's used as a shorthand to ridicule opinions, but I think you can extrapolate by its referencing that these people do not find these counter arguments reasonable beyond their exclusionary nature.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.
An ideal balance is impossible to achieve. People have different levels of skill and experience, not even mentioning folks with potential disabilities. The best possible route to take is to provide options, which is what spawned the thread to begin with. Nothing is required of developers, but they certainly can and should be criticised by anyone affected by their decisions.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.
Surely it is obvious why "I am not engaged enough by a lack of challenge" and "I am incapable of playing this game due to its too high difficulty" are completely different positions. The former can get through the game if they choose to, while the latter can only quit. It's probably the same reason why I know several instances of people asking for a refund on games they found too hard, but I don't know any time someone asked for a refund on something being too easy. A lack of challenge at worst inhibits your will to play, but not your ability to.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're right that people should be allowed not to care about about this stuff. People who need accessibility options are more than aware that this is a common sentiment. What bugs me is when people voice their feedback, explain their reasons, and others respond with a firm, blanket "no". That leaves the realm of not caring and starts looking a lot more like exclusion. That's where the Commentocracy references are presumably coming from.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.
I think the analogies to other media is being taken a little too literally. The point isn't that they are the same and their features should be similar. The essence of the comparison is that in those other media, your progress does not get halted by artificial barriers. Movies will not make you do fingerboard challenges between scenes and block you off from watching the next one until you are deemed worthy. Books do not make you arm-wrestle a dude before you're allowed to turn the page. Video games do often have similar barriers, which is what makes this medium much less accessible than the others.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.
I would also say that this is absolutely on the developers to deal with this, and not on the platform holders. The only blanket solutions they can provide are opening their systems up to read and tinker within the memory, which compromises the security and stability of both the games, system. Getting the keys to the castle would also leave online games more open to exploitation. If the solution came from the developers themselves, you wouldn't have these problems. It would be trivial for devs, since debug options are implemented during development anyway. Dark Souls has for instance has hidden debug options to make you invincible, edit your inventory, and fun stuff like being able to take control of enemies. Just like the cheats of yesteryear, making this available to the public would not only help with the accessibility, it would also provide low-stakes bonus content to players. Cheats would still allow people still play these bosses rather than skip them, so no additional resources have to be spent on the ability to bypass or dumb down boss encounters. These cheats would also apply to all the moments between the bosses too, making it an even more potent solution to the problem.
It doesn't ruin your playthrough if someone else skips a boss fight though. It has no impact on you whatsoever, so why is it an issue if someone else does it?
It doesn't ruin your playthrough if someone else skips a boss fight though. It has no impact on you whatsoever, so why is it an issue if someone else does it?
What are the alternatives though? Someone plays it, gets stuck, and still leaves a negative Steam review anyway that the boss fights are crummy and people shouldn't bother entirely? Your easily swayed review-readers won't try the game at all then.Because if enough people uses it they can and will affect my future games.
But we dont even have to look that far- if someone gives up on the first hard boss he encounters, he skips it and most likely every other boss fight in the game. He then goes on to Review on steam or wherever that this game has shit boss fight, dont bother. Then this mentality spreads for everyone who takes the word for it and the reception of the game suffers for it. They may still buy the game, but theyll probably skip the boss fights as well feeding into the narrative.
It would be kinda cool to have an option to have a boss fight auto-play so you could still watch an epic fight and not miss any narrative beats. Certainly a time saver if you're only there for the story.