Because it is morally wrong for me to allow the player to continue wasting their time doing something they'r incapable of. I dunno which answer you want. Both courses are equally bad, but one didn't require me to put in a feature. Game design au naturel. At the point where we start adding features to things, I might as well add a knitting course or something into the game. "Press Q to skip this section and proceed to the Introduction to Programming in Swift Section" or something.
-
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
Because it is morally wrong for me to allow the player to continue wasting their time doing something they'r incapable of. I dunno which answer you want. Both courses are equally bad, but one didn't require me to put in a feature. Game design au naturel. At the point where we start adding features to things, I might as well add a knitting course or something into the game. "Press Q to skip this section and proceed to the Introduction to Programming in Swift Section" or something.
i'm gonna be honest, if the games started this feature, i would use the hell out of it. Would it make the game fun? hell no. Would i be able to complete them? Hell yes.
20 minutes to plat Dark Souls finally
In all seriousness, this seems like a bad suggestion and shouldn't be incorporated. difficulty options to make the bosses and enemies easier is way better than letting people skip the boss battles entirely.
20 minutes to plat Dark Souls finally
In all seriousness, this seems like a bad suggestion and shouldn't be incorporated. difficulty options to make the bosses and enemies easier is way better than letting people skip the boss battles entirely.
Adam_Roman
Member
Add it as an option in Easy mode if you die on a boss a few times, sure. And maybe disable achievements.
My girlfriend who never played anything beside Fire Emblem and isn't able to use two analogic sticks at the same time completed the first one, You can do it too.
Chicken Hat. On every head.
By all means have a difficulty mode that allows people to stomp over a boss fight easily, via a difficulty setting.
I think having an actual skip fight button is the wrong way to go though, rather than just nerf the boss hard on easy. Games are an interactive medium, and it should be kept that way.
I think having an actual skip fight button is the wrong way to go though, rather than just nerf the boss hard on easy. Games are an interactive medium, and it should be kept that way.
Good to see this thread is going and nobody has made a legitimate, convincing argument on why this would be a bad thing.
It's pretty obvious that I would expect most games to lock out getting a platinum if you used the skip feature and it certainly wouldn't be hard to implement.
i'm gonna be honest, if the games started this feature, i would use the hell out of it. Would it make the game fun? hell no. Would i be able to complete them? Hell yes.
20 minutes to plat Dark Souls finally
In all seriousness, this seems like a bad suggestion and shouldn't be incorporated. difficulty options to make the bosses and enemies easier is way better than letting people skip the boss battles entirely.
It's pretty obvious that I would expect most games to lock out getting a platinum if you used the skip feature and it certainly wouldn't be hard to implement.
So what's the problem? Games aren't books or movies.
If you buy a game you should be able to do whatever you want with a game.
Mod it to oblivion, cheat the hell out of it, do whatever you want.
Something too hard? God mode.
Want to buy that exorbitantly priced costume where you would need to spend hours brain-dead grinding? Unlimited money.
Knock yourself out.
But I think it's important that those things shouldn't need to be designed into the game.
The developer makes the game according to their vision. If you don't agree with some of it, you have tools to circumvent, but *know* that you go against that vision and you may or may not devalue the experience.
You may call it arbitrary, but there *is* a difference between dying against a boss and getting a 'skip this?' prompt and having to enable a secret cheat code or using a trainer.
Mod it to oblivion, cheat the hell out of it, do whatever you want.
Something too hard? God mode.
Want to buy that exorbitantly priced costume where you would need to spend hours brain-dead grinding? Unlimited money.
Knock yourself out.
But I think it's important that those things shouldn't need to be designed into the game.
The developer makes the game according to their vision. If you don't agree with some of it, you have tools to circumvent, but *know* that you go against that vision and you may or may not devalue the experience.
You may call it arbitrary, but there *is* a difference between dying against a boss and getting a 'skip this?' prompt and having to enable a secret cheat code or using a trainer.
MajinSweet4
Member
But why would it lock you out of trophies? Serious question. Like, the whole point of beating bosses in Dark Souls is to get a feeling of accomplishment, which I assume is the same reason why people value trophies. If we are going to essentially give people a win button to bypass difficult obstacles, why stop at trophies?
Solid Shammy
Banned
Disappointed by the elitism on display in this thread. All this tough guy talk is just embarrassing, people are using the same lame talking points that were used to justify harassment of that Bioware writer all those years back and it's just silly. Someone doesn't play a video game the intended way so they don't deserve to play it? What a stupid sentiment.
Sure, not all videogames are accessible to everyone, that's a fact by design, but that doesn't mean that developers shouldn't try to make their game as accessible as possible. Now that doesn't mean 'dumbing' down the experience, but simply providing options for people that might either have a disability that limits them or don't have the time to truly invest but still want to play a specific game.
Now since Dark Souls is always the poster child of this debate I'll use that game as an example. People argue that an easy mode would diminish the experience, that the struggle is core to that game, and yes that's true, but would adding an easy mode that boosts the health, disables the trophies, and locks the multiplayer for balancing reasons really hurt that core experience? No, it would be an option, an option that doesn't even interact with the core experience. An option that would also be easy to implement and not take up any resources.
The majority wouldn't use that option, but for the few that want to explore the world and see the story and lore unfold without the difficulty limiting their ability, it would be a great addition. It wouldn't effect all you hardcore gamers that don't need the developers to physically hold your hand because you all so grown up and tough and stuff, your game is left intact.
Honestly, the only negative I can think of is the damn toxic community would bully people who chose to play Dark Souls in the cinematic mode or whatever. I can imagine it now, 'oh my gawd, you played the girl mode? Burn your disc now, you don't deserve it!'
I want tough challenging games, I love tough challenging games, but I also want games to be more inclusive, and difficulty options are a harmless way to do that and have been doing that for generations now, and some games even offer a skip option, LA Noire is one to think of, and that's fine too. It doesn't effect you, it's merely an option for the people that want it.
Sure, not all videogames are accessible to everyone, that's a fact by design, but that doesn't mean that developers shouldn't try to make their game as accessible as possible. Now that doesn't mean 'dumbing' down the experience, but simply providing options for people that might either have a disability that limits them or don't have the time to truly invest but still want to play a specific game.
Now since Dark Souls is always the poster child of this debate I'll use that game as an example. People argue that an easy mode would diminish the experience, that the struggle is core to that game, and yes that's true, but would adding an easy mode that boosts the health, disables the trophies, and locks the multiplayer for balancing reasons really hurt that core experience? No, it would be an option, an option that doesn't even interact with the core experience. An option that would also be easy to implement and not take up any resources.
The majority wouldn't use that option, but for the few that want to explore the world and see the story and lore unfold without the difficulty limiting their ability, it would be a great addition. It wouldn't effect all you hardcore gamers that don't need the developers to physically hold your hand because you all so grown up and tough and stuff, your game is left intact.
Honestly, the only negative I can think of is the damn toxic community would bully people who chose to play Dark Souls in the cinematic mode or whatever. I can imagine it now, 'oh my gawd, you played the girl mode? Burn your disc now, you don't deserve it!'
I want tough challenging games, I love tough challenging games, but I also want games to be more inclusive, and difficulty options are a harmless way to do that and have been doing that for generations now, and some games even offer a skip option, LA Noire is one to think of, and that's fine too. It doesn't effect you, it's merely an option for the people that want it.
Romars202129
Member
Depends on if you view games more like movies or... like games. I'd say once your're skipping things at leisure the point of a game itself gets thrown into question.
MajinSweet4
Member
Games are more inclusive than ever. An insane amount of games come out all the time, most of which cater to as many people as possible. That's being inclusive. The idea that every game needs to be inclusive is flat out counter productive. You actually make things less inclusive by trying to say every creator needs to follow certain guide lines or concepts. Imagine how silly it would be to suggest that Quentin Tarantino should have made a "Children Cut" of Reservoir Dogs to ensure movies are inclusive. Of course no one would suggest that because other movies cover that demographic and Reservoir Dogs wasn't intended to be "For Everyone". Dark Souls is no different in this regard. It's simply not going to appeal to a lot of people (And it's not only the difficulty that will turn a lot of people off) and that's a perfectly okay thing. In fact, it's a good thing. A variety of games that appeal to different people makes a healthy market.
Solid Shammy
Banned
When I was younger I'd take advantage of every cheat possible. Invincibility, downloading complete saves and everything. I've never enjoyed videogames more, I just experimented and had a hell of a time even though I wasn't playing the 'intended' way. That's the magic of an interactive medium, you choose to interact with it however you please.
brunomartynhak
Member
Maybe not skipping, but activating a god mode would be a nice feature.
Well, I used a lot of cheat codes back on Warcraft 2.
Well, I used a lot of cheat codes back on Warcraft 2.
Solid Shammy
Banned
I'm arguing for inclusiveness on a technical level, not an artistic one. Would you argue that Quentin Tarantino not enable subtitles in his films for the deaf? How about audio commentary for the blind? I think not, I'm arguing for technical options that allow everyone a chance to experience whatever medium they wish to. My example of Dark Souls doesn't in anyway harm its artistic merits, it's merely an option for people to take advantage of if they so please.
GoldenCrow
Member
I don't think a skip boss is the best option especially as story will often be told during them but maybe an option like in Furi (a game just about bosses) that allows people to easily beat everything whilst giving context, this could be made even easier where you only need to hit a boss once or do whatever gimmick is required with little to no resistance.
I quite like the idea of multiple difficulty options within games. The Witcher had a difficulty option for the main game and another for qwent and think this could be expanded upon. I don't really have an interest in them as I like my games to have some sort of challenge but when standard options in games are constantly getting turned into microtransactions any developer that gives them without trying to nickel and dime their customers is a positive and the more people that can enjoy gaming the better.
I quite like the idea of multiple difficulty options within games. The Witcher had a difficulty option for the main game and another for qwent and think this could be expanded upon. I don't really have an interest in them as I like my games to have some sort of challenge but when standard options in games are constantly getting turned into microtransactions any developer that gives them without trying to nickel and dime their customers is a positive and the more people that can enjoy gaming the better.
Solid Shammy
Banned
It would really depend on the game, skipping a boss fight in certain games just wouldn't work. But a narrative focused difficulty level would be just as effective as skipping, and in my opinion a better alternative. Wouldn't take much effort either, just enable god mode, disable trophies. Done.
Spehornoob
Member
I wouldn't mind if a dev decides to add it to their game. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be expected either.
Solid Shammy
Banned
An easy mode where the colossi die in one shot would be a more elegant solution. That way the players would be able to experience the excitement of climbing and scaling the colossi without too much difficulty and letting them enjoy the story in a more passive way.
cm osi
Member
i'm gonna be honest, if the games started this feature, i would use the hell out of it. Would it make the game fun? hell no. Would i be able to complete them? Hell yes.
20 minutes to plat Dark Souls finally
In all seriousness, this seems like a bad suggestion and shouldn't be incorporated. difficulty options to make the bosses and enemies easier is way better than letting people skip the boss battles entirely.
a no boss mode will probably lock away the trophies, just like cheats block off trophies in GTA
TheRedSnifit
Member
I think that's fine if it's a narrative game. Like, a lot of narrative-focused games have frankly mediocre gameplay that's kind of just there, so if you want to skip that then cool. But how would you even do this in a gamey-game like Mario or Metal Slug? How would a boss skip work in a boss rush game like Cuphead? That's all there is!
The world is about to endwe have to move fast
*boss fight*
*you die dozens of times and have to watch the same cutscene over and over again, lessening the impact of the story.*
Yeah I dont care anymore.
Its not about skipping boss fights, its about having meaningful fights that are the correct balance of hard and rewarding. If your mechanics fall apart during a boss fight, your game is deeply flawed IMO.
*boss fight*
*you die dozens of times and have to watch the same cutscene over and over again, lessening the impact of the story.*
Yeah I dont care anymore.
Its not about skipping boss fights, its about having meaningful fights that are the correct balance of hard and rewarding. If your mechanics fall apart during a boss fight, your game is deeply flawed IMO.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Then the game should be criticized for being trash.
Truly good games are typically a few variations on "good," and even when the gameplay is at its worst, it's still above average. If you disagree you're probably playing Bioware games, Bethesda games, Ubisoft games . . . and all manner of narrative-driven AAA games, as gameplay in these is very much mediocre across a wide variety of genres; streamlined, simplified, lacking challenge . . . and now (quite logically, in fact) being called to be stripped away completely by skip gameplay buttons.
I'd rather call for gameplay in games to be good again, rather than for it to be skipped.
BlitzBlake
Member
Most cutscenes are skippable but I still see a lot of work going into those.
It's not hard to make a trophy be "beat all bosses without using the skip feature." And please, stop with the Dark Souls comparison. Nobody is trying to take your precious Dark Souls away from you. If the option to skip bosses was patched into the game TODAY it would not effect you enjoyment out of the game at all.
Do you really think this is how it works?
"Hey, games are more inclusive than ever guys! Let's stop trying to make them more inclusive. ¯\_(ツ
_/¯" It's not a milestone where we get to a certain place and just stop. There are many barriers to playing video games where numerous experienced developers have talked about them at conferences or given interviews and difficulty is absolutely one of them. Introducing an option to eliminate barriers that players can utilize will not destroy video games.
Solid Shammy
Banned
I imagine with something like Super Mario the equivalent of a god mode would just to unlock all the levels so people can pick and choose what they want to do. Get stuck on one level for too long, jump ahead to what appeals to them and maybe return to the hard one at a later date. That with infinite lives and such is actually a really good way of easing people into videogames. That's how I'd essentially do it as a kid, use someone's completed save and just have at it.
The point is these modes are optional for the people that want them, or even need them in some cases. I don't think it should be a necessity for every game developer to create an accessible mode for people, but if they do I'll praise them for it. Just like a film having a narration track for blind people, it's a great addition for more people to experience the story, and if you're a dude that doesn't want to sit glued to the screen for three hours but still want to follow a movie, I'd be fine with them using a feature like that so they can do stuff in the background and use the films narrator to keep them informed.
I think the more options provided on a technical level that allow more people of all types to experience anything from books, movies, and of course games is nothing but a good thing. It's only gamers I see complaining about this. It's a psychological issue I'm certain, 'it took me 50 hours to finish this and you done it in 10 on easy. You don't deserve the ending!'
The book/movie comparisons are silly.
Stories are written to be read from beginning to end.
Movies are created to be watched from beginning to end.
A writer or director does not spend time thinking about "how could I make my work so that people can skip certain parts".
The ability to do whatever you want with books and movies is not specifically created by the creators, it's simply something the technology you use to consume the book or movie grants you, as in flipping pages or forwarding a movie.
Why should this be different for games?
Why should game developers spend time and money to make sure that all the twelveteen edge cases some consumers want are covered?
The platform should provide the ability to do what you want, which means mods and cheats. All that stuff that is argued about in this thread is a non-issue on PC, because you can already do things like skipping bosses. Unlimited health instakill God Mode if this is too hard for me. No inventory limit if I don't like it. Etc.
The 'problem' is that consoles don't allow mods and cheats, but this is not an issue game developers should care about, but the platform holders.
Let's be real here: If there is an eBook-Format that does not allow you to search or skip ahead and only lets you read one word at a time then it's not the writers job to change his book so that you can do all the things the eBook-format doesn't allow - whoever came up with that idiotic eBook-format should change the format.
Stories are written to be read from beginning to end.
Movies are created to be watched from beginning to end.
A writer or director does not spend time thinking about "how could I make my work so that people can skip certain parts".
The ability to do whatever you want with books and movies is not specifically created by the creators, it's simply something the technology you use to consume the book or movie grants you, as in flipping pages or forwarding a movie.
Why should this be different for games?
Why should game developers spend time and money to make sure that all the twelveteen edge cases some consumers want are covered?
The platform should provide the ability to do what you want, which means mods and cheats. All that stuff that is argued about in this thread is a non-issue on PC, because you can already do things like skipping bosses. Unlimited health instakill God Mode if this is too hard for me. No inventory limit if I don't like it. Etc.
The 'problem' is that consoles don't allow mods and cheats, but this is not an issue game developers should care about, but the platform holders.
Let's be real here: If there is an eBook-Format that does not allow you to search or skip ahead and only lets you read one word at a time then it's not the writers job to change his book so that you can do all the things the eBook-format doesn't allow - whoever came up with that idiotic eBook-format should change the format.
TheRedSnifit
Member
That's kind of an avenue for frustration, then, because Mario levels get progressively harder, so a guy who can't beat a World 1 level is going to have an even worse time in World 2, and so on until this guy who can't even beat World 1 is smashing his head against the masochistic post-game levels. They'll struggle even more than normally because they arent actually experiencing the learning curve that's supposed to accompany the difficulty curve.
This seems like an avenue for more frustration, no?
cantona222
Member
After enjoying playing against mini bosses and bosses in Mario+Rabbis, and also playing the 75% Boss rush Cuphead game..... I want boss fights to stay.
Seriously, what is this?
We can allow them to skip a section of a game, but only if they are thoroughly humiliated and punished for it..?
Solid Shammy
Banned
Certainly could be the case with something like Mario, I'm merely throwing out quick suggestions for how developers could easily add in additional modes for players that struggle with their games. I'm not really making an argument that a mode like this would really work with something like Mario, but many action games could easily provide an easier mode for people not up to the challenge, and help people with physical disabilities that limit their ability to play the game in it's default state.
I don't think developers should have to add an easy mode as a legal necessity or anything. But I will applaud developers that make their game more accessible for people, more options is always better.
Solid Shammy
Banned
No one is asking to get rid of boss fights man, people are merely suggesting that having a skip option would be a solution for certain games where boss fights work as a dead wall for otherwise eager gamers. We've been able to skip cutscenes since the beginning of time, I don't see those disappearing any time soon.
You know the more recent Mario games have all featured systems that let players skip ahead if they die several times in one level, right? Some use the Super Guide, which essentially lets the game auto-play to the end of the level, and some give you a bullshit quasi-god-mode item that makes you invincible and/or makes it practically impossible to fall down a hole, with completionist incentives to not use or even trigger them and more general incentives to encourage players to go back and clear stages they initially beat using handicaps.
You don't have to hypothesise, they've been doing it for nearly ten years now.
Nobody's talking about removing boss fights altogether...
I don't see why some people are so against this, the full experience would still be there for you to play and while it wouldn't work for all games (Cuphead for example) it's an interesting thing to think about imo.
Solid Shammy
Banned
That's awesome stuff, and I didn't even know it. I imagine it's made a world of difference for some people, and further exemplifies my point. Games can absolutely be more technically inclusive without hurting the core experience for the hardcore gamer bros out there.
Com Truise
Member
I guess I really don't understand why not being able to beat a boss and be permanently stuck in a game is so horrible, and how inclusiveness even comes into this. As a kid, there were plenty of games I couldn't beat. I just moved the fuck on, while thinking that DKC2 is still an awesome game.
If a developer wants a certain minimum level of difficulty for the experience they have in mind, then that's just how it is? Like, that would be literally the game they want to make. I don't understand why that would be a serious problem that needs to be solved by some kind of industry-wide obligation, to let people skip the game part in games.
If a developer wants a certain minimum level of difficulty for the experience they have in mind, then that's just how it is? Like, that would be literally the game they want to make. I don't understand why that would be a serious problem that needs to be solved by some kind of industry-wide obligation, to let people skip the game part in games.
TheRedSnifit
Member
There should be an easy mode hidden behind cheat codes or such. So you know that the difficulty you're playing on is a degraded experience compared to the real one, play at your own risk.
They do, but they require you to actually play and fail the level several times on the regular difficulty, so most players are going to quit out of frustration before they throw themselves off enough ledges to get even halfway through the game; comparing this to just "picking and choosing what levels they want to do" is silly. And you have to beat each level legitimately to access post-game content (which in Mario 3D World is almost half the levels), so it doesn't even take you that far and still gates off content behind your skill level (calling this "completionist incentives" and not "gating content" is pretty dishonest of you tbh).
Tl:;Dr - Tying to claim that "Letting the players pick and choose what level they want to do" is pretty much the same thing as "Players get the opportunity to watch the AI auto-complete a single level at a time after trying and failing several times, with only half the levels available to these players until they beat them legitimately" is dumb.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Also people claim about experience, but what if the experience literally is about feeling the game raw? Like what if the hook of the game is overcoming difficulty rather than the narrative?
I actually heard a good argument against it - in that bosses are structured now as "that scene" rather than being flexible in design, integrated into a level or world. Because they're now "skippable" like cutscenes, it sounds more like a boss design is a checklist cutscene than an actual fight. Like how would it fare if the whole level is a boss fight (i.e. the boss is the level and you fight it in chunks), or if the level structure is like Contra or Megaman X?
I mean, at that point you would know already what the game is about right?
And the sandbox mode isn't the "skip bosses". I'm not against the concept of having sandbox, invincible mode, beginner mode, etc. because they still keep things integral to its structure without altering much of the game. You don't lose the building of the base for instance. It's argument being used with the "skip bosses" I am contesting, primarily because of how it can affect gameplay design.
Basically I used Zoo Tycoon because if we apply your earlier example, what you're asking for is simply having a zoo premade and just looking at it, or rather than constructing an exhibit, you already place existing ones with already recommended items and such.
I actually heard a good argument against it - in that bosses are structured now as "that scene" rather than being flexible in design, integrated into a level or world. Because they're now "skippable" like cutscenes, it sounds more like a boss design is a checklist cutscene than an actual fight. Like how would it fare if the whole level is a boss fight (i.e. the boss is the level and you fight it in chunks), or if the level structure is like Contra or Megaman X?
I mean, at that point you would know already what the game is about right?
And the sandbox mode isn't the "skip bosses". I'm not against the concept of having sandbox, invincible mode, beginner mode, etc. because they still keep things integral to its structure without altering much of the game. You don't lose the building of the base for instance. It's argument being used with the "skip bosses" I am contesting, primarily because of how it can affect gameplay design.
Basically I used Zoo Tycoon because if we apply your earlier example, what you're asking for is simply having a zoo premade and just looking at it, or rather than constructing an exhibit, you already place existing ones with already recommended items and such.
Solid Shammy
Banned
That's silly, just give people an option of difficulty (like most games already do) before starting. You're trying to punish people for playing a game in easy mode? That's terrible man, stop being so judgy. Oh and I'd be fine with most games having a skip encounter option, just pause, highlight option and skip just like it's done with cutscenes. The fact that such a statement is so controversial bewilders me, the option isn't for you, it doesn't effect you, chill out!
TheRedSnifit
Member
An easy mode being part of the official game comes with the expectation that it's actually a proper experience and balanced, right?
If the easiest difficulty is what the game is balanced around, then "hardcore" players aren't going to enjoy it because there's a 99% chance that the harder difficulties are tacked on and probably not that hard. If the game is balanced around hard difficulties and Easy is going to be an inferior experience, then players should be made aware of this instead of being duped into thinking that it's properly balanced and playtested.
It's not "punishment" or "shaming" unless you're really obsessed about street cred. It's being honest to customers about how the game is balanced and the risks associated with stepping out of that.
Ordinaryundone
Member
Because people are entitled to exactly $60 worth of value from the games they buy and if you disagree you are an elitist gamergater who hates inclusion and disabled people, apparently. /s, but the rhetoric around this whole conversation is getting out of control. Like that guy comparing "I don't think you should be able to skip content in games" to an organized online harassment campaign.
If games are ever to be taken seriously as ant art form then the concept of "consumer value" needs to be reevaluated. A movie director doesn't care if you don't finish his movie, nor does the author care if you finish their book. A painter doesn't care if you "get" their painting. Certainly they'd prefer you did, I'm sure, but at the end of the day art exists for its own sake, not the end consumer. Or, if you want a more cynical interpretation, you are paying for the ability to have the experience, not the guarantee you'll fully appreciate it. This goes both ways, a game can be hard in order to make a point, like Dark Souls, or easy to provide a certain kind of experience (like Kirby, or Journey). Neither are wrong, but you'll find detractors on both sides of the argument because a lot of people seem to be unwilling to meet games halfway in buying into the specific sort of experience they were aiming for. Going back to the argument of "I paid for this, ergo it must cater to my tastes".
I suppose the (conscious or not) acceptance of this goes a ways to explaining the way let's plays have blown up; when you remove that sunk cost feeling from the equation it's easier to engage with a game on its own terms (though you are also removing the direct interaction element, leading to an ultimately shallower experience).
The primary goal for the overwhelming majority of video games created today is to make money. They can certainly express things, stand for things, communicate a message, have different types of artistic components, but most video games are a product.
Ordinaryundone
Member
So are films. You can be for-profit and still have artistic merit and intent. Once again, you are paying to have the experience, not a guarantee you'll fully enjoy it.
Solid Shammy
Banned
A simple name would fix that problem. You know, like calling the difficulties, narrative, easy, normal, hard. Something like that. Not understanding your point here man. Normal is normal for a reason, that's what the game was balanced around, everything else is self explanatory. Games even come with a warning or explanation of each setting. Why regress and hide these options behind obscure cheat codes?
Similar threads
- Locked