Support NeoGAF

[Teletraan1]

They should have boss skip tokens drop out of loot boxes. That will solve all of this.

 

[BiggNife]

Skipping boss fights is a flawed solution. In reality, devs should be making better boss fights.

A boss fight should test your capacity to use skills you've learned up to that point. Metal Gear Rising's bosses are incredible in this vein, because they serve as "tests" to see if you've been practicing counter timing and using blade mode effectively.

A boss fight SHOULDN'T introduce new mechanics that require you to learn new things on the fly. The final bosses in the Uncharted series are notorious for doing this.

 

[LambdaTeos]

Give more options to players

Sounds good, why not?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

What bosses specifically would the author want to skip other than Thunderblight Ganon?

 

[Heshinsi]

All books should come with the cliff notes attached so everyone can enjoy the work without actually having to read the difficult prose.

I skip boring chapters, I zone out or fast forward boring parts in movies and tv shows, and I should be allowed to do in games as well. There was a game in particular (can’t remember the name) that had chapter select available right from the get go.

 

[Sephzilla]

Most games that are heavily based around narrative are likely not going to have much in the way of challenging boss fights anyway (if any at all), so I'm kind of wondering what the point of this entire idea is.

 

[Shadowhaxor]

Nah, I can't co-sign with. The entire reasoning for the boss fight is to see if the skills you picked up will help you get past the end level bad guy. Then what about games like Furi and Cuphead that are basically boss rush games?

Sorry and I usually don't say this, but git gud!

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Destiny? Mario games?

I don't play Destiny, so i can't comment... although skipping boss fights in an MMO seems unfair to others who are putting the work in around you.

As for Mario, doesn't modern Mario have options to skip through entire levels and have invincibility during boss battles? What more do you want?
A lot of Devs let you watch the credits from the options menu if you don't want to even bother with the game and skip straight to the the credits.

 

[Lord British]

What does paying money have to do with anything? Are you entitled to a game's source code because you "paid money?"

No? Just want to get past that crappy giant electric dog so I can see the Forest of Shadows of whatever.

I always find it an interesting debate because in a sense I agree with you, until I get stuck.

 

[pa22word]

Play more Japanese games?

1. I do

2. Dumb argument that's missing the point

If you want the super accessible content muncher games that AAA games are (which is what we're talking about here, accessibility), then by and large bosses don't exist anymore and mostly because the gameplay in these games are too shallow to support them. Sure, you get your occasional Nioh or Souls, but they are an anomaly and marketed intentionally to people sick of said banal aforementioned games.

 

[Greatest Ever]

Keep skill gates. Make difficulties more malleable if your game allows.

 

[Arkeband]

If people are this lazy where they can't be bothered to even play the game, they can just watch a streamer play it.

 

[Marcel]

Most games that are heavily based around narrative are likely not going to have much in the way of challenging boss fights anyway (if any at all), so I'm kind of wondering what the point of this entire idea is.

I feel like this type of article where a game journalist asks about doing away with boss fights is trotted out every year and nothing ever really comes of it other than a circular debate.

 

[LiK]

I'll just watch a LP.

 

[DarkConfidant]

If people are this lazy where they can't be bothered to even play the game, they can just watch a streamer play it.

But people already watch streamers!

Also, the people who'd be using the proposed feature would still be playing most of the game. Just not select parts of their choosing.
You said it was because of their laziness, but the OP didn't propose that, so your premise is flawed.

Give more options to players

Sounds good, why not?

Because everyone needs to think and feel as I do, or at least experience things the way I want them to.

/s

Spoiler

Seriously, this is a good idea. Never thought of it. I would probably never use it unless I really was no longer enjoying a RPG because of a high HP boss low-strategy (like the final bosses in Persona games) and didn't want to spend hours on the same content. Still, this would let other people enjoy games I like, and then I could suggest games to normal folks without them being to afraid of difficulty or time sink.

 

[khaaan]

What makes games different is that they're not a passive medium like movies, shows, or books.

If a developer wants to make certain aspects of their game optional, great. But they should never feel forced to do so.

Chapter select would not be a new concept in gaming.

 

[Afrodium]

All books should come with the cliff notes attached so everyone can enjoy the work without actually having to read the difficult prose.

Every book allows readers to skip difficult prose. You can even read the ending first, or read the book completely backwards. Sure, none of this is recommended, but it's still entirely doable and not a problem because there's a common understanding of how a book should be read.

There's really no reason a game can't have every level unlocked out of the gate. If you want to play the game from start to finish as intended, then just do that.

 

[pa22word]

I feel like this type of article where a game journalist asks about doing away with boss fights is trotted out every year and nothing ever really comes of it other than a circular debate.

Because it's a debate that's already over.

AAA games are designed for accessibility and for the broadest bunch of people possible to enjoy them. These by and large do not have bosses any more.

Indie titles are usually intentionally designed by definition not to be accessible and instead to hit a narrow audience, so making an argument that they should be more accessible is rather self-defeating I think.

 

[Lord British]

If people are this lazy where they can't be bothered to even play the game, they can just watch a streamer play it.

Not so much lazy as just "man, this sucks. What a boring fight. Just let me skip past it to the Lollipop Glade of Rock Candy Demons or whatever". I identify with them.

 

[Marcel]

The new Assassin's Creed having a separate non-combat educational mode is a more elegant solution to this problem than simply skipping or removing boss fights.

 

[Toxi]

Remember when Nintendo introduced features that helped "bad" players like the Golden Tanooki suit or NSMB straight up skipping sections for you if you died too much?

There are better ways to do this than basically telling the player they suck when they keep dying.

Anti-frustration skips should be available from the start if you're going to implement them at all.

 

[Mesoian]

Skipping boss fights is a lazy and flawed solution. In reality, devs should be making better boss fights.

A boss fight should test your capacity to use skills you've learned up to that point. Metal Gear Rising's bosses are incredible in this vein, because they serve as "tests" to see if you've been practicing counter timing and using blade mode effectively.

A boss fight SHOULDN'T introduce new mechanics that require you to learn new things on the fly. The final bosses in the Uncharted series are notorious for doing this.

This is actually what should be happening.

If the boss structure in your game is so wildly different when it comes to mechanics and difficulty that it makes the majority of people who encounter it want to skip it, it needs to be retooled because it's probably just a bad fight.

But someone mentioned Yunalesca from FF10 earlier, that is not a bad boss fight, it's actually incredibly well done, but it IS the hardest non-optional boss in the game. The game makes you experiment with spell combinations you may not have thought about originally in order to break her flow which is designed to kill you in phases. It a neat fight, but it is a little frustrating off the jump. In that case, I'd rather FF10 give you the option to simply retry rather than reload the save, skip through 4 cutscenes and then get to the start. The process of restarting the fight is often more annoying than actually redoing the fight itself.

There are a lot of ways of promoting accessibility without just straight up letting the character step over the entire experience.

The new Assassin's Creed having a separate non-combat educational mode is a more elegant solution to this problem than simply skipping or removing boss fights.

Well...let's see what that thing actually is first.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Sure why not. The more options the merrier.

I want to recall GTA V displaying a prompt asking if you would like to skip to the next section after you've failed X amount of times. Seems a sensible approach.

 

[Wagram]

Let's play FFXV if we want "great" boss fights that skip themselves.

 

[Sephzilla]

Also, things like chapter select in video games aren't exactly a foreign concept.

Devil May Cry 3 back on the PS2 would allow you to chapter select levels so you could replay or skip whatever you wanted. The only requirement was that you had to beat the level first on that difficulty in order to unlock it for chapter select.

 

[MrBadger]

I've never objected to things like the golden tanooku leaf, or other things that are there for people who just want to see the whole game without being stuck. I don't use them, they don't affect my experience. So sure, let people skip the parts of games they don't like. Once I've unlocked level select, I usually only go back to the parts of games I like anyway.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

I find the argument for skipping boss fights to be very antithetical to a large segment (but in modern days, perhaps a smaller/shrinking portion) of the medium.

There’s two potentially opposing forces at work here: narrative and ludology (here meaning “game mechanics”).

For games that are more narrative focused, sure, be as accessible as you want. Allow players to essentially be undefeatable if that is their wish.

Mechanics-oriented games on the other hand, shouldn’t make as many compromises, as doing so would fundamentally defeat the purpose of the design. If you really want to “experience” the game at that point still, just watch a let’s play or something.

 

[True Fire]

Games should be played the way the creators intend. If they add an easy mode, great. If they want their game to be difficult, then you’re not entitled to a walk in the park mode.

Accessibility? People have been able to play Souls at full difficulty using custom controllers. Instead of dumbing content down, why don’t we just make gamers’ interactions with the game more accessible?

Let's play FFXV if we want "great" boss fights that skip themselves.

You really can’t help yourself, can you?

 

[poodaddy]

John Walker, writing for Rock, Paper, Shotgun:

And I would emphasize something he doesn't: Skipping the difficulty spikes introduced by bosses is also an accessibility feature. It helps people who are disabled to an extent that a higher degree of dexterity or play control is simply unavailable to them.

This is absolutely true and I don't think it's considered near enough. I had a friend growing up who had congenital hearing and sight defects and it made it very difficult for him to enjoy video games, even though that was essentially his only hobby. I used to get very sad back in the NES and SNES days watching him struggle to beat fast paced bosses and stages that were just simply unfair for him, and often he'd just hand me the controller to get him past those parts. I remember the look of defeat on his face when he'd hand me the controller man, it puts this weird kind of sharp pain in my chest even now when I think about it.
He loved your video games, publishers and devs, hell he probably still does though I'm not sure as we didn't keep in contact when I joined the military. Regardless, he deserves to be able to enjoy video games as much as the rest of us, and games should be developed in a way to try to include him as much as possible.

 

[Greedings]

I love how his argument essentially boils down to "because I said so."

If you don't like playing the game, then don't. Watch a movie or read a book. Skip through it if you want.

It's like complaining that you're losing at a sport and telling the other team to stop and let you score. It's my entertainment time, I should play it my way!

 

[Raven117]

Imagine is Souls games did this.

Wish they did (but not really). I found working my way through the levels much more interesting than the boss fights. That's why I liked Demon's the most of all of them, because I think the levels were harder than the bosses themselves.

 

[Neptonic]

I fucking bashed my head against Ornstein and Smough in DS1 for 7 hours. And you know what, it was one of the best feelings I’ve ever had in a game when I beat them. Same goes for Jeanne in Bayonetta 1. I don’t understand why people would want to stop themselves from feeling that rush of success.

 

[justjustin]

First, I think you should be able to skip boss fights. But it can't just be a button press, and I'll use a piece from the article to explain why.

From the article:

The better argument, although it’s a lot less frequently uttered, is, “But I might press the button!” And here things get a lot more tricky. How many’s the time you regretted pressing the ‘hint’ button on your favourite mobile puzzle game? How often have you felt that incredible sense of achievement of having succeeded at a part of a game that challenged you so, which you know – you just know – you’d have skipped three tries back if you’d had the option? Yes, here, there’s a concern. But it’s not a concern about games, it’s a concern about yourself.

The bolded is not true. If I'm designing a game where you have the option to skip boss fights, I need to design a game that expects you to skip boss fights. The next parts need to be made possible and enjoyable for those who skip them, and that's not up to the player. It's up to the people who make the game.

But the article later (indirectly?) addresses this issue by saying there should be a separate mode for the skip ability... Very weird! Anyway, I think it's important to emphasize the "skip button" feature has a real ripple effect for everyone who plays it, and actually does require planning and work on the game designers' part. It's not simply an issue of personal choice or self-control, and it becomes a different game because of it.

This new Assassin's Creed game seems to be doing it right, and that's cool. However, I think it also only works because it's an open world game where "challenge" is the last thing a person cares about. It's much more about in-the-moment experiences, and not dependent on arcade-style build up of skill and knowledge over time. But even in games like Devil May Cry with the easy automatic mode-- I think that's a good accessibility solution for more action-oriented games.

And yes, Dark Souls has the best skip button yet in the form of summons. That's a creative and meaningful solution where the player loses nothing, and faces no bad consequences later in the game. There's also more steps involved (searching for a summon, waiting, coordinating with them, etc.) and emotional satisfaction than just pressing a skip button.

 

[pa22word]

I mean to the people who are so vehemently for /and/ against this why not ninja dog it?

You get beat 15 times by a boss he calls you not worth slaying and walks off, you get an F rank on the stage or don't get a cheevo or whatever but you get to keep playing. Maybe there's even an ultra easy mode where the boss left a note telling you he went out drinking instead of bothering to fight you, or something.

Skill is maintained as a part of game design, and you get to keep playing.

 

[Toxi]

I love how his argument essentially boils down to "because I said so."

If you don't like playing the game, then don't. Watch a movie or read a book. Skip through it if you want.

It's like complaining that you're losing at a sport and telling the other team to stop and let you score. It's my entertainment time, I should play it my way!

We're talking about single player games here.

 

[Frost Walrus]

I'm kind of mixed on this. On one hand, I understand the accessibility concerns and on paper it wouldn't affect my experience.

On tge other hand, skipping stuff in a movie, TV show, book or game is completely alien to me, so much so that it leaves me scratching my head.

 

[Foggy]

I'm just glad he's not making games and writing about them instead

 

[Timeaisis]

I agree. And not just boss fights.

There have been plenty of games I enjoy incredibly until a certain extremely frustrating segment. It's usually not difficulty that bothers me, it's frustration and the feeling of wasted time.

I actually made a whole thread tangentially related last year. Although not boss fights, I equate this game design with the frustrating bits that the player just wants to be done with. Why can't we skip these? Why can't developers make an "easy" button to rid players of having to do these tasks that they clearly don't want to do? Ostensibly, it would make many, many games all the better for it. And hey, if some players like that, they can still do it.

Games are all about flow. When a player hits a brick wall, the flow breaks. Ideally, there should never be a brick wall to begin with, but we know theory and practice are two different things. So why not skip the brick wall altogether?

I love how his argument essentially boils down to "because I said so."

If you don't like playing the game, then don't. Watch a movie or read a book. Skip through it if you want.

It's like complaining that you're losing at a sport and telling the other team to stop and let you score. It's my entertainment time, I should play it my way!

You are arguing for his point and you don't even know it. People are already dropping games and watching a movie or reading a book instead because they can't skip segments. If games allowed them to skip frustrating parts, these same people would likely complete them all the way to the end. Or should we continue to be gatekeepers for this medium for no discernible reason?

 

[Skronk]

Not sure how feasible it is, but it would be interesting if instead of "skipping" the boss or section you could turn on an auto-pilot and you could basically watch the game play itself.

This is what I've always wanted for combat sequences in games like Mass Effect.

 

[Marcel]

Well...let's see what that thing actually is first.

It make sense for Assassin's Creed, a series where I struggle to call any boss battle within it actually good.

 

[Mesoian]

I feel like this type of article where a game journalist asks about doing away with boss fights is trotted out every year and nothing ever really comes of it other than a circular debate.

It's because they don't realize they won. The grand majority of games made for mass consumption in the AAA space don't have boss fights anymore. They're made to be completed by everyone regardless of skill, and difficulty settings are usually little else increasing damage numbers/reducing enemy health so encounters are quicker, but they are the same encounters.

It's when something like Cuphead or Dark Souls or N+ or Axiom Verge comes out, games that are doing something different, usually harkening back to an age of gaming that is GONE where they start complaining because all of a sudden, the flavor of the month is too hard for some people to complete.

The Dean Takahashi stuff was dumb. Don't get mad at other people being bad at video games, stop worrying so much about what other people are doing. But he put his time into that game and finished it. He learned the mechanics and did the thing. Hell, DSP has finished the game at this point. Cuphead is not some insurmountable titan. It is a tough video game (with some questionable choices made) but it can be done if you have the will to complete it. I find it super strange that people still want the option to skip bosses, even though the easy mode makes the game quite palatable if you aren't ultra skilled in Contra-like games.

It make sense for Assassin's Creed, a series where I struggle to call any boss battle within it actually good.

I would struggle to call the combat in AssCree good at all. But that's me. I checked out on those games after 4. Boats were fun.

 

[MrBadger]

I love how his argument essentially boils down to "because I said so."

If you don't like playing the game, then don't. Watch a movie or read a book. Skip through it if you want.

It's like complaining that you're losing at a sport and telling the other team to stop and let you score. It's my entertainment time, I should play it my way!

Well that's unfair to the other team. Videogame bosses don't tend to have feelings.

 

[Majora]

People get so upset about other people simply being able to enjoy games they've paid $60 for the way they want. I find it unfathomable. If someone else wants to skip all the hard boss fights or difficulty spikes and just enjoy the parts of the game they don't find too hard, who the hell are some of the people in this thread to point and sneer and say no? I would personally hardly ever choose to use it but why should I begrudge the option for a young kid or someone with disabilities, or even someone who can't game as much as they used to and who just wants to make some progress in the game they paid good money for?

Honestly, Jim Sterling should bookmark this thread for his next Commentocracy video, it has just the right brand of pompous elitism and lack of consideration for anyone else's lifestyle or playing habits than their own.

 

[Stranya]

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?

Agreed.

 

[Lord British]

People get so upset about other people simply being able to enjoy games they've paid $60 for the way they want. I find it unfathomable. If someone else wants to skip all the hard boss fights or difficulty spikes and just enjoy the parts of the game they don't find too hard, who the hell are some of the people in this thread to point and sneer and say no? I would personally hardly ever choose to use it but why should I begrudge a young kid or someone with disabilities, or even someone who can't game as much as they used to and who just wants to make some progress in the game they paid good money for?

Honestly, Jim Sterling should bookmark this thread for his next Commentocracy video, it has just the right brand of pompous elitism and lack of consideration for anyone else's lifestyle or playing habits than their own.

I wouldn't go that far, but pretty much, yeah. I mean, it's not like beating a boss is impressive to anyone outside of this very niche circle, really.

Just have a toggle-able mode that disables trophies if it matters so much.

 

[RedSwirl]

I get the whole argument behind not liking difficulty and being able to skip through a game, and I think a lot of games can life with it. I think most open-world games should have "tour" modes where players can just freely explore the 3D space without difficulty or progress gates. All that being said, I don't get why boss fights are singled out here.

This kind of talk seems to assume that boss fights represent unique difficulty spikes for all games in which they appear, and I just don't think that's the case. I don't think boss fights, especially modern boss fights, are all that much harder than the rest of the games they're in. You may as well just have the option to skip all combat.

Singling out boss fights to me speaks of the kind of design mentality that led to the homogeny of so many action games last gen and in my opinion made so many of them insulting to players' intelligence. Just because some boss fights are badly designed doesn't mean they are all inherently bad. We have regenerating health now because designers agreed that health systems are always bad. We have autosaving now because designers agreed all other save systems are bad. So many games have a two-weapon limit because designers agreed having too many weapons clogs up the UI on controllers.

Back to optionally cutting all signs of difficulty out of a game, you ultimately have to ask yourself the question: does the game still work without combat? Does the scenario still work? Can the story still be delivered without it? One of the biggest problems here is that in so many games the narrative and "ludology" are still separate from each other. The fact that one can work without the other is, in my opinion, a problem in itself.

Personally I think a lot of popular games we play with combat in them might work better if they were re-written as adventure games, or at least I'd enjoy them more if that were the case. But all those would require extensive rewriting of the game. I don't know, maybe have modes that transfer all required combat sequences into cut scenes so you can go about the part of the game you enjoy.

 

[Marcel]

It's because they don't realize they won. The grand majority of games made for mass consumption in the AAA space don't have boss fights anymore. They're made to be completed by everyone regardless of skill, and difficulty settings are usually little else increasing damage numbers/reducing enemy health so encounters are quicker, but they are the same encounters.

It's when something like Cuphead or Dark Souls or N+ or Axiom Verge comes out, games that are doing something different, usually harkening back to an age of gaming that is GONE where they start complaining because all of a sudden, the flavor of the month is too hard for some people to complete.

The Dean Takahashi stuff was dumb. Don't get mad at other people being bad at video games, stop worrying so much about what other people are doing. But he put his time into that game and finished it. He learned the mechanics and did the thing. Hell, DSP has finished the game at this point. Cuphead is not some insurmountable titan. It is a tough video game (with some questionable choices made) but it can be done if you have the will to complete it. I find it super strange that people still want the option to skip bosses, even though the easy mode makes the game quite palatable if you aren't ultra skilled in Contra-like games.

This is a fair point. The battle is indeed over on boss fights for mass market games. And I too am always puzzled why they would expect games that are meant to reward skill to change arbitrarily.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Steroyd]

Sure the devs will... For a fee. ¬_¬

 

[Eumi]

I wouldn't go that far, but pretty much, yeah. I mean, it's not like beating a boss is impressive to anyone outside of this very niche circle, really.

Just have a toggle-able mode that disables trophies if it matters so much.

Why does it have to disable trophies?