As far as I can tell, the OP article is about skipping boss fights and not cutting boss fights from the game, so...
-
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
As far as I can tell, the OP article is about skipping boss fights and not cutting boss fights from the game, so...
Dark Souls literally sells itself as a difficult game though. Of course the experience is diluted with a developer endorsed easy mode. There is a pride in achieving something that not everybody can do (The Ego Of The Hardcore Gamer, if you will), and there is nothing wrong with that.
EDIT: I think Dark Souls loses more of its "culture" with an easy mode than it would gain from architecture students that don't like a challenge. Is it a wank? Sure, but there's an audience that likes it and they are being catered to.
EDIT2: For the record, I'm all for people hacking into games and doing whatever they want that makes them happy and enjoy the product, but I don't necessarily think it needs to or should always be endorsed by the developer within the game itself.
One more: I'm generally against difficulty options in games at all. I don't want to have to decide before I even start playing a game how hard it should be. I would much prefer developers to just tune the game to how they think it is best experienced and give me that. I don't want to have to decide how difficult a game should be because then I can second guess my decision and wonder if maybe I should change it after I hit a hard boss or something.
royox
Member
Being able to keep playing is the reward of beating bosses. Take this out and "boss battles" will disappear from this media.
Not all games should be for everybody. If you don't like boss battles don't buy games with them, we have like thousand reviews you can use to know if you will love the game or hate it.
I don't like horror games, you won't see me demanding "not scary modes" so I can play them.
Not all games should be for everybody. If you don't like boss battles don't buy games with them, we have like thousand reviews you can use to know if you will love the game or hate it.
I don't like horror games, you won't see me demanding "not scary modes" so I can play them.
Kaleinc
Banned
With easy mode/boss skip Demon's Souls would be the first and last souls game. If they dumbed it down it would still be shit for entitled crybabies, the kicker is it would be shit for everybody else too. The upside is you wouldn't have to cry about Dark Souls 1, 2, 3, Bloodborne, Nioh and any other souls wannabe.
SilverArrow20XX
Walks in the Light of the Crystal
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.
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.
And regarding your imaginary architecture student:
You're basically asking developers to accommodate people who have no interest in the product to begin with.
It's like having a person who doesn't want to read but is interested in the story of a book demanding the writer to supply him with a movie. That's not the writer's obligation.
If he wants to use the product in a different way than intended, it's not outrageous to think that he should have to put in a little extra work himself: getting it on PC and downloading a trainer or CheatEngine in this case for example.
Or bug Sony and Microsoft to open up their consoles so that people can make cheat things for it.
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!)
dl77
Member
That's really about not wanting to play a game as opposed to not being able to play a game.
dl77
Member
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 "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?"
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!
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 "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?"
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!
There is difference in using cheats and straight up skipping content.
When you use cheats encounter designers don't have to assume you are playing by the rules so they can count that user out when designing the encounters.
When you can skip content designers have to take into account that the player doesn't have enough experience with certain type encounters and therefore can't amp up the challenge correctly. Or they can but then again what is the point having a 'skip content' if the upcoming content is going to be harder than the one you were already struggling.
I am all for having easier modes and accessibility options but content skip is totally wrong way to solve these things.
If you are too scared to play the game it is totally about not being able to play it.
And if the dev doesn't want you to have reskinned dev tools you won't regardless of the effort barrier. Again, it's not just a matter of cost but developer choice to allow users to break their experiences.
Professor Beef
Banned
I'm not sure the people using book analogies actually know how to read one.
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 pay for every entertaining product, books, films... but if I can't understand or enjoy them because of my lacks in knowledge, attention, whatever... it's my fault, not developer faults... well depends, but let's assume they give us a fair product.
The Praiseworthy
Member
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.
So.... please stop asking to ruin games because they are already kinda ruined with all the hands holding and shit in most recent games.
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?
I also don't use the multiplayer in most of my games, but having the option doesn't ruin it for me.
I also don't use NG+ in some games, play on Easy or Super Hardcore difficulties, but having the options there doesn't ruin the game for me.
Some people are obsessed with getting platinum trophies for every game, and I'm not, but having them there doesn't ruin the game for me.
So long as the option to have it is not taking away from the core intended experience of the game, then screw it. Add it in.
I also don't use NG+ in some games, play on Easy or Super Hardcore difficulties, but having the options there doesn't ruin the game for me.
Some people are obsessed with getting platinum trophies for every game, and I'm not, but having them there doesn't ruin the game for me.
So long as the option to have it is not taking away from the core intended experience of the game, then screw it. Add it in.
dl77
Member
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.
dl77
Member
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.
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?
dl77
Member
In a lot of cases yes, but fundamentally changing the whole of a game is bit much for me!
ManUnkindH
Member
youtube lets you skip whatever you choose
dl77
Member
You can't get stuck on a boss fight, watch a Youtube video of someone beating it and then pop back into the game at the next section!
However that's an interesting point. I know that my son (9) loves playing Breath of the Wild but there are sections that he found too difficult i.e. fighting Lynels. He's watched a number of his favourite Youtubers playing the game and picked up how to beat them from those videos.
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?
People should learn just to skip the games that can't play...
I mean... buy the game, and then ask for an option to skip the content of the game itself... :\
I would reall like to know how many copies more were sold thx to the "autoplay" in Nier, and similar options on other games... I believe Horizon added a super easy mode, also I remember L.A. Noire that let skip actions scenes... (but in that case were not the core of the game, also not so... but still...)
Bridges
Member
Games are a medium of art like movies
But they are not movies
We should not artificially limit artists (in this case being game designers) as to what they should or should not do to tell their story. Games are unique, and while many seem in a rush to get the rest of the world to acknowledge that it's just like any other media we have, it's really not, it's unique in its interactivity.
Sure, you can skip ahead to the end of a book or a movie, but the implication then is that reading books and watching movies is only for those who want to know what happens. But that's not the point of games (hell, it's certainly not the point of all books or movies either), the interactivity in games is unparalleled by other art. In a book the only thing stopping the good guy from winning is you not turning the page, or in a movie not turning the TV off, but in (most) games the thing stopping the story from concluding is you, the player.
Player agency is, in my opinion, what brings the magic to games. Your story in a game might not be the same as someone else's because it's YOUR story, your interaction makes a difference, and every time you skip an opportunity for involvement I think you miss the point entirely.
Luckily games are also the most adaptable art, there are games not meant to be won or played in any sequential order, there are games without boss fights, there are so many options out there that I think a blanket statement of "everyone should do this" would be terrible no matter what "this" was. Don't limit art like that. Yes, we are consumers, but art is more than something to be consumed, it's something to be experienced.
Developers putting in the option doesn't bother me whatsoever, I just hope that in doing so they are not, knowingly or unknowingly, compromising the experience they have to give.
I'm not sure if any of that made sense, I guess I rant when I'm tired.
But they are not movies
We should not artificially limit artists (in this case being game designers) as to what they should or should not do to tell their story. Games are unique, and while many seem in a rush to get the rest of the world to acknowledge that it's just like any other media we have, it's really not, it's unique in its interactivity.
Sure, you can skip ahead to the end of a book or a movie, but the implication then is that reading books and watching movies is only for those who want to know what happens. But that's not the point of games (hell, it's certainly not the point of all books or movies either), the interactivity in games is unparalleled by other art. In a book the only thing stopping the good guy from winning is you not turning the page, or in a movie not turning the TV off, but in (most) games the thing stopping the story from concluding is you, the player.
Player agency is, in my opinion, what brings the magic to games. Your story in a game might not be the same as someone else's because it's YOUR story, your interaction makes a difference, and every time you skip an opportunity for involvement I think you miss the point entirely.
Luckily games are also the most adaptable art, there are games not meant to be won or played in any sequential order, there are games without boss fights, there are so many options out there that I think a blanket statement of "everyone should do this" would be terrible no matter what "this" was. Don't limit art like that. Yes, we are consumers, but art is more than something to be consumed, it's something to be experienced.
Developers putting in the option doesn't bother me whatsoever, I just hope that in doing so they are not, knowingly or unknowingly, compromising the experience they have to give.
I'm not sure if any of that made sense, I guess I rant when I'm tired.
Now it comes in mind to me Neptunia Rebirth 3rd, that I'm actually playing.
There is not difficult choose, but you can "equip" trough the game system some helps.
Like "more exp" (it's a jrpg), weaker enemies, or even stronger enemies... and there are alot of these options, packed to feel good in the game as part of it, these even make sense for how it's made so are not invasive at all, and are not available at the start, you have to find them in the game world.
I think it's a smart way to not bother players and make it accessible, not too easy and not skip any part of it, because the game is still "challenging", of course easier but does not play itself, so you can still enjoy it in all of its parts.
There is not difficult choose, but you can "equip" trough the game system some helps.
Like "more exp" (it's a jrpg), weaker enemies, or even stronger enemies... and there are alot of these options, packed to feel good in the game as part of it, these even make sense for how it's made so are not invasive at all, and are not available at the start, you have to find them in the game world.
I think it's a smart way to not bother players and make it accessible, not too easy and not skip any part of it, because the game is still "challenging", of course easier but does not play itself, so you can still enjoy it in all of its parts.
dl77
Member
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.
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?
Lets use MGS1 for example here. If you were allowed to skip bosses you still would have to do stealth, action and some exploration sequences. Now if a person finds those bosses easy but any of the other sequences too hard it is not inclusive for that person. It is only inclusive for the people who have problems with boss fights. So in order to help this person it would make sense to allow him to skip any part he is having trouble with.
dl77
Member
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 view that they're entitled to.
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.
SilverArrow20XX
Walks in the Light of the Crystal
Yeah. The personal satisfaction of beating whatever boss is still there. I'm talking more of secret levels and unlockables and such though. Rewards for players who have conquered the game. Like stepping onto Champions Road for the first time after you earned the right to. Rewards lose their splendor if you can just press a button to skip to them.
From the article... I don't want all my games to become Telltale kind of game. Put a tourist mode if you want but I don't want a skip boss button because that would send the message to:
- player doesn't need to learn
and what it would be next ? Skip exploration option ?...
I'm not a good player but if I really like a game I do my best to learn how to play it otherwise I just go watch a let's play.
- player doesn't need to learn
and what it would be next ? Skip exploration option ?...
In divinity 2, if such option would exist it will just kill the game experience since it's a lot focused on combat more than anything else. Best way to kill dungeon crawlers.
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.
dl77
Member
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.
dl77
Member
Sorry, probably didn't phrase it as well as I could have. What I mean is that regardless of whether you, I or anyone else disagrees with it it's still a person's right to believe that if a someone isn't able to play a game then why should they have the option to be helped.
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.
And how talking about regular encounters or puzzles is going off the original point? The topic is clearly more about difficulty spikes rather than bosses. Yes bosses usually are difficulty spikes. This doesn't mean that regular combat sections can't be difficulty spikes too and often games have difficulty spikes outside of boss fights too. So if we are allowed to skip certain type of difficulty spike why we shouldn't be able to skip another type of difficulty spike?
dl77
Member
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?
That which can be obtained with no effort carries no intrinsic reward.
Games are often about the sensation of overcoming obstacles.
The Fatal Englishman
Member
I really fail to see how its going off the original point. The stated example was boss fights as those are, traditionally, where the greatest difficulty spikes are found.
However, 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 also hate them for this reason" meaning it is also because he personally dislikes them as he stated before that. That is his personal reason for wanting a skip button. Yes he wants it so that the games are more inclusive too but that doesn't refute that he wants to skip content just because he doesn't like it. That is also a point he is making.
If Walker just wanted games to remove difficulty barriers that allow games to be more inclusive he wouldn't talk about a button for skipping bosses but something more universal solution. He chose it because he personally doesn't like them. Any difficulty spike could be a end point for player but he keeps talking about bosses because he doesn't like them.
I think the main point is that some people (me included) like to play a game because of the story, the environment, the 99% of the things in it, but when they run into a boss fight changes are they simply hate it as it's for them *not fun at all*. That's not something like "I hate horror stuff, so change this horror game into a high school drama", it's like "I hate horror stuff, so cut the horror scene out of this high school drama".
Now there are boss fights and boss fights. I'll ignore the souls' games as those are pretty much a string of boss fights with training grounds in between them, and focus on normal games which have boss fights for the fuck sake of it.
In The Wither 3, you had boss fights, and although I in general hate boss fights, I didn't really hate them in this game because they were more or less 'exams' if you will: if your level matches the boss' level, you should be able to beat it, so use what you've learned. The game is teaching you that from the beginning. So if you use what you've learned, you should be fine and this is in general OK. With some exceptions they were done well.
In e.g. the Uncharted games or the later Deus Ex games, the bosses are in general a big chore. You mid-game run into some asshole bullet sponge which is simply completely different from what you've run into before, and doing what you've always done up to that point is useless. These boss fights are a big chore and I can imagine people give up because they run into these. You often have to learn a new trick by observing the boss and with luck you might succeed but changes are you will fail. Dying 5 times in a row while you want to experience story, other things than filling the bulletsponge meter of a useless padding boss, is annoying.
Some people simply have waded through the boss fights of old(er) games decades now and have seen and experienced that already 100 times over and they're looking for other things in games nowadays. By being confronted with bosses you effectively run into a roadblock to experience the stuff you want to experience and enjoy and why you bought the game in the first place.
Nowadays I simply use cheat engine to hack the game and skip a boss if it's annoying or use someone elses cheat table to do so or close the game and give up and file it under 'crap'. Like the last boss in Deus Ex Mankind Divided. What a chore. The game was OK, but that ending was blisteringly bad, at least for me personally. It was so annoying that I didn't finish it. I didn't care if there was a whole game after that or the end, fuck that shit. All the power to the people who love that kind of gameplay, no judgment there.
Now there are boss fights and boss fights. I'll ignore the souls' games as those are pretty much a string of boss fights with training grounds in between them, and focus on normal games which have boss fights for the fuck sake of it.
In The Wither 3, you had boss fights, and although I in general hate boss fights, I didn't really hate them in this game because they were more or less 'exams' if you will: if your level matches the boss' level, you should be able to beat it, so use what you've learned. The game is teaching you that from the beginning. So if you use what you've learned, you should be fine and this is in general OK. With some exceptions they were done well.
In e.g. the Uncharted games or the later Deus Ex games, the bosses are in general a big chore. You mid-game run into some asshole bullet sponge which is simply completely different from what you've run into before, and doing what you've always done up to that point is useless. These boss fights are a big chore and I can imagine people give up because they run into these. You often have to learn a new trick by observing the boss and with luck you might succeed but changes are you will fail. Dying 5 times in a row while you want to experience story, other things than filling the bulletsponge meter of a useless padding boss, is annoying.
Some people simply have waded through the boss fights of old(er) games decades now and have seen and experienced that already 100 times over and they're looking for other things in games nowadays. By being confronted with bosses you effectively run into a roadblock to experience the stuff you want to experience and enjoy and why you bought the game in the first place.
Nowadays I simply use cheat engine to hack the game and skip a boss if it's annoying or use someone elses cheat table to do so or close the game and give up and file it under 'crap'. Like the last boss in Deus Ex Mankind Divided. What a chore. The game was OK, but that ending was blisteringly bad, at least for me personally. It was so annoying that I didn't finish it. I didn't care if there was a whole game after that or the end, fuck that shit. All the power to the people who love that kind of gameplay, no judgment there.
Exactly.
dl77
Member
I specifically referenced the Dark Souls titles as a title that shows it's not applicable to every game .
Earthpainting
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
It may well take away from the experience of the person who uses the skip boss fight button, who might be me.
Its the job of a game developer to present a game experience they think is good, not to offer a vast mass of toggles and let the player figure it out. That's a dereliction of the designer's duty. The player can't be expected to just guess what works
A skip boss battle option risks being the worse kind of option - one that's superficially attractive to a frustrated player, but undermines the game. Boss battles often serve a purpose. They're examinations, that ensure you've learnt the important gameplay mechanics before moving on. They're also crucial parts of the story telling.
Which isn't to say that options are bad, but they need to be options you're prepared to stand behind, support, and make actually good - a properly featured discovery mode like AC is offering.
Or leave them in as cheat codes/debug options, that are clearly not part of the intended experience. Or just let people mod the game.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
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.
There is some merit for game offering less experienced players help. As much as people hated it at the time the super guide in New Super Mario Bros Wii being activated after dying eight times in a row was a perfect compromise. It allowed Nintendo to design more difficult stages without having to worry about whether or not more casual players will make it through the game.Now the stages were more difficult than they were in NSMB on the DS it was a win win for everyone. Same goes for Donkey Kong Country Returns. It was there it was not intrusive and you still had to attempt playing the game before it gives it to you. This is ideally how games should handle accessibility.
However just having a skip button at the middle of a first play through at a boss or any other part, comes across as nothing more than a whinny need for games to be catered to everyone at all times when that simple is not possible. Its like the person who wrote the article wants games to stop being games and just be more like Movies or any other medium which is really frustrating. This kind of mentality can only lead to games being simplified to a fault. It is also really disrespectful to the creators of the product by just skipping content as its intended to be experienced at the first sign of any challenge.
However just having a skip button at the middle of a first play through at a boss or any other part, comes across as nothing more than a whinny need for games to be catered to everyone at all times when that simple is not possible. Its like the person who wrote the article wants games to stop being games and just be more like Movies or any other medium which is really frustrating. This kind of mentality can only lead to games being simplified to a fault. It is also really disrespectful to the creators of the product by just skipping content as its intended to be experienced at the first sign of any challenge.
Earthpainting
Member
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.
I'm also not sure if I buy the slippery slope that the ability to skip boss fights would mark the end of them. Cutscenes can be skipped in games these days, and those sure didn't seem to have lessened over the years.
Rockstar's games are also pretty chill these days with letting you skip segments you keep failing at. They're highly popular and influential games, and somehow they haven't ushered in the downfall of action or racing missions in open world games that some are fearing.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
why not just watch a lets play
Similar threads
- Locked