• 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

@MUWANdo

Banned
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.

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for whatever that other dude proposed--I didn't read it, even--I was just spelling out what Mario games actually do because it seemed like you literally didn't know.

"Completionist incentives" refers to things like shiny stars which most players won't even notice, much less care about.
 

Hero

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.

Sure, I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, was commenting on 'games as art' thing but I feel like that could be its own thread.

I completely agree that you are paying to have an experience, which just furthers the point that someone that buys a video game should be able to get the experience and have the option of skipping/cheating through difficult bosses/stages/encounters.
 

ffvorax

Member
I don't like all these idea to make the games too easy or self playing as an option... I mean it's a game, and as a media of this kind it requires some ability... You can't do it? Change hobby, or just play what you can enjoy, or watch a "let's play" on youtube...

It's like if I'm scared of horror films, and I ask to have an option to skip scary scenes/make them less scary, to enjoy anyway the plot or whatever...

I mean every media or product or activyt has its peculiarity, doesn't mean that everyone can enjoy them at full... not everything must be accessible to everyone at any cost.

EDIT:
I see some peple cited Mario... I actually hated in Super Mario 3D Land the immortality after many death... it killed the game for me... even as an option... :\
 
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for whatever that other dude proposed--I didn't read it, even--I was just spelling out what Mario games actually do because it seemed like you literally didn't know.

"Completionist incentives" refers to things like shiny stars which most players won't even notice, much less care about.

My argument is that there's no problems with games providing more options in regards to difficulty and technical assistance for people with potential physical disabilities. Anything that'll help more people experience the product.
 

Trickfinger

Neo Member
really interesting topic.

I do think that this is up to the creators of the art or 'product' and not up to the consumer or user.

If a developer, let's say from software, chooses to give us a tough and challenging experience, than that is what they had in mind, and that's the way it should be played.

If you don't like that way of playing games, just don't play those games.

Just stop asking everybody and everything to alter products to your liking instead of moving on and playing the games, or using the products you actually like.

I mean i really hate pineapple pizza. Am i going to war on pineapple pizza? demanding they change the recipe, because i'm the almighty consumer? no. I just pick another pizza.
 
I'm not saying he's wrong, but I don't think this particular bit makes as much sense as he thinks it does:

In 2009 I suggested it was daft that I’m not able to just skip ahead while playing game, like I could in a film, book, or TV show. Of course that’s daft!

Just because something is possible does not make it desirable, beneficial, or give it an edge over other mediums. Yes that can be the case, and might be in this case, but it shouldn't be assumed.

It's equivalent saying it's daft that films, books, and TV shows don't often offer interactive ways to change the story like video games do. "Isn't it ridiculous that in 2017, I still have zero agency over the story I see in Game of Thrones?!"

No, because mediums are different.

I mean, another thing people do for entertainment is biking. You can't "just skip ahead" on the bike trail either, short of like, calling in a helicopter to airlift you to a later part of the trail. Not all entertainment offers the ability to "just skip ahead."

Again, I'm not arguing that games shouldn't have those options, but I think it's flawed to make this particular comparison.
 

Ascheroth

Member
If you don't like that way of playing games, just don't play those games.
Or use cheats. That way you also clearly know that you're doing something the game wasn't designed for and accept that it may improve or devalue your experience. And devs don't need to spend resources on those features.
 
If your game has levels or chapters, give us a level select cheat/screen. Feel free to disable the achievements if that's what's stopping you putting them in.

I really miss cheat codes. I used to love hunting through cheats books for codes for the games I owned! Finding an infinite lives code, a level select, secret character... it was always so awesome.
 
Sure, I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, was commenting on 'games as art' thing but I feel like that could be its own thread.

I completely agree that you are paying to have an experience, which just furthers the point that someone that buys a video game should be able to get the experience and have the option of skipping/cheating through difficult bosses/stages/encounters.

But what if the artistic intent, the point of the experience, revolves around the difficulty? I'd argue it's not on the onus of the creator to make sure everyone can equally experience his work if his original intent is inherently exclusionary. You can pay to HAVE the experience (i.e. the struggle) but it's not a guarantee you will enjoy, or even experience, the entire thing since it is gated behind performance expectations. For a (kind of dated) example, I can't do those "3D illusion picture" things where you squint or cross your eyes and a different picture comes out. I could never make them work, even while people around me got it. It's an inherently exclusive media where if you can't preform the trick you can't really fully experience it.
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
EDIT:
I see some peple cited Mario... I actually hated in Super Mario 3D Land the immortality after many death... it killed the game for me... even as an option... :\

How?

How did an optional thing that didn't impede or otherwise disrupt your play 'kill the game for you'?

This is the whole part of this discussion I simply don't understand. How some option that wouldn't even be utilized by most of the posters decrying it would suddenly ruin the medium for them.

It's utterly baffling.
 

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I'm not saying he's wrong, but I don't think this particular bit makes as much sense as he thinks it does:

Just because something is possible does not make it desirable, beneficial, or give it an edge over other mediums. Yes that can be the case, and might be in this case, but it shouldn't be assumed.

It's equivalent saying it's daft that films, books, and TV shows don't often offer interactive ways to change the story like video games do. "Isn't it ridiculous that in 2017, I still have zero agency over the story I see in Game of Thrones?!"

No, because mediums are different.

I mean, another thing people do for entertainment is biking. You can't "just skip ahead" on the bike trail either, short of like, calling in a helicopter to airlift you to a later part of the trail. Not all entertainment offers the ability to "just skip ahead."

Again, I'm not arguing that games shouldn't have those options, but I think it's flawed to make this particular comparison.

Like I said, people like to compare media when it's beneficial for their side, but when you look at them, they're pretty diverse. There's a reason they ignore magazines, theaters, live concerts and such.

How?

How did an optional thing that didn't impede or otherwise disrupt your play 'kill the game for you'?

This is the whole part of this discussion I simply don't understand. How some option that wouldn't even be utilized by most of the posters decrying it would suddenly ruin the medium for them.

It's utterly baffling.

I don't get it either. Apparently having that is an insult to difficulty - even though you don't actually have to use it and if anything if that item pops out that means you are having difficulty to begin with.

It's like that complaint with checkpoints in Samus Returns.

But what if the artistic intent, the point of the experience, revolves around the difficulty? I'd argue it's not on the onus of the creator to make sure everyone can equally experience his work if his original intent is inherently exclusionary. You can pay to HAVE the experience (i.e. the struggle) but it's not a guarantee you will enjoy, or even experience, the entire thing since it is gated behind performance expectations. For a (kind of dated) example, I can't do those "3D illusion picture" things where you squint or cross your eyes and a different picture comes out. I could never make them work, even while people around me got it. It's an inherently exclusive media where if you can't preform the trick you can't really fully experience it.

Yeah, what if the experience being promoted is the difficulty itself and overcoming the challenge? No amount of skipping or easy mode is going to have that.
 

Trickfinger

Neo Member
How?

How did an optional thing that didn't impede or otherwise disrupt your play 'kill the game for you'?

This is the whole part of this discussion I simply don't understand. How some option that wouldn't even be utilized by most of the posters decrying it would suddenly ruin the medium for them.

It's utterly baffling.

Because a lot of games are based on actually performing well, and getting rewards for doing so.

Imagine dark souls, where one gamer would play his ass of learning move patterns on bosses, and exploring every secret in the game, but little johnny already beat it because he skipped half the game.

1. The game is made to be played a certain way
2. It can actually destroy the way a game is viewed, either critically or by fans.

skipping things is not what games are about.
 

paperlynx

Member
It entirely depends on the game, story driven games where the gameplay is secondary could benefit from having this as a feature - let's say TLoU. But for other games this doesn't make any sense, dark souls or cuphead would be pointless if you could skip boss fights as it detracts from the overall experience, even if there were certain bosses I didn't like.
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
Because a lot of games are based on actually performing well, and getting rewards for doing so.

And an option doesn't change any of that for those that wish to participate in such an endeavor.

Imagine dark souls, where one gamer would play his ass of learning move patterns on bosses, and exploring every secret in the game, but little johnny already beat it because he skipped half the game.

What you've described is actually Dark Souls. I can simply summon people to beat the boss for me. What's the difference? Because one has an acceptable in-game explanation and a riskier viewing window? Dark Souls a good example of being able to 'skip' content.

1. The game is made to be played a certain way
2. It can actually destroy the way a game is viewed, either critically or by fans.

Because an OPTION is present? Hogwash AND nonsense. Critics are smarter than that. 'Fans' won't use it for the most part.
 

ffvorax

Member
How?

How did an optional thing that didn't impede or otherwise disrupt your play 'kill the game for you'?

This is the whole part of this discussion I simply don't understand. How some option that wouldn't even be utilized by most of the posters decrying it would suddenly ruin the medium for them.

It's utterly baffling.

I still didn't used it, but the fact that existed made everything less interesting and challenging for me... because I knew I could cheat it easily... in Mario I feel it's not that bad, it's just my limit, but in other games, like Dark Souls, would actually break all the sense of the game to me...
Why struggle if I have an option to make it easier? -> My brain tells me don't waste your time, anyone can just cheat the game, find a better challenge on a game that don't let anyone cheat.
Maybe is mostly a psychological thing...? Also I still believe that give too many options kills the "message" a game want to pass to the player, the experience itself.
Play a level with immortality gives different emotions than playing it without.
 

Manu

Member
"I paid $60 for this game and I'm entitled to all the content!"

*proceeds to skips portions of the content*
 

Ridley327

Member
Because a lot of games are based on actually performing well, and getting rewards for doing so.

Imagine dark souls, where one gamer would play his ass of learning move patterns on bosses, and exploring every secret in the game, but little johnny already beat it because he skipped half the game.

1. The game is made to be played a certain way
2. It can actually destroy the way a game is viewed, either critically or by fans.

skipping things is not what games are about.

To bounce off the example in SM3DL, it's not even proper immortality since you can still die with the Golden Tanuki suit, as it doesn't save you from falling into a pit or lava. Even with the extra help it gives you otherwise, Nintendo still expects people to figure out how to play a platformer at its most basic level.
 

Trickfinger

Neo Member
What you've described is actually Dark Souls. I can simply summon people to beat the boss for me. What's the difference? Because one has an acceptable in-game explanation and a riskier viewing window? Dark Souls a good example of being able to 'skip' content.

Thats actually really clever, never thought of summoning like that!


Because an OPTION is present? Hogwash AND nonsense. Critics are smarter than that. 'Fans' won't use it for the most part.

Well , yeah exactly. This seems the part you don't understand. Making dark souls for example easier or skippable (summoning notwithstanding lol) changes the way a game is viewed. It is known for being a brutal RPG, otherwise it would have a different userbase and would be known as an accesible RPG.

players like games for being hard. Introducing an option to avoid that is diminishing that.
 

ffvorax

Member
What you've described is actually Dark Souls. I can simply summon people to beat the boss for me. What's the difference? Because one has an acceptable in-game explanation and a riskier viewing window? Dark Souls a good example of being able to 'skip' content.

That's is still an experience. You need to find people, to interact with them, You don't know if it will be a success or not... it's way different than having an easy options. Sure it's also different to do it alone, but it's not an autoplay...
 

gblues

Banned
But I mean, sure. You paid your 60 dollars, do whatever you want. I just wonder what happens when you decide to skip a level that's too hard only to find out that every level after that is also too hard.

This rarely happens though because difficulty isn’t linear. The far more common scenario is that there’s one cheap boss in the middle and the stuff before and after it is far more manageable.
 
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?

It's a nice thought, but that's not really how it works. Uncharted 4 is balanced around easy, and everything else is literally broken in a lot of areas. Crysis is balanced around Veteran, and everything else sucks.

Devs balance their game without a difficult in mind, then fuck with numbers a few times and call whichever of the resulting is most middling "normal."

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for whatever that other dude proposed--I didn't read it, even--I was just spelling out what Mario games actually do because it seemed like you literally didn't know.

"Completionist incentives" refers to things like shiny stars which most players won't even notice, much less care about.

Almost a full half of Galaxy 2's levels are inaccessible if you use the Super Guide, so it's gating content. 3D Land and 3D World don't let you use the White Tanooki on Special Worlds, so again, they're gating content behind skill.
 

Hero

Member
Because a lot of games are based on actually performing well, and getting rewards for doing so.

Imagine dark souls, where one gamer would play his ass of learning move patterns on bosses, and exploring every secret in the game, but little johnny already beat it because he skipped half the game.

1. The game is made to be played a certain way
2. It can actually destroy the way a game is viewed, either critically or by fans.

skipping things is not what games are about.

Most people don't give a shit about how others experience the game.

Fire Emblem Awakening, which was originally going to be the last Fire Emblem game EVER, introduced a Casual mode to appeal to people that may have been interested in the series but stayed away because it was known for its difficulty or their previous experience with a different game in the series. The game winds up massively exceeding expectations and the series is more successful than it has ever been, in part because they expanded their potential audience. Traditional FE fans still have their Classic mode and can play the game as they always have. There is literally no downside to them introducing the option.

But what if the artistic intent, the point of the experience, revolves around the difficulty? I'd argue it's not on the onus of the creator to make sure everyone can equally experience his work if his original intent is inherently exclusionary. You can pay to HAVE the experience (i.e. the struggle) but it's not a guarantee you will enjoy, or even experience, the entire thing since it is gated behind performance expectations. For a (kind of dated) example, I can't do those "3D illusion picture" things where you squint or cross your eyes and a different picture comes out. I could never make them work, even while people around me got it. It's an inherently exclusive media where if you can't preform the trick you can't really fully experience it.

Can you prove a time in which a game's "artistic intent" was to be brutally difficult? Even if you can, what percentage of games do you think are designed with that same mentality? You don't have to be exact, ballpark or guesstimate. Do you think even 1% of games are designed with "We want our art to be difficult!"?
 
Because an OPTION is present? Hogwash AND nonsense. Critics are smarter than that. 'Fans' won't use it for the most part.

Over time, options and/or changes to modes like that could create a shift in the way games are reviewed or experienced. You could argue that shift would be a good thing overall, but there are also good arguments in favor of the status quo (in that specific respect, not necessarily status quo overall).

You can say critics are smarter than that now, but if we see a slowly shifting paradigm in the way games are designed to accommodate less interaction, more passive consumption if desired, self-imposed difficulty starting to become a thing of the past, it's absolutely possible for industry criticism to change, as well as game design itself.

Who knows? If all games adopted boss fight skipping overnight, maybe devs would lean toward making harder bosses because they know people can just skip them if they're too hard and want to offer a challenge to the remaining players. Maybe devs would lean toward easier bosses because they know people might just skip them if they're too hard, and want that content to be experienced regardless. Or maybe they would make fewer bosses because they know that their hard work on those bosses would often just go to waste - we already see this happening via stats on game completion, all the money is spent in the first few levels because that's all 50% of players ever see. Not necessarily even due to difficulty, just people losing interest. That's also why there's been a gradual reduction in side quests and optional content, it's seen as a waste of time and money on the 5% of players that will actually do it.

Options absolutely impact the rest of the game design, whether you can see it or not.
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
Thats actually really clever, never thought of summoning like that!




Well , yeah exactly. This seems the part you don't understand. Making dark souls for example easier or skippable (summoning notwithstanding lol) changes the way a game is viewed. It is known for being a brutal RPG, otherwise it would have a different userbase and would be known as an accesible RPG.

players like games for being hard. Introducing an option to avoid that is diminishing that.

You'd still have lunatics doing their lunatic super-high-skill runs.

I do believe there is more nuance to this than simply a "skip this shit" button. Dark Souls is likely the most elegant and well integrated version of what we're talking around which won't be bettered in a long, long time. And I don't think what's being discussed should be mandatory in any way - I just balk at the kneejerk reactions that it would fundamentally 'ruin' anything. The more likely scenario is that things have a chance to be more popular on the merits of their art and story.

Have we even brought up Bayonetta's one-button mode?
 
Boss fights seem an odd case to make. Most games let you destroy bosses if you switch to the easiest difficulty, and most games don't have crazy difficulty spikes in boss levels.

I think that ill-advised instadeath platforming or stealth sections are more of a roadblock for most players.

Rather than asking for boss-fight skipping, I think it's better to ask for a general "story mode" difficulty that makes everything easy (and that can be toggled on or off as needed).
Skipping a boss is going to be really unsatisfying for any player, since it's an admission of defeat. It would be much better to have the player defeat the boss in an easy fight.
 
But what if the artistic intent, the point of the experience, revolves around the difficulty? I'd argue it's not on the onus of the creator to make sure everyone can equally experience his work if his original intent is inherently exclusionary. You can pay to HAVE the experience (i.e. the struggle) but it's not a guarantee you will enjoy, or even experience, the entire thing since it is gated behind performance expectations.
I think this is slightly misguided though. Surely the intent of a developer would be crafting a challenging, yet doable experience. Not some kind of arbitrary and subjective level of difficulty that means something different to every player. The vast difference in skill levels means someone's idea of challenging can be easy to another, and utterly impossible to someone else. Just read any thread about how hard Souls games are, and you'll find countless people talking about how easy they find these games. If the authorial intent was to have a tough and challenging game, then it apparently failed at its intent for all of those players. The same goes in the opposite direction. If someone finds the game to difficult to progress, then the delicate balance of challenging yet possible is once again toppled and defeats its alleged purpose. This variance is one of the main reasons we have difficulty options to begin with. If the goal is to exclude the bottom rungs of players for no reason other than to exclude them, then sure. That's also a valid authorial decision too, and I can respect it if the devs came out and said as much.
 
I think if a player on one of my favorite spots teams gets injured, they should just be able to skip games (and have them counted as wins) until the player is healed. It's only fair.
 
Honestly I think one of the most compelling arguments against these types of options is how they disincentivize the creator to spend a lot of time and money on the skippable content.

Obviously most creators will do their best to design games the same way they normally would've in spite of that option, for example Mario games didn't go to hell when they introduced the easy mode suit. But we know developers are already investing all their time and money on the parts of games they KNOW all players will experience. It's probably we have so many disappointing and incomplete endings in games!

It's why consoles briefly toyed with the idea of user-replaceable soundtracks for games via MP3s, and it died shortly afterward. Music creators don't like the idea that nobody is listening to what they worked hard on. And I'm sure boss creators don't like the idea that nobody is playing what they worked hard on. Why design a complex, multi-layered fight that involves the environment in a cool way, and involves some really tricky coding and event design to get it juuust right and balanced, when a lot of people are just going to hit that skip button?
 

@MUWANdo

Banned
My argument is that there's no problems with games providing more options in regards to difficulty and technical assistance for people with potential physical disabilities. Anything that'll help more people experience the product.

That's a perfectly reasonable position to take and I'd never discourage any developer from making their game more inclusive.

I also agree that simply letting players choose which content to experience and how, devoid of context, is an awful way to communicate the intended appeal of your game and I wouldn't necessarily equate that to something like Super Guide, which helps players but also makes it obvious that they want you to do things the "right" way.

That being said, I don't really care whether people have the optimal experience as prescribed by the developers, so who gives a shit? Hell, let 'em be completely mercenary and gate all the game-breaking shit behind microtransactions for all I care.
 
But none of those are "skip to the end of the dungeon and get the treasure".

heoVocm.jpg
 
Can you prove a time in which a game's "artistic intent" was to be brutally difficult? Even if you can, what percentage of games do you think are designed with that same mentality? You don't have to be exact, ballpark or guesstimate. Do you think even 1% of games are designed with "We want our art to be difficult!"?

"Hard" is subjective, but the prime example that immediately jumps to mind is Lisa: The Painful. It's an RPG entirely designed around making difficult, unforgiving decisions that usually don't have a right answer and for the entire point of its plot to punish and beat up the player for continuing to press forward in spite of hardship, as if the suffering made their goal more noble. It's a remarkable game, both for its integration of plot and gameplay and for just being a really damn well designed Turn based RPG. Lisa is especially relevant because it actually ended up getting targeted by people claiming it was exclusionary due to its difficulty, causing the developer to make a concessionary "easy mode" (which still isn't very easy) against his initial wishes.

For a more popular example, the last few battles of Undertale are designed to be nearly impossibly difficult for plot reasons (one of these is resolved by the plot, the other by player skill). Super Meat Boy pointedly expects the player to die dozens of times to complete it's later levels, it even includes a replay feature to emphasize how long it took you to get it right. Every X-Com game, especially the old ones, uses difficulty and negative reinforcement on decision making to emphasize the hopelessness of the situation. Fire Emblem would permanently kill off characters, forcing the player to either play the game perfectly or suffer consequences thus making them more attached to their army than something like Advance Wars. It may not be the overriding design philosophy of every game, but it's in more than you think, and just flippantly removing these aspects can make a game lesser as a whole.
 

Hero

Member
"Hard" is subjective, but the prime example that immediately jumps to mind is Lisa: The Painful. It's an RPG entirely designed around making difficult, unforgiving decisions that usually don't have a right answer and for the entire point of its plot to punish and beat up the player for continuing to press forward in spite of hardship, as if the suffering made their goal more noble. It's a remarkable game, both for its integration of plot and gameplay and for just being a really damn well designed Turn based RPG. Lisa is especially relevant because it actually ended up getting targeted by people claiming it was exclusionary due to its difficulty, causing the developer to make a concessionary "easy mode" (which still isn't very easy) against his initial wishes.

For a more popular example, the last few battles of Undertale are designed to be nearly impossibly difficult for plot reasons (one of these is resolved by the plot, the other by player skill). Super Meat Boy pointedly expects the player to die dozens of times to complete it's later levels, it even includes a replay feature to emphasize how long it took you to get it right. Every X-Com game, especially the old ones, uses difficulty and negative reinforcement on decision making to emphasize the hopelessness of the situation. Fire Emblem would permanently kill off characters, forcing the player to either play the game perfectly or suffer consequences thus making them more attached to their army than something like Advance Wars. It may not be the overriding design philosophy of every game, but it's in more than you think, and just flippantly removing these aspects can make a game lesser as a whole.

Okay, so you have answered the first question and provided an example (even though the creator introduced an easy mode afterwards, which is kind of the point of this article?) but you didn't answer the second question. How many games aim to be brutalizing difficult? Do you think it's even 1%?

I've already commented on Fire Emblem introducing Casual Mode in Awakening and Phoenix Mode in Fates, which further eases the difficulty of the game, and the franchise has never been more successful/profitable/popular, so I'm not sure how citing older Fire Emblem games is a good example?
 

Dina

Member
Most bosses I want to skip boil down to three reasons:

- Unfair/strange difficulty spike
- Buggy/bad bosses
- Breaks the flow of the game or does something completely different from the rest of the game

I can understand the first one, although there is certainly value in the challenge. However, if you are stuck after 5, 10, whatever attempts, you should be able to either drop the difficulty and try again, or the game should prompt you to skip at the current difficulty.

I can definitely understand the second one.

But the third one, that one is difficult for me to answer. There are good and bad examples. A bad one would be the Deux Ex: Human Revolution bosses on a full stealth playthrough. But Metal Gear Solid is filled with wonderful bosses. You can tell a great story through a boss fight and its mechanics. Why punish if developers take a risk here. If anything, it should be celebrated.
 

koss424

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.

Are we at the point where we are now saying that devs are gating off content because players have to play the game....
 

LordJim

Member
Okay, so you have answered the first question and provided an example (even though the creator introduced an easy mode afterwards, which is kind of the point of this article?) but you didn't answer the second question. How many games aim to be brutalizing difficult? Do you think it's even 1%?

I've already commented on Fire Emblem introducing Casual Mode in Awakening and Phoenix Mode in Fates, which further eases the difficulty of the game, and the franchise has never been more successful/profitable/popular, so I'm not sure how citing older Fire Emblem games is a good example?

You still have to actually go through the motions with the FE games, not just hit the 'Skip Grima' button to see the ending or bypass chapters you find tedious. Few have issues with difficulty modes and lowering the stakes, it's outright skipping ahead that makes people wonder 'why the heck do you even play'.
 
but you didn't answer the second question. How many games aim to be brutalizing difficult? Do you think it's even 1%?

I think this is somewhat of a straw man misrepresenting the position. This was what was said:

But what if the artistic intent, the point of the experience, revolves around the difficulty?

It doesn't say "brutalizing difficult." It says the point of the experience revolves around the difficulty. It could be said that extremely easy games revolve around the difficulty, meant to be a light and breezy experience for everyone. Or middling difficulty games are designed that way, for most people to be able to enjoy but not necessarily for anyone. Maybe the developer wants to ease players into other games they have made or other games in the same genre.

I think in most games, the developer's intent is to begin by introducing players to how the game is played and help them find strategies to be successful, and then over the course of the game continue offering twists and natural evolution on the formula. The intent is to nurture player mastery of their game, so that they will be prepared every step of the way to be able to deal with the boss fights. Many of them are very intentionally designed and balanced.

I think far more than 1% of games have an artistic intent that at least partially revolves around the difficulty selected for that experience.
 
Top Bottom