Yep, every game needs a full debugging console available in realtime
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
Yep, every game needs a full debugging console available in realtime
Yep, every game needs a full debugging console available in realtime
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?
That statement in no way counters the bad value proposition of paying $60 to not play parts of what you paid for.
Especially when the argument used as an excuse to do this "I should be able to experience the whole game" by skipping parts of it.
This. It makes no sense.
- Played it before, find the boss tedious/not fun
- Played it before, find the boss too easy and don't want to waste time
- Played it before, already perfected it, trying to learn to speed run the section after it
- Want to show a friend a cool moment later in the game
- Sometimes it's fun to cheat - 'IDDQD' is legendary as a famous cheat code. There are probably thousands of people that could still input a GTA cheat code from memory. This person's using God Mode in Doom to blow off steam. I had an example earlier of Civilization including cheats menu in the game's menu that I really enjoyed playing around with as a kid. Lode Runner: The Legend Returns in my display picture had a similar thing, cheats from a dropdown. If I recall correctly, there was a skip level option. It didn't ruin the game.
- Some people enjoy the story parts of the game more than the boss battles. Maybe they really enjoy the story of Horizon: Zero Dawn but find the bigger battles too stressful.
- Maybe the boss battles are broken or don't support the player's preferred gameplay style, i.e. the Deus Ex Human Revolution example I brought up in a previous post.
- And then, maybe this one boss battle is simply too hard for the player and they don't want to play it.
I'd rather skip stages and go straight to the boss fight to be honest.
Who's skipping half the book? This is an option to skip individual boss fights.If you skip half of the book you are not actually reading the book, you doing something else.
Great news! There are plenty of 2017 games with boss fights. You've got a lot of games to look forward to playing.What boss fights? There are boss fights these days? Could have fooled me. If anything, we more and better designed boss fights.
This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
Imagine is Souls games did this.
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.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.
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'.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 woud 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.
the article said:There are obvious solutions. The most simple being the option to switch off the option of such a button when starting a new game, and impossible to switch on without restarting. Perfect, right? Those without the self control to impulse use it can remove the option, those who just want to enjoy the game differently than you have it on. Done. Then, if that werent enough (and it is), there can be reward mechanisms.
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?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.
Yeah you get it! There are so many potential use cases for a skip function.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.
You're right that there are some bad arguments here as reasons for adding level skip. But there are plenty of good ones too.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.
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.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).
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.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.
Is there a reason why we don't see similar calls for inclusivity coming from book/tv/film critics?
I'm a bit lost here. It seems the suggestion is that games should only use their challenge as their draw when otherwise uncompelling and creatively barren. Specifically it describes the packaging of a well tuned challenge as baffling because other aspects demonstrate the same level of merit.
If that's the argument here, doesn't that make the claims of a game's context and intent determining whether it should be hard and how/when it should address difficulty curves false in the face of just wanting the aspects of it not actually tied to the gameplay and thus not needing to be a game?
Typically we have artbooks for that function, though that said a world tour of sorts would be nice, but it still leaves the fact that the game isn't what you're coming for.
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.
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.
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?
I'd rather skip stages and go straight to the boss fight to be honest.
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.
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.
Did the existence of cheat codes "fundamentally change" every one of the hundreds of games that have them?
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.
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.
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).
~ The RoadHe took great marching steps into the nothingness, counting them against his return. Eyes closed, arms soaring. Upright to what? Something nameless in the night, lode or matrix. To which he and the stars were common satellite. Like the great pendulum in its rotunda scribing through the long day movements of the universe of which you may say it knows nothing and yet know it must.
~Blood MeridianThe truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning. The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man's mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.
~ Grapes of Wrath”We're Joads. We don't look up to nobody. Grampa's grampa, he fit in the Revolution. We was farm people till the debt. And then—them people. They done somepin to us. Ever' time they come seemed like they was a-whippin' me—all of us. An' in Needles, that police. He done somepin to me, made me feel mean. Made me feel ashamed. An' now I ain't ashamed. These folks is our folks—is our folks. An' that manager, he come an' set an' drank coffee, an' he says, ‘Mrs. Joad' this, an' ‘Mrs. Joad' that—an' ‘How you getting' on, Mrs. Joad?'" She stopped and sighed. ”Why, I feel like people again."
~Absalom, Absalom!I, the dreamer clinging yet to the dream as the patient clings to the last thin unbearable ecstatic instant of agony in order to sharpen the savor of the pain's surcease, waking into the reality, the more than reality, not to the unchanged and unaltered old time but into a time altered to fit the dream which, conjunctive with the dreamer, becomes immolated and apotheosized
~ Heart of DarknessThe word ‘ivory' rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it. A taint of imbecile rapacity blew through it all, like a whiff from some corpse. By Jove! I've never seen anything so unreal in my life. And outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck on the earth struck me as something great and invincible, like evil or truth, waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion.
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.
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 breaking some moral contract.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.