A Skip Button for Boss Fights

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

erttheking:

CritialGaming:
Snip

Friend will do.

The rest of the game.

The strawman argument here, as well as the thing you seem to struggle with, is that they're not skipping over the entire game. Just certain sections that are too much.

You said "fuck" four times in the first post I replied to, and in the second post you called people who want this "dipshit." I'm just saying.

And what is so terrible about this? Because, to be frank, you sound like you're talking about the effing evils of Communism for the love of god, and how everyone will be lazy because of it. It rewards people for doing nothing. Well, that's one way of putting "I can't beat this level, can I actually play the rest of the game?"

No, I responded to it. You asked if I saw the difference, and I said no. Just a flat out no. Because I don't and I still do. And then I talked about how you were making the situation about how you played the games and how people had to play the games the same way that you did, according to you.

No. Because I don't want to have anything to do with Blightown if I can. The slug through the marsh at the bottom is a pain in the ass, regardless of whether or not it poisons me. Sure, plenty of people would prefer the god mode over skipping, I get that. I'm not one of them. And you preferring it over the skip is fine, but it's kind of eyebrow raising that you want other people to take the path you find preferable, even though it doesn't affect you in any way.

Then it's clear that we are just butting heads and continuing to talk is pointless.

For the record the "dipshits" I was referring too were the people writing these frankly pandery and whiny articles, most of which I think they post to stir up shit....thus "dipshits".

4 fucks is no where near upset. That's under my quota for a normal conversation bro.

CritialGaming:
Snip

I think there's some very serious misunderstanding going on here, deliberate or otherwise, I can't tell. But whatever. Your call.

erttheking:
You are honestly comparing a skip button to being tempted by Satan.

It was a metaphor for temptation that leads to regret. Could have just as easily used "cake for a fat person trying to lose weight" or something similar.

And you also assume everyone who ever skipped through a section feels bad about it. Well, I doubt I would.

I said "many people" not everyone.

And I have this to say people who feel so terrible about skipping through a level. It's a freaking game. Lighten up.

Your opinion. You don't feel any guilt for giving up easily when facing a challenge. Other people certainly do.

And if a section of game made you want to skip it, frankly, it didn't sound like it was worth playing. God. I wish you two got this mad about microtransactions.

Ever heard the phrase "no pain, no gain?"

Lesson? I'm sorry, games have to teach a lesson?

Never said they have to teach a lesson. But if they are going to teach one, a good lesson is better than a bad one.

You are honestly saying this shouldn't be done because it might send a bad message to children? The same logic used by censorship in cartoons? Should cheats not be allowed because they may send the message of "dishonesty is the way to success?"

Didn't say children, either. Lessons can be learned by adults, too. Just something to be considered, that's all. IF a lesson is being taught, then teaching people the value of overcoming adversity is better than teaching people that it's okay to give up easily.

And you don't think developers consider whether they are sending right or wrong messages in games? I'm pretty sure that they do. Moral lessons are incorporated into games all the time.

Not really. "Git gud or gtfo" is arrogant elitism...

You say that like it's a bad thing. If a game is designed for and marketed toward good players or players who want to work to become good, is that bad? Are good players or players who want to work to become good a bad thing? If not, then why is it bad if they tell people who complain about the game difficulty to simply put in some effort to get better or go play something else?

... and "I'm terrible and I deserve to be able to press a button and win" is a strawman because no one has been arguing that point. No one who skips anything claims that they won anything, they just want to be able to move on and continue having fun. The fact that everyone keeps turning this into some kind of zero sum game says a lot about the attitudes behind the scenes.

You can't win if you can't progress in the game. We're talking about a function that allows you to instantly progress and eventually win by pressing a button at every major obstacle. So yes, it is the proverbial "I win" button.

erttheking:
... I don't want to have anything to do with Blightown if I can. The slug through the marsh at the bottom is a pain in the ass, regardless of whether or not it poisons me.

Arrogant Elitist Tip: There is a ring you can get that allows you to run fast in the marsh.

Kerg3927:
Snip

You are still painting skipping over sections in a game as being always bad, even if they're sections that just aren't enjoyable.

You're still casting way too wide of a net.

No seriously. If skipping a section in a game makes you feel bad to any serious degree, you need to lighten the hell up. It's a goddamn video game.

Usually in relationship to which the "gain" is something actually worth a damn, yes.

I repeat my earlier question. Should we take out cheat codes because they teach the lesson that dishonesty is the best way to success?

If an adult learns "give up at the first sign of trouble," from a video game because it can skip a level, that adult probably wasn't very well emotionally developed. And you arguing against this because of the morals it teaches is two steps away from just flat out going "won't someone please think of the children." Developers don't have an obligation to teach the morals you want them to teach, in the same way they don't have an obligation to put a skip in if they don't want to.

No. Not really. I doubt the developers of Doom were sending a message beyond "killing demons is cool."

It is. If you're an arrogant elitist, frankly, fuck off. I'm sorry, this narrative about "game designed for good players who want to work to become good" adds around three layers of assumptions to intent of design, all of them being rather self masturbatory. "Are good players or players who want to work to become good a bad thing?" They are if they're unbearably smug and elitist about it. "If not, then why is it bad if they tell people who complain about the game difficulty to simply put in some effort to get better or go play something else?" Because it often comes with a certain level of smugness, arrogance, and "I'm better than you," all over a video game. It also assumes all complaints about difficulty aren't legitimate, as if Fake Difficulty never works its way in.

Might I suggest that not everyone is as obsessed with winning as you and Critical are? That they just want to enjoy the game on their own terms? And maybe you can just stop assuming that everyone who does this will avoid every single challenge? Or does that stop you from looking down your nose at them?

CritialGaming:
4 fucks is no where near upset. That's under my quota for a normal conversation bro.

You give exactly 4 fucks about this issue. Not 5, not 3, but 4.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:
... I don't want to have anything to do with Blightown if I can. The slug through the marsh at the bottom is a pain in the ass, regardless of whether or not it poisons me.

Arrogant Elitist Tip: There is a ring you can get that allows you to run fast in the marsh.

Oh, you mean that one I had and the area was still a pain in the ass? Are you going to make points or just waste my time?

just put me down for the 'gitgud scrub' camp.

cause why even bother playing the game, or any game for that matter, if your just going to run when the game presents a challenge.

God help these hypothetical snowflakes if the ever go online ...

Kerg3927:
Yep, the skip button would be sitting there like an evil snake with an apple. Some would have the discipline to keep trying until they persevere, some wouldn't, and many of those who gave up and skipped it would feel shitty afterward and regret it. Like a turd.

Overcoming adversity and being rewarded is a great lesson for anyone of any age. Because of this skip function, many would get a different lesson... give up at the first sign of adversity. Yeah, overall it's not that big of a deal, but it's certainly a step in the wrong direction and sends a horrible message.

Both sides have what they think are valid opinions on this matter, and "Git gud or gtfo!" is certainly as valid as "But I'm terrible and lazy and I deserve to be able to press a button and win!"

At the end of the day, there are other games that you can play if you don't like a particular one, and the developers don't have to cater to everyone. And that's not opinion, it's fact.

If the person felt bad about using the skip then they could load a previous save and go back and do it again. Though games not having a decent save system is another topic entirely.

I have to overcome adversity at my job, in my personal relationships, when I work out. Why on Earth would I want that in my leisure time as well? Why must my free time be filled with the same adversity as my real life just because you believe it should be. Does me having Skip the Fade installed for Dragon Age: Origins for example in anyway hurt your gaming experience?

That seems to be a thing you are missing. People do like those games, just as I enjoyed LA Noire. Why should an option you don't have to take be such a horrible thing for you?

This entitlement culture is really taking off isn't it? The devs don't owe you anything. If you don't like it, don't buy it. There's a thing called Twitch and Let's Plays.

erttheking:
I repeat my earlier question. Should we take out cheat codes because they teach the lesson that dishonesty is the best way to success?

I haven't thought much about cheat codes since Doom, 20 years ago, so I don't know. Are those still a thing? I will say that cheat codes have two advantages over a skip button. 1) They are called "cheat" codes, which makes it clear that if you use them you are cheating; and 2) They are out of sight, out of mind. The game doesn't tell them to you, so it's not an "official" part of the game. The majority of gamers are probably unaware of their existence for any particular game. It's not sitting there beckoning to every player to use it every time things get a little tough.

I liken them to mods for PC games. If you know where to look, you can find mods to do all sorts of shit to break the game and allow you to cheat. But to me it's different if the developer outright gives you a cheat button and makes it an official part of the game experience.

Developers don't have an obligation to teach the morals you want them to teach, in the same way they don't have an obligation to put a skip in if they don't want to.

Never said they did, but I appreciate the acknowledgement you make in the latter part of that sentence.

No. Not really. I doubt the developers of Doom were sending a message beyond "killing demons is cool."

Some games, not all. RPG's for instance are usually riddled with moral lessons, sometimes to its detriment if it turns too political, IMO.

It is. If you're an arrogant elitist, frankly, fuck off. I'm sorry, this narrative about "game designed for good players who want to work to become good" adds around three layers of assumptions to intent of design, all of them being rather self masturbatory. "Are good players or players who want to work to become good a bad thing?" They are if they're unbearably smug and elitist about it. "If not, then why is it bad if they tell people who complain about the game difficulty to simply put in some effort to get better or go play something else?" Because it often comes with a certain level of smugness, arrogance, and "I'm better than you," all over a video game. It also assumes all complaints about difficulty aren't legitimate, as if Fake Difficulty never works its way in.

If someone likes the game difficulty as is, how else are they supposed to defend it from attacks and complaints from people like you? I mean a game they love is being threatened. It's natural to go on the defensive. "Please leave this game alone. I love it just the way it is. Please please please." How is that? Better than "git gud"? Less smug?

Might I suggest that not everyone is as obsessed with winning as you and Critical are? That they just want to enjoy the game on their own terms? And maybe you can just stop assuming that everyone who does this will avoid every single challenge? Or does that stop you from looking down your nose at them?

So you accuse people of making it into a zero-sum game and for using straw man arguments, and then you go right ahead and try to make it into a zero-sum game by using straw man arguments. "Not everyone" ... "everyone who does this" yada yada. Of course not everyone wants the same thing. That's why there are different games for different people.

I'll go fuck off now.

Kerg3927:

I'll go fuck off now.

Not a lot of point in responding to your points then, is there?

erttheking:

Kerg3927:

I'll go fuck off now.

Not a lot of point in responding to your points then, is there?

Probably not. From what I can tell, you're arguing just to argue, because you hate "elitists" or anyone who would take pride in any sort of accomplishment. And now you're going to sneer that video games are not accomplishments. Neither is bowling, but most bowlers would feel pride if they bowled a perfect game. And you would sneer at them and tell them to fuck off. It's all based on hate. Hate hate hate.

Someone must have invaded and kicked your ass in Dark Souls once, and then did something like this...

image

... and you just haven't quite gotten over it.

But not everyone who loves a challenge is elitist. Some of them just love a challenge. And not all of them are smug. They silently take pride in what they are able to accomplish, however insignificant it is in the grand scheme of things. Hell, I don't even really PvP, so no gloating here, no one to gloat to. But I screamed at the top of my lungs when I finally beat Fume Knight. And unfortunately that's a feeling all the skip button people will never experience. I'd like to encourage people in those situations to keep trying until they overcome, because it's worth it, IMO. You'd like to encourage them to give up. So we're never going to see eye to eye on this issue.

Kerg3927:

Probably not. From what I can tell-

I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed messages from you. First you say

Kerg3927:

I'll go fuck off now.

And then you keep talking to me. Well which is it?

But the conclusions you draw are hilariously wrong, so if you're still around, let me get a word in edgewise.

I hate anyone who would take pride in accomplishment. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that. I'm going to snear that videogames are not accomplishments. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that. The closest I can think is when I said that people should get over it if they feel bad when they skip a level because it's a video game. Because skipping a level in a video game is not something that is worth feeling that bad over.

That is a hilariously inaccurate narrative. It's amazing the shit people make up about me in a desperate attempt to make me look like the bad guy.

Was I talking about people who like challenges? No, no I wasn't, because I did not imply that people who like challenges are elitists. It seems I have to ask the old question. If I'm criticizing people for doing X Y and Z and you're not doing X Y and Z, why are you getting mad at me? My issue was with "arrogant elitism," which is what "git gud or gtfo is." I like Dark Souls, I just don't like people who are smug assholes over how good they are at it, as well as being rude and condescending to people who aren't on their level. I struggle to see how you could have gotten anything else out of my posts. Let the people who fight the Fume Knight decide if the feeling of relief when defeating him is worth it. It's like the Warp Whistle in Super Mario 3. Let people make the choice. I encourage people to give up. More like I think people should have options, controversial as it is.

I keep thinking of two things:

When the gameplay of a boss fight (or similarly difficult part of a given game, such as some kind of escort or stealth mission) is significantly different from the gameplay of other parts of the game, with those other parts being what somebody wants to participate in. Meaning that a Let's Play doesn't fulfil the engagement in those parts of the game that actually doing it does, even if you don't really get much enjoyment out of breaking through the obstacle.

It reminds me of a discussion I recently had about Banjo-Kazooie; I wanted to engage with all of the quirky worlds, with their puzzles and characters and visuals, a lot more than I wanted to collect precise and massive numbers of notes just to get into them in the first place.

The other side is the whole thing about challenge. I can't speak for anybody else, but I know that when a challenge is something I actually care about, I don't need to be obligated to do it. I didn't fight Smough and Ornstein using only a bow because I'd somehow forgotten how vastly easier they were if I used magic.

If it's about the prestige of completing challenges, it just changes from "I'm good because I managed to get through to the next area at all" to "I'm good because I got through to the next area without skipping the obstacle"; it's just a difference of a couple of words.

I mean, one says that it's all about the out-of-game reward of feeling satisfaction out of having completed it, rather than the in-game rewards, so how is that any different if you weren't strictly obligated?

(Also, on the specific note of Dark Souls being completely unforgiving, well, tell that to me before I use the easy farming in Darkroot Garden with its Forest Wardens chasing me in order to fund my purchase of sorceries. :p)

One thought that I've had is that rather than it just being a straightforward and trivial option, it was something that had an in-game cost, in a form facilitated by the kind of gameplay that you prefer or are better at.

As a Dark Souls example, a kind of reverse Bonfire Ascetic; if you prefer fighting the regular enemies and/or exploring the world, they're something that is hidden around various parts of the game or uncommonly dropped by enemies, that you need to exchange in order to get through. Making it something that still engages playing the game, and actually forming its own kind of reward system, without trivialising the gameplay or invalidating the idea of actually fighting the boss.

Kerg3927:
Now I don't expect other people to put that much effort into it. But it does bother me when people obviously don't want to put ANY effort into it. They want to just skip stuff - even when they have easy-mode - at the first sign of a challenge. It's makes me sad.

Why?

If you want to treat gaming like a second job and get satisfaction from doing so then great, you do you. Why does it matter to you what other people do when their actions don't affect you or anyone else?

Some people don't game for rewards, for them the game is the reward. It's something they do to make their spare time enjoyable.

You'll notice none of the people here who don't mind the idea of skip buttons are saying that hard modes should be taken away. Only the "hardcore" crowd are trying to deny something to other people.

Zhukov:

Kerg3927:
Now I don't expect other people to put that much effort into it. But it does bother me when people obviously don't want to put ANY effort into it. They want to just skip stuff - even when they have easy-mode - at the first sign of a challenge. It's makes me sad.

Why?

If you want to treat gaming like a second job and get satisfaction from doing so then great, you do you. Why does it matter to you what other people do when their actions don't affect you or anyone else?

Some people don't game for rewards, for them the game is the reward. It's something they do to make their spare time enjoyable.

You'll notice none of the people here who don't mind the idea of skip buttons are saying that hard modes should be taken away. Only the "hardcore" crowd are trying to deny something to other people.

Well I could agree for a 'No challange / spectator mode' where 2 weeks post-launch it unlocks it below super easy mode, and just turns on invurnability for characters, auto-achievement collection, enables skip scene/fight on button press and gives a comprehensive list of story points/area places to hop into at button click or setting combination of it however the 'viewer' see it fit*.
Would probably be a good idea to also include this mode in review copies enabled but with NDA for reviewers to not post game material containing this mode. Since game journalist struggle to do simplest of things this would let them hop into and dabble in most of what game has to offer.

On the other hand we could expect, that game journalists are competent and professional in their job without crutches (or go bust) and gamers are intelligent enough to purchase games in generes they like (or don't get entertainment out of their purchase), enjoy the content that is pertinent to genere and are wary of games which try to mix things up, i.e. combine generes, create new ones or when they just try out new things to see if they like it.

Me being old and dad I would like to see 2nd option for my children's world to live in. However, given what is going on with this particular industry, 1st option is the one more likely. Sadly. That or complete collapse and slow build up after recession once all of the poison is flushed from the system (which also sucks but in a way that is how cycling economic growth works).

* - this use to be a part of game development. All of that was in almost every game as easter eggs, fluff, achievemnt rewards and other cheat and progress 'codes' that were unlocked by competent/curious gamers, so eventuallly over time every player could use it to access whatever they wanted. It just isn't 'skip' you bring up cheat mode and punch in the code.

Sounds good to me.

I like to breeze through most games with light challenge, Alien: Isolation and DOOM 2016 are the only games that I beat on their hardest difficulties (at least until they added in Nightmare to Alien) and while I love the sense of satisfaction that comes with overcoming great challenge and want others to feel that, I can come up with exactly zero reasons that someone needs someone to play a game the same way I do.

There should also be a multiplayer mode where you only fight toddlers who can't figure out the controls.

Games are innately challenging. Now, admittedly, it's kinda different from when the price of admission used to be 50p to play an arcade machine.

However, with the death of demos, it's no surprise people feel a bit burned spending 60 on a game they can't beat.

The Lunatic:
There should also be a multiplayer mode where you only fight toddlers who can't figure out the controls.

Despite your sarcasm, in the case of online multiplayer I actually do think a bit of management to ensure games in which players are not grossly mismatched would not be out of order.

It can be a lot of fun to play against other people, but kind of disheartening to repeatedly end up with people who greatly outclass you.

The Lunatic:

Games are innately challenging. Now, admittedly, it's kinda different from when the price of admission used to be 50p to play an arcade machine.

Indeed; you only ever need to pay for them once (at least nominally, depending on additional content), so they don't need to be designed just short of being rigged as a way of cultivating addiction and manipulating people into paying the seemingly small price of admission over and over and over again.

I wouldn't really call the straightforward experience of a game such as Journey challenging, but it's still generally acclaimed.

I know that's a particular case where it's about how the whole game is designed, but it's still an alternative to the idea that they're all challenging.

erttheking:

CritialGaming:
Snip

Hey, I'd skip some parts of Dark Souls if I could. Blight town? GOODBYE!

Hell, the Master Key lets you skip most of it and the Rusted Iron Ring makes the swamp less painful to deal with. So that might be "Cheating".

Myself, I call it "Good Riddance! Blightown can suck it"

maninahat:
From a dev perspective, I imagine the most likely outcome would be them thinking "more people seem to be skipping this boss fight than we'd like. Perhaps we should better balance this fight to make them a more reasonable challenge, and people would be less tempted to skip it."

Problem is I don't think that's how it would go at all. I suspect the most likely outcome would be them thinking "We put X amount of money, time, and effort into Y number of boss fights that Z percent of our players outright skip, so is it better for us if we monetize boss fights, monetize boss skipping, or just stop bothering with them entirely?".

I think that's really what's missing here, any real discussion of the inevitable unintended consequences if this did become a thing. It's all well and good to say "So what if someone else skips a boss, how does that affect you?", but the fact is that if it did become a thing and it was commonly used it absolutely would affect how games are designed. It would affect everyone, those who use it and those who don't.

We've already seen this in multiple genres. Traditional adventure games mortally wounded themselves with the abuse of moon logic (not to mention I can't imagine how the current gaming market would deal with the puzzles in games like Riven or The 7th Guest), only to be replaced with walking simulators that arguably don't even qualify as games. In the effort the chase ever bigger subscriber numbers MMOs have watered down and simplified gameplay and come up with ways for everyone to see everything (in fact this argument is identical to ones that have been had endlessly over raiding, resulting in raiding being watered down to near irrelevance) only to see numbers continue to dwindle and their 'niche' being threatened by MMO-lites like The Division and Destiny, only to see Destiny 2 now on the receiving end of a player backlash due to gameplay being watered down so far that there essentially is, apparently by design, no endgame.

Maybe an end to boss fights would be a good thing, they often are an overused Dev crutch. That only works if they're replaced with something better, though, and I don't see anything likely on the horizon. Maybe the removal of that challenge is what the market wants -- watching and listening to my nephews and their friends play video games, I suspect it is. Whatever the case, such a change would inevitably affect the market, affect how games are designed, would affect the gameplay of everyone.

erttheking:
I hate anyone who would take pride in accomplishment. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that.

Inferred from you telling me to fuck off, and that I was being self masturbatory (didn't even know that was a word) for thinking some games are designed for good players and/or people who like a challenge. You also said that it's bad if people tell people to go play something else if they don't want to learn how to play a particular game because it displays a smug, arrogant, and I'm better than you mentality. From your comments, I get the feeling that you would see any display of pride in accomplishment as smug and arrogant.

I'm going to snear that videogames are not accomplishments. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that. The closest I can think is when I said that people should get over it if they feel bad when they skip a level because it's a video game. Because skipping a level in a video game is not something that is worth feeling that bad over.

Think I had you confused with Zhukov, sorry. But the yeah, the sneers about lighten up, it's only a video game, are in that same vein.

That is a hilariously inaccurate narrative. It's amazing the shit people make up about me in a desperate attempt to make me look like the bad guy.

I don't think you're a bad guy. I just think you have a loser's mentality.

Zhukov:

Kerg3927:
Now I don't expect other people to put that much effort into it. But it does bother me when people obviously don't want to put ANY effort into it. They want to just skip stuff - even when they have easy-mode - at the first sign of a challenge. It's makes me sad.

Why?

If you want to treat gaming like a second job and get satisfaction from doing so then great, you do you. Why does it matter to you what other people do when their actions don't affect you or anyone else?

Some people don't game for rewards, for them the game is the reward. It's something they do to make their spare time enjoyable.

You'll notice none of the people here who don't mind the idea of skip buttons are saying that hard modes should be taken away. Only the "hardcore" crowd are trying to deny something to other people.

Because gaming is a community, and that community votes with its wallets, which affects future game design. So yes, if more and more people in the community adopt the loser's mentality of quit at the first opportunity, it could very well affect me.

But beyond that, as a part of the community, I simply don't like seeing other people in the community adopt a defeatist, loser, quitter's mentality. I think they are cheating themselves, and will be worse off for it. And if anyone in the gaming community ever has my ear, which you do if you are reading this, I'm going to do what I can to propagate a winner's mentality instead of a loser's one. I just am.

I don't mind easy mode's so much because I liken it to weight lifting. If you set out to do 5 sets of 5 reps on bench press at a certain weight, and by set 3, you can't do all 5, what do you do? You lower the weight and keep going until you finish. You don't skip the rest of the sets, because that would be cheating yourself. Skipping is much, much different than lowering the weight, IMO.

Finally, I have been playing video games for almost 40 years, basically since they were invented. It's my hobby, and it has been for my entire life. It's important to me. People act like this skip button would be a minor change. To me, it's not. To me, games have always been about overcoming obstacles. And if you are able to overcome all the obstacles, you beat the game. This skip button would change that. It would change gaming fundamentally. And, call me an old geezer, get off my lawn and all that, but I don't want to see that happen, because I think it's a bad direction for the hobby to take and bad for the community.

Myria:

maninahat:
From a dev perspective, I imagine the most likely outcome would be them thinking "more people seem to be skipping this boss fight than we'd like. Perhaps we should better balance this fight to make them a more reasonable challenge, and people would be less tempted to skip it."

Problem is I don't think that's how it would go at all. I suspect the most likely outcome would be them thinking "We put X amount of money, time, and effort into Y number of boss fights that Z percent of our players outright skip, so is it better for us if we monetize boss fights, monetize boss skipping, or just stop bothering with them entirely?".

I think that's really what's missing here, any real discussion of the inevitable unintended consequences if this did become a thing. It's all well and good to say "So what if someone else skips a boss, how does that affect you?", but the fact is that if it did become a thing and it was commonly used it absolutely would affect how games are designed. It would affect everyone, those who use it and those who don't.

We've already seen this in multiple genres. Traditional adventure games mortally wounded themselves with the abuse of moon logic (not to mention I can't imagine how the current gaming market would deal with the puzzles in games like Riven or The 7th Guest), only to be replaced with walking simulators that arguably don't even qualify as games. In the effort the chase ever bigger subscriber numbers MMOs have watered down and simplified gameplay and come up with ways for everyone to see everything (in fact this argument is identical to ones that have been had endlessly over raiding, resulting in raiding being watered down to near irrelevance) only to see numbers continue to dwindle and their 'niche' being threatened by MMO-lites like The Division and Destiny, only to see Destiny 2 now on the receiving end of a player backlash due to gameplay being watered down so far that there essentially is, apparently by design, no endgame.

Maybe an end to boss fights would be a good thing, they often are an overused Dev crutch. That only works if they're replaced with something better, though, and I don't see anything likely on the horizon. Maybe the removal of that challenge is what the market wants -- watching and listening to my nephews and their friends play video games, I suspect it is. Whatever the case, such a change would inevitably affect the market, affect how games are designed, would affect the gameplay of everyone.

Great post. As as a former GM of a WoW raiding guild, the part about that is spot on.

Myria:

Problem is I don't think that's how it would go at all. I suspect the most likely outcome would be them thinking "We put X amount of money, time, and effort into Y number of boss fights that Z percent of our players outright skip, so is it better for us if we monetize boss fights, monetize boss skipping, or just stop bothering with them entirely?".

I think that's really what's missing here, any real discussion of the inevitable unintended consequences if this did become a thing. It's all well and good to say "So what if someone else skips a boss, how does that affect you?", but the fact is that if it did become a thing and it was commonly used it absolutely would affect how games are designed. It would affect everyone, those who use it and those who don't.

We've already seen this in multiple genres. Traditional adventure games mortally wounded themselves with the abuse of moon logic (not to mention I can't imagine how the current gaming market would deal with the puzzles in games like Riven or The 7th Guest), only to be replaced with walking simulators that arguably don't even qualify as games. In the effort the chase ever bigger subscriber numbers MMOs have watered down and simplified gameplay and come up with ways for everyone to see everything (in fact this argument is identical to ones that have been had endlessly over raiding, resulting in raiding being watered down to near irrelevance) only to see numbers continue to dwindle and their 'niche' being threatened by MMO-lites like The Division and Destiny, only to see Destiny 2 now on the receiving end of a player backlash due to gameplay being watered down so far that there essentially is, apparently by design, no endgame.

Maybe an end to boss fights would be a good thing, they often are an overused Dev crutch. That only works if they're replaced with something better, though, and I don't see anything likely on the horizon. Maybe the removal of that challenge is what the market wants -- watching and listening to my nephews and their friends play video games, I suspect it is. Whatever the case, such a change would inevitably affect the market, affect how games are designed, would affect the gameplay of everyone.

This is an amazing take on this issue and simply states the consequences of skipping gameplay outright better than any argument on here yet. Great job.

Myria:

Problem is I don't think that's how it would go at all. I suspect the most likely outcome would be them thinking "We put X amount of money, time, and effort into Y number of boss fights that Z percent of our players outright skip, so is it better for us if we monetize boss fights, monetize boss skipping, or just stop bothering with them entirely?".

As opposed to "We put X amount of money, time and effort into Y number of boss fights, and only half a percent of our players ever got to see it, so why even bother?"

It's not like this whole "maybe more people should get to interact with our lovingly crafted content" stuff came out of nowhere. After all, what use is having a super hard raid if 99.5 of people who could be giving you money just end up watching it for free on YouTube?

Kerg3927:

Finally, I have been playing video games for almost 40 years, basically since they were invented. It's my hobby, and it has been for my entire life. It's important to me. People act like this skip button would be a minor change. To me, it's not. To me, games have always been about overcoming obstacles. And if you are able to overcome all the obstacles, you beat the game. This skip button would change that. It would change gaming fundamentally. And, call me an old geezer, get off my lawn and all that, but I don't want to see that happen, because I think it's a bad direction for the hobby to take and bad for the community.

Good for you? I've been gaming for over 25 years now, and games aren't(?) that for me. I mean, I see this kind of "Rahman, true hardcore gaming is the one true way" thing a lot, from a lot of different hobbies, and my reaction is unviversally the same: I roll my eyes so hard my retinas threaten to detach.

There's always been hard games, and there's always been easy games, and it's not a coincidence that video games only reached saturation and became a multi-billion dollar industry after the quarter-eater mentality disappeared. The best selling games in the world, of all time, aren't about "overcoming obstacles", they're puzzle games anyone can play. Simulators of wacky everyday life. Simulators of a Quentin Tarantino crime movie.

A skip button wouldn't change games for you. Unless you'd be tempted to use it. There will still be hard games, there will still be your obstacles to overcome, because there's market demand for it. We're just...codifying cheat codes at that point.

Because, shockingly, "games for the hardcore" crash and burn. Been in a lot of betas and played a lot of games dominated by the elite mentality, and they always, always crash and burn.

And before the obvious rebuttal: Dark Souls isn't any harder than Monster Hunter, it just explains itself very poorly.

Kerg3927:
Because gaming is a community, and that community votes with its wallets, which affects future game design. So yes, if more and more people in the community adopt the loser's mentality of quit at the first opportunity, it could very well affect me.

That goes for everything though.

I don't particularly like Dark Souls. Should I get all up in the faces of people who buy it because its success has proven influential? (Although I'm actually looking forward to Eitr.)

Same goes for Skyrim and open world games.

I'd think that would be extremely petty. Lots of other people just like different things than me. Getting up in arms about it would be pathetic.

But beyond that, as a part of the community, I simply don't like seeing other people in the community adopt a defeatist, loser, quitter's mentality. I think they are cheating themselves, and will be worse off for it.

You don't get to decide what is good for other people.

Especially not on a matter so utterly inconsequential as the manner in which they play with digital toys in their spare time.

I'm going to do what I can to propagate a winner's mentality instead of a loser's one. I just am.

All you're propagating is garden variety snobbery over the smallest of things.

I don't mind easy mode's so much because I liken it to weight lifting. If you set out to do 5 sets of 5 reps on bench press at a certain weight, and by set 3, you can't do all 5, what do you do? You lower the weight and keep going until you finish. You don't skip the rest of the sets, because that would be cheating yourself. Skipping is much, much different than lowering the weight, IMO.

Entertainment is not exercise. They are two different things done for different reasons.

altnameJag:
As opposed to "We put X amount of money, time and effort into Y number of boss fights, and only half a percent of our players ever got to see it, so why even bother?"

For an MMO like WoW, where only a small percentage of the playerbase ever got to see the original incarnation of Naxx, I concede you have a point. For the average single-player game? I'm just not seeing it. Even for Souls games, to hear most people talk everyone and their brother killed every boss the first time, it's just the rest of the world that needs to 'git gud'. Really, outside of a few niche games, is this even an issue?

Maybe it is, I dunno, but personally I can't recall the last time a boss was more than a passing annoyance.

It's not like this whole "maybe more people should get to interact with our lovingly crafted content" stuff came out of nowhere. After all, what use is having a super hard raid if 99.5 of people who could be giving you money just end up watching it for free on YouTube?

As I said, if you're talking an MMO than I have to concede that you have a point. However, I do think there's a counter. It seems to me that those 0.5% (or, more likely 5-or-so-%) are a lot more important to the game's overall health than their numbers might indicate. They're the evangelists, the ones who write mods, the ones who write guides, the ones who theorycraft the meta everyone else blindly uses. Their influence and effect on your game's overall health is felt far in excess of their numbers. They can be a pain in the arse, to be sure, but they can also be extremely valuable.

I personally doubt the longevity of any MMO/MMO-Lite that doesn't have it's own "hardcore" element, something that inevitably requires "hardcore" content that's beyond mortal ken.

As I said, this is an issue Destiny 2 is facing currently. The difficulty curve has flatlined -- the hardest thing in the game right now is trying to literally outrun a timer. Max gear/power-level is trivially easy to get. They took the 'looter' out of 'looter-shooter' and what's left is an MMO-lite with a slightly better story than the first and a minute fraction of the longevity. Add in Deej's "Friendship is the real endgame!" MLP-style speech yesterday, and you have a playerbase heavy on the pitchforks and torches side of things.

Now you can say "Screw them, they're the 5%, most players never even come to the forums or reddit" and you'd be right. But I'd argue that they're the ones that write the lore articles, make the strategy videos, stream the game obsessively, and evangelize to any, all, and sundry. I'd argue that they're the ones that kept hope alive when Vanilla Destiny was in the gutter and rightfully getting kicked around, without them there very well might not have been a Destiny 2.

CritialGaming:

Kerg3927:

CritialGaming:
The point was that even if you think the "easy-mode" doesn't affect you, the fact is that it does. Because when shit gets too hard, the player is aware and tempted by just dropping it to easy.

Yep, the skip button would be sitting there like an evil snake with an apple. Some would have the discipline to keep trying until they persevere, some wouldn't, and many of those who gave up and skipped it would feel shitty afterward and regret it. Like a turd.

Fucking Christ! Thank you! Exactly this, this is exact the whole point.

So the temptation of a skip function would add a layer of CHALLENGE for seasoned gamers? I'd say that's ironic, but I shouldn't have to. Also in the vein of irony: a skip function is somehow over-accommodating making every game for everybody which they aren't, therefore devs shouldn't implement it to accommodate me... oh wait, is that my argument coming full circle to bit me in the ass?

I have a feeling there are some people in here who throw fits when a steakhouse has vegan options on the menu: "It's a steakhouse! You eat cow or you don't eat!"

altnameJag:

There's always been hard games, and there's always been easy games, and it's not a coincidence that video games only reached saturation and became a multi-billion dollar industry after the quarter-eater mentality disappeared. The best selling games in the world, of all time, aren't about "overcoming obstacles", they're puzzle games anyone can play. Simulators of wacky everyday life. Simulators of a Quentin Tarantino crime movie.

Funny you say this but according to business insider the top 11 money making games of all time include several MMO's where people gather together to take on challenging bosses and play with their friends. Casual experiences do make a shit load of money, not denying that, but they aren't the top shit in video gaming history.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-top-grossing-video-games-of-all-time-2015-8/#4-world-of-warcraft-pc-2004--85-billion-8

The four of the top 11 are quarter eaters, like Street Fighter 2, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, etc.

Number 4 is World of Warcraft. While yes, there is a huge casual element to WoW, especially now, it didn't start that way the first 4-6 years of WoW were about challenging dungeons with online friends. If you skipped content, you got nothing for it. Additionally there was potential to be carried by friends through stuff too hard for you to handle on normal circumstances, but really it's besides the point.

I guess the continued point is that, these players who didn't raid, or run heroics or whatever, well....they don't affect the players that do run those things right? But anyone who has played WoW can tell how terrible the game experience becomes when trapped in a group with a player who doesn't know what the fuck to do, or even bothers to try. These "skippers" intermix with the general population and the lack of effort does affect other people.

With gaming becoming a more and more online and interconnected set of experiences, there are factors to consider here.

Now even if we just eliminate everything outside strict single player experiences, who does it hurt to let someone skip? That answer is it hurts everyone. It hurts the game industry who can look at players wanting to skip with the quarter munching mentality of "We'll make the game hard and then offer people microtransactions that let them skip a hard fight". It hurts the general player base of gaming in that it provides a way to lower the bar of playability and skill, plus feeding into a sense of entitlement, that once "skippers" get into a game that doesn't let them skip, they shall take to forums and demand that skipping be enabled.

And it just doesn't make any fucking sense. It really doesn't. I just don't know how anyone can say "Hey if people enjoy skipping through games, then let them because it doesn't take away from anyone else." But really, it's asking to include why for people to NOT play a game they paid to PLAY. How would you like to go to an abridged movie? Pay full price to see a movie and instead of the full movie you get just an abridged 20 minute version. Yet you still pay the same price as someone who saw the whole movie. What about an abridged book, instead of getting a deep and engaging novel, you get a printout of a powerpoint summary of the book. But you paid for the full price of the book.

Again if you can't or don't want to go through the effort of playing the game, there are FREE ways to experience the game without struggling through the challenge yourself. Aka, Let's Plays.

Xprimentyl:

So the temptation of a skip function would add a layer of CHALLENGE for seasoned gamers? I'd say that's ironic, but I shouldn't have to. Also in the vein of irony: a skip function is somehow over-accommodating making every game for everybody which they aren't, therefore devs shouldn't implement it to accommodate me... oh wait, is that my argument coming full circle to bit me in the ass?

I have a feeling there are some people in here who throw fits when a steakhouse has vegan options on the menu: "It's a steakhouse! You eat cow or you don't eat!"

No it isn't adding Challenge to seasoned gamers. It's adding a cheap way out. A temptation to say, "fuck it" and missing out on the experience of playing the game in the first place.

Now nobody seems to pay attention to this, but I've said over and over again that a cheat code is fine. A God-Mode is fine, because even with a guaranteed "win" the player still has to go through the motions, they still have to see the content, they still have to experience the game.

God-Mode is basically skipping, except you get to see it all happen, so you don't rob anyone of actual gameplay experience. (although if challenge is part of the experience you rob them of that, but it's less of an effect as a skip would provide).

Then if you wanna use the argument of not putting a skip function in every game, then what determines which games or games types DO get the skip button and which ones don't?

Dark Souls gets a skip, does Mario Kart? If a race is too hard, should players be able to press a button and get the trophy?

What about a skip in an MMO? Say the group can't beat one of the bosses in a dungeon...should they be able to skip it and try the next boss? I mean, does skipping a boss affect anyone outside that group? What about rewards for skipping? Does the treasure at the end still appear?

Where do the limitations go in? At what point do you say that skipping isn't acceptable? What purpose does skipping a boss or a piece of content serve in the first place? How does it enrich the experience for the "skipper"?

Say you skip in a single player RPG because you don't want to fight or can't beat a boss? Does skipping provide any experience, or special loot from the boss? What if a hard boss provides a key to a secret dungeon with more bosses? If I skip that boss do I still get the key? What about the rest of the bosses? What about the loot that often lies in chests around a dungeon or after a hard enemy, if I can skip does that affect the loot lying around? If so, then surely you can see the implications of having to do that extra programming right?

It's easy to say just provide a skip button, but it's a lot harder to put down ground rules for it.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:
I hate anyone who would take pride in accomplishment. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that.

Inferred from you telling me to fuck off, and that I was being self masturbatory (didn't even know that was a word) for thinking some games are designed for good players and/or people who like a challenge. You also said that it's bad if people tell people to go play something else if they don't want to learn how to play a particular game because it displays a smug, arrogant, and I'm better than you mentality. From your comments, I get the feeling that you would see any display of pride in accomplishment as smug and arrogant.

I'm going to snear that videogames are not accomplishments. Strawman argument, please point out where I said that. The closest I can think is when I said that people should get over it if they feel bad when they skip a level because it's a video game. Because skipping a level in a video game is not something that is worth feeling that bad over.

Think I had you confused with Zhukov, sorry. But the yeah, the sneers about lighten up, it's only a video game, are in that same vein.

That is a hilariously inaccurate narrative. It's amazing the shit people make up about me in a desperate attempt to make me look like the bad guy.

I don't think you're a bad guy. I just think you have a loser's mentality.

Zhukov:

Kerg3927:
Now I don't expect other people to put that much effort into it. But it does bother me when people obviously don't want to put ANY effort into it. They want to just skip stuff - even when they have easy-mode - at the first sign of a challenge. It's makes me sad.

Why?

If you want to treat gaming like a second job and get satisfaction from doing so then great, you do you. Why does it matter to you what other people do when their actions don't affect you or anyone else?

Some people don't game for rewards, for them the game is the reward. It's something they do to make their spare time enjoyable.

You'll notice none of the people here who don't mind the idea of skip buttons are saying that hard modes should be taken away. Only the "hardcore" crowd are trying to deny something to other people.

Because gaming is a community, and that community votes with its wallets, which affects future game design. So yes, if more and more people in the community adopt the loser's mentality of quit at the first opportunity, it could very well affect me.

But beyond that, as a part of the community, I simply don't like seeing other people in the community adopt a defeatist, loser, quitter's mentality. I think they are cheating themselves, and will be worse off for it. And if anyone in the gaming community ever has my ear, which you do if you are reading this, I'm going to do what I can to propagate a winner's mentality instead of a loser's one. I just am.

I don't mind easy mode's so much because I liken it to weight lifting. If you set out to do 5 sets of 5 reps on bench press at a certain weight, and by set 3, you can't do all 5, what do you do? You lower the weight and keep going until you finish. You don't skip the rest of the sets, because that would be cheating yourself. Skipping is much, much different than lowering the weight, IMO.

Finally, I have been playing video games for almost 40 years, basically since they were invented. It's my hobby, and it has been for my entire life. It's important to me. People act like this skip button would be a minor change. To me, it's not. To me, games have always been about overcoming obstacles. And if you are able to overcome all the obstacles, you beat the game. This skip button would change that. It would change gaming fundamentally. And, call me an old geezer, get off my lawn and all that, but I don't want to see that happen, because I think it's a bad direction for the hobby to take and bad for the community.

That was a general you, and it had a great big "if" in front of it. You can take pride in beating difficult challenges without being an arrogant elitist. Same with the point about telling people to stop playing. I said it's bad IF you're a smug elitist about that. And if you think that about me, you haven't understood me very well. Either that or you happen to meet the conditions I describe after both of my ifs. If that's the case, that's your fault, not mine.

No seriously. If skipping a level in a video game makes you feel bad to any meaningful degree, it makes you feel bad for more than five minutes, you need to lighten up. You life isn't massively impacted, your financial situation isn't impacted, people don't love you less. It's a video game. Keep things in perspective.

Coming from someone who's been acting the way you have, that criticism rings utterly hollow. I think you need to take your games way less seriously.

With WoW, there are certainly other factors involved, but on the graph below, you know what happened in Cataclysm, right about the same time that graph starts going downhill? LFR (Looking for Raid) was implemented, trivializing raid content, making it faceroll easy, accessible to everyone, everyone could get all the loot, no need to learn to play, just hop in a queue and go, faceroll to fat loots. And then what happened? Most of the raiding guilds disbanded and all the hardcore and hoping to become hardcore players left. The game's evangelists left.

Millions more got bored and left afterward, and now they return only for new expansions, to spend a few months facerolling through the new content before they leave again.

The casuals wanted the phat loots that the raiding guild members had. But once everyone was able to get it, the phat loot ceased to have any meaning. An Olympic gold medal doesn't mean much if everyone is able to get one for no effort. Turns out, it wasn't the loot that they really wanted. It was the community respect and prestige that it represented.

image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here