Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SKIPPABLE COMBAT?
Posts
kentona
View playlists
CloseFirst, read this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/23/escape-escape-embracing-skippable-combat/
Why can't we skip combat? We can skip or fast forward through cutscenes and dialog (and if we can't we scream bloody murder), and the arguments for skipping cutscenes could apply to skipping combat or other content, couldn't it? And just like skipping dialog, you don't have to do it. (Does the knowledge that you can skip it detract from the game in some way, though?) Also also, you can already kind of do this in most games (by cheating). So why not explore making it official in some way?
I brought this up to Hexatona and he said "i think i read an article where nintendo mentioned that there would be a whole list of "hard saves" that you can just jump into a part of the story you want. like a dvd scene menu". Not a bad idea!
In another example (Breath of Death VII iirc?) all dungeons have a fixed number of battles. You also have the option of loading up a menu and say "Start Battle". I remember reading an interview from the creator and he learned that people would enter a dungeon, then Start Battle X-many times to clear out the dungeon and then continue on. His initial reaction was "That's not how I intended the game to be played!" but then realized that it was kind of dumb to enforce his view on it like that. I thought this was a neat idea.
New Game+ can be kind of like this, too, as usually stats/equipment/levels are carried over, making battles quick and effortless.
Coming down to our own projects and implementations, skippable combat would require more work to accomplish than skippable dialog, but something like "hard" saves you be rather easy to package up in a game (just save the game at various points in your final playthrough). But in any event, I think this is an interesting design concept to explore and discuss.
Also, this:
Why can't we skip combat? We can skip or fast forward through cutscenes and dialog (and if we can't we scream bloody murder), and the arguments for skipping cutscenes could apply to skipping combat or other content, couldn't it? And just like skipping dialog, you don't have to do it. (Does the knowledge that you can skip it detract from the game in some way, though?) Also also, you can already kind of do this in most games (by cheating). So why not explore making it official in some way?
I brought this up to Hexatona and he said "i think i read an article where nintendo mentioned that there would be a whole list of "hard saves" that you can just jump into a part of the story you want. like a dvd scene menu". Not a bad idea!
In another example (Breath of Death VII iirc?) all dungeons have a fixed number of battles. You also have the option of loading up a menu and say "Start Battle". I remember reading an interview from the creator and he learned that people would enter a dungeon, then Start Battle X-many times to clear out the dungeon and then continue on. His initial reaction was "That's not how I intended the game to be played!" but then realized that it was kind of dumb to enforce his view on it like that. I thought this was a neat idea.
New Game+ can be kind of like this, too, as usually stats/equipment/levels are carried over, making battles quick and effortless.
Coming down to our own projects and implementations, skippable combat would require more work to accomplish than skippable dialog, but something like "hard" saves you be rather easy to package up in a game (just save the game at various points in your final playthrough). But in any event, I think this is an interesting design concept to explore and discuss.
Also, this:
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you're skipping cut scenes, it's because they take place before a battle, and you already watched them the first time and then died on the battle and have to redo it now. This is the only valid reason for skipping cut scenes.
In contrast, if you reload and it makes you play through gameplay you've already beaten, the game is shittily designed and should have save points more often. We have already solved this problem with save points; this is exactly why save points exist. You don't need to also let people skip the content, just use the tools you already have correctly.
If you're wanting to skip content you haven't already completed I don't know why you're playing the game
In contrast, if you reload and it makes you play through gameplay you've already beaten, the game is shittily designed and should have save points more often. We have already solved this problem with save points; this is exactly why save points exist. You don't need to also let people skip the content, just use the tools you already have correctly.
If you're wanting to skip content you haven't already completed I don't know why you're playing the game
I somehow knew you wouldn't see the value in it.
Okay, so I have now died on the battle 15 times and no matter what I do I can't seem to beat it. What now?
Okay, so I have now died on the battle 15 times and no matter what I do I can't seem to beat it. What now?
author=kentonaPlay it for 30 hours until you get better at games!! Because everyone has free 24/7 to be playing the same game for 60 hours until you beat it.
I somehow knew you wouldn't see the value in it.
Okay, so I have now died on the battle 15 times and no matter what I do I can't seem to beat it. What now?
Also for people complaining: Difficulty levels.
emmych
817
author=kentonaA good game shouldn't be doing this, I think! People have probably already read this post like a million times, but I think it gives a pretty good indication of what a well designed game ought to be doing.
Okay, so I have now died on the battle 15 times and no matter what I do I can't seem to beat it. What now?
See, in the last few games I've played that have murdered me horribly, I've been able to figure out what I was doing wrong and how to fix it. Sometimes it was "I skipped too many fights and now I'm underleveled, so I need to go grind for a bit." Sometimes it was "this boss is smacking me in the face too hard; I need to use this blinding skill to make it so it can't smack me." In non-RPGs, the same thinking came into play -- I'd look at a situation, figure out what I was doing wrong, correct that, and BOOM.
For instance... Cave Story. Now there is a game that murdered me like a million times when I was going for the hard ending. However, the game was well designed and I was able to figure out what things I oughta change to proceed. Also, I'm a big believer in the player earning their way through the game. Skipping the game portions of a game seems like giving some one an A for effort.
Also, figuring out ways to cheat is part of the fun! Handing someone an instant win button takes the fun out of hunting for gamebreaking glitches or playing with cheat codes.
It takes the fun out for you. But why should Bob over here play like you do, and have the same motivations for doing so?
EDIT:
What I am trying to get at here is, can you see the merits of this concept? And the value of taking into consideration when designing your game?
so far, people have people have made assumptions about the motivations of players and then provide design ideas to deal with those assumptions. (Also, on that note and completely unrelated to this topic, because that you guys aren't designing your projects around the exceptions! That happens a lot in the real world here at work, and its troublesome).
EDIT:
What I am trying to get at here is, can you see the merits of this concept? And the value of taking into consideration when designing your game?
so far, people have people have made assumptions about the motivations of players and then provide design ideas to deal with those assumptions. (Also, on that note and completely unrelated to this topic, because that you guys aren't designing your projects around the exceptions! That happens a lot in the real world here at work, and its troublesome).
emmych
817
It's why I think there should be multiple ways to play every game. I believe that a well designed, accessible game should be playable and enjoyable to everyone who plays it ('cept dem h8rs), and that it shouldn't take you 15-20 tries to murder something. That kind of thing feels cheap to me.
Also, I think the point of a game is to play the game, not watch the cutscenes or whatever. If you want to watch the cutscenes, there's youtube. If you don't like how a game is playing, maybe it's the wrong game for you! Like... I dunno, I don't get why someone would want to be infinitely powerful without earning it. Every time I've done that, I've gotten really, REALLY bored, because there was no risk or challenge. If there's no risk or challenge, the I don't think it's a game anymore; something you interact with, yeah, but not a thing you actually have to think about.
I'm all for giving the players ways to make it easier, though! Obvs people aren't all going to have the same skill level at a game, so introducing choices and power-ups and all that good stuff helps make it easier for those having a tougher time!
Edit; oh yeah, I definitely see the merits of the concept! I think that giving a complete SKIP EVERYTHING~ button to the player is a little cheap and not worthwhile, because I value working for your progress and being challenged in a game! I think the idea is defs adaptable into something that reflects that, though.
Also, I think the point of a game is to play the game, not watch the cutscenes or whatever. If you want to watch the cutscenes, there's youtube. If you don't like how a game is playing, maybe it's the wrong game for you! Like... I dunno, I don't get why someone would want to be infinitely powerful without earning it. Every time I've done that, I've gotten really, REALLY bored, because there was no risk or challenge. If there's no risk or challenge, the I don't think it's a game anymore; something you interact with, yeah, but not a thing you actually have to think about.
I'm all for giving the players ways to make it easier, though! Obvs people aren't all going to have the same skill level at a game, so introducing choices and power-ups and all that good stuff helps make it easier for those having a tougher time!
Edit; oh yeah, I definitely see the merits of the concept! I think that giving a complete SKIP EVERYTHING~ button to the player is a little cheap and not worthwhile, because I value working for your progress and being challenged in a game! I think the idea is defs adaptable into something that reflects that, though.
I dunno. I don't like the idea of skipping content in games. I'd personally never do it, and I feel like if people want to skip content then it's an issue of the design of the game itself. Difficulty modes exist for a reason.
It seems especially weird to allow skippable content in an RPG, where the game is geared around progression, leveling, building your character, etc.
On the other hand, there are definitely parts of some RPGs I wish I could skip whenever I come across them, but I credit that more to poor design.
If you don't want to play through the game and just want to watch the story or something... well, I dunno. I guess to each their own, but I don't get it.
It seems especially weird to allow skippable content in an RPG, where the game is geared around progression, leveling, building your character, etc.
On the other hand, there are definitely parts of some RPGs I wish I could skip whenever I come across them, but I credit that more to poor design.
If you don't want to play through the game and just want to watch the story or something... well, I dunno. I guess to each their own, but I don't get it.
author=kentona
Okay, so I have now died on the battle 15 times and no matter what I do I can't seem to beat it. What now?
If it is a key battle then yes, get better at games. Or dump the game if it sucks. I honestly cannot remember a game in which I've died more than a couple of times before figuring out what to do. ...Now, for common battles, I've been thinking on a similar idea to skipping battles: Letting the game's AI simulate a battle for you. Something like: "With your current levels, equipment, conditions, whatever. The battle is likely to go like this. Do you accept or not?" And then you'd analyze the results: "Ok, my wizard takes many hits but he survives, and my archer gets lots of experience which he needs, so I'll go with it" or rather "Damn, my dumb wizard dies, I'll rather do this myself."
I'm aware this doesn't really solves much besides just being practical sometimes, and it would probably be a pain in the ass to code. But it's an idea that often comes to my mind when playing SRPGs. Sometimes just placing a character in an square or another can mess a lot with your strategy. Sometimes I just choose to restart a battle if things don't go "ideally" my way, rendering a normal 15-30 min skirmish into hours. So, an option like that would help me to stop being so obsessive about it and save me tons of time. ^^;
The thing is, there already are options for it, and you guys have listed many of them or hinted at it.
Autobattle is a great example. But why not take it a step further and just give me the results of the battle? Why does a game make me wait through the actual battle as ATB bars fill up and actions are automatically taken and damage is issues etc... Why can't it just skip to the end, and say "You gots 347 XPs and 178 golds yo!". Afterwards, I can just check my characters' stats to see how much HP they lost and MP used or whatever.
I would autobattle a lot in FFIV, especially near the end. I'd click autobattle and just put the DS down for a few minutes.
Autobattle is a great example. But why not take it a step further and just give me the results of the battle? Why does a game make me wait through the actual battle as ATB bars fill up and actions are automatically taken and damage is issues etc... Why can't it just skip to the end, and say "You gots 347 XPs and 178 golds yo!". Afterwards, I can just check my characters' stats to see how much HP they lost and MP used or whatever.
I would autobattle a lot in FFIV, especially near the end. I'd click autobattle and just put the DS down for a few minutes.
author=kentona
The thing is, there already are options for it, and you guys have listed many of them or hinted at it.
Autobattle is a great example. But why not take it a step further and just give me the results of the battle? Why does a game make me wait through the actual battle as ATB bars fill up and actions are automatically taken and damage is issues etc... Why can't it just skip to the end, and say "You gots 347 XPs and 178 golds yo!". Afterwards, I can just check my characters' stats to see how much HP they lost and MP used or whatever.
I would autobattle a lot in FFIV, especially near the end. I'd click autobattle and just put the DS down for a few minutes.
Skipping/blowing through random battles that you're beyond capable of winning is a world different than skipping through that boss you can't beat after 15 attempts.
In a way I agree, random encounters or encounters in general that are a breeze already should have some measure to get past them without much effort, or at least a way to avoid them all together. Earthbound does this wonderfully, determining if you're a certain level already, then you just automatically win the battle. Random encounters in general are an old and stale method of handling combat, imo. RPGs need to move past this stuff already.
But again, if the player wants to skip through content of your game, it's less about the player and more about the design of the game itself. Random encounters are still meant to be a challenge, and still meant to require a player to manage their resources in order to clear a dungeon or whatever.
Avee
5794
author=emmych
Also, I think the point of a game is to play the game, not watch the cutscenes or whatever. If you want to watch the cutscenes, there's youtube. If you don't like how a game is playing, maybe it's the wrong game for you!
This.
What sets a game apart from a movie are the interactive parts. If you allow the players to skip interactive parts you might as well make a movie. When you're fighting you're playing a game. When you're watching a cutscene you are not playing a game.
EDIT: And I wouldn't pay $60 to watch a movie.
FireStriker for the SNES has a very easy cheat you can use to skip every stage and boss battles, even the final boss. Just press Start and Select at the same time and you'll advance to the next stage. That way you can "beat" the game in a few minutes, but what's the point and where's the fun?
I want to fight the 7 boss again.
Also, I can skip to a certain scene in a movie, or flip to the last chapter in a book, too.
(It's not an all or nothing thing here... This isn't a "Should there be a Skip to the end button?" discussion)
Also, I can skip to a certain scene in a movie, or flip to the last chapter in a book, too.
(It's not an all or nothing thing here... This isn't a "Should there be a Skip to the end button?" discussion)
Avee
5794
author=kentona
I want to fight the 7 boss again.
Include a Boss Rush mode.
author=kentona
(It's not an all or nothing thing here... This isn't a "Should there be a Skip to the end button?" discussion)
I know that. I just think that the option of skipping interactive parts doesn't make sense.
A novel is not interactive, unless it's a Game Book, but then skipping fights reduces the fun and the genuine experience you get out of it.
Essenceblade
19
To be honest I don't really like the fact of skippable battles. They just kinda ruin the whole point in an RPG Battle system. For a start, you should NOT be skipping bosses or key fights as said.
The only thing I would have skippable is a cutscene, and that's it. Skipping battles is unnecessary. It takes the fun out of a game, and it gets too repetitive at times. Eventually you're going to just be stuck with the habit of skipping battles and lose out on EXP and the battle system in general.
Sure, roaming around the map and getting into battles is kind boring and overdone, but it's overdone because it's original. Hell, even have those games where enemies appear ON the field, and you encounter them there. It's still a traditional encounter system, but with a twist. That way you have the option of skipping battles, as well as encountering them at will.
But like I said. I don't think skipping battles is a good option, even if you do die several times over, I think it's a difficulty spike, or you're just under-leveled or something.
That's the problem with the majority of games these days. Because most of them are so easy now, we automatically assume we have to have our battles handed to us by a little tactic and a few spells and healing items. I for one prefer difficulty in my battles.
Lost Odyssey (Xbox 360) was a perfect example of tough bosses, that not only took concentration, tactic, but also a hint of luck and skill.
The only thing I would have skippable is a cutscene, and that's it. Skipping battles is unnecessary. It takes the fun out of a game, and it gets too repetitive at times. Eventually you're going to just be stuck with the habit of skipping battles and lose out on EXP and the battle system in general.
Sure, roaming around the map and getting into battles is kind boring and overdone, but it's overdone because it's original. Hell, even have those games where enemies appear ON the field, and you encounter them there. It's still a traditional encounter system, but with a twist. That way you have the option of skipping battles, as well as encountering them at will.
But like I said. I don't think skipping battles is a good option, even if you do die several times over, I think it's a difficulty spike, or you're just under-leveled or something.
That's the problem with the majority of games these days. Because most of them are so easy now, we automatically assume we have to have our battles handed to us by a little tactic and a few spells and healing items. I for one prefer difficulty in my battles.
Lost Odyssey (Xbox 360) was a perfect example of tough bosses, that not only took concentration, tactic, but also a hint of luck and skill.
People have read the article before entering the discussion, right?
I mean, it says right away
I mean, it says right away
What’s interesting is the primary response seems to be extraordinarily defensive. “But that’s not the point of the game!” they cry. “You may as well watch a film if all you want is a story!” And it’s not even the poorness of those arguments that’s the issue here. What’s so strange is that people are arguing at all. Because to say, “I would like it if combat could be skipped” is not the same as saying, “You HAVE TO skip all the combat in a game or we’ll kill your parents.” But the only rationale I can find for why people are so incredibly angry or upset by the possibility of Escape’s powers working elsewhere is because they’re perceiving it as an infringement of their own potential enjoyment of a game.
Which it is not.
Darken
3952
Half Minute Hero is the only "classic RPG" I can enjoy nowadays mainly because the game is based around managing resources and strength of your character, not fighting the actual battles. Technically it's not skipping battles because you die if you don't have a healing herb on you or your level isn't high enough, but it creates a new spin on the RPG genre that I like very much.
On the topic of making a game for 'everyone' to ease in and enjoy. I think it's a little arrogant to think your game must appeal to the most people possible. Once in awhile there's going to be someone who couldn't adjust to the difficulty or learning curve to your game, probably for reasons that are entirely their fault. You can't control that. Professionals generally make this one of their top priorities though, because mass appeal brings in the big bucks. But I guess we're going full circle to that "no risk, make the game you want." point.
On the topic of making a game for 'everyone' to ease in and enjoy. I think it's a little arrogant to think your game must appeal to the most people possible. Once in awhile there's going to be someone who couldn't adjust to the difficulty or learning curve to your game, probably for reasons that are entirely their fault. You can't control that. Professionals generally make this one of their top priorities though, because mass appeal brings in the big bucks. But I guess we're going full circle to that "no risk, make the game you want." point.
DBAce9Aura
52
How about having a fair limit to the amount of times playable content can be skipped/revisited? That way, the casuals would still be required to proceed forward when they feel they've done the earlier parts in what they perceive to be the right way, and they would still be required to play some of the game, but not all of it.
Avee
5794
You can already skip some battles by escaping if you entered them.
You could also avoid entering battles if the enemy sprites are on the maps.
Only a few battles are usually mandatory in games, most being boss fights.
If a player can't win a fight because it's too hard, there are lots of ways you could make it easier: level up, get better equipment, devise a better strategy, lower the difficulty setting, etc.
Adding a "Press key to skip this battle" option would just be another way to skip fights, possibly mandatory ones too.
I understand why players would want to skip mandatory stuff. I myself do it sometimes. When I want to see a certain cutscene I load a saved game close to it or I browse youtube.
But from a developer's point of view, I don't understand why you'd want to allow skipping of mandatory, interactive content.
What a great counter-argument.
You could also avoid entering battles if the enemy sprites are on the maps.
Only a few battles are usually mandatory in games, most being boss fights.
If a player can't win a fight because it's too hard, there are lots of ways you could make it easier: level up, get better equipment, devise a better strategy, lower the difficulty setting, etc.
Adding a "Press key to skip this battle" option would just be another way to skip fights, possibly mandatory ones too.
I understand why players would want to skip mandatory stuff. I myself do it sometimes. When I want to see a certain cutscene I load a saved game close to it or I browse youtube.
But from a developer's point of view, I don't understand why you'd want to allow skipping of mandatory, interactive content.
author=article
Which it is not.
What a great counter-argument.
