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
sbester
View playlists
CloseAdmittedly, there were times when I did want this to happen. Just last Summer, I replayed Wild Arms, and although I love it so, I had a fight with a boss who put my party to sleep constantly until I died. It happened twice and it was a long battle, so I was pretty pissed at my bad luck. Anyway, it's true that it is a fault in the design, and it would be an easy fix for makers in the RM community, for instance. But that said, I kinda get it. Skipping a boss battle wouldn't eliminate my enjoyment of the game, so long as regular battles can be challenging on their own, and there are puzzles and whatnot thrown into the mix that really force you to use your head.
Would I do this in my own games? Well, I actually gave players the option of eliminating gameplay completely in Esoterica... but that was an uncommon project. I wouldn't do it for an RPG, mostly because I rarely use boss battles at all anyway, and there is sometimes a certain sense of accomplishment players can feel when they've completed something that was a bit more difficult than what came before it, and that accomplishment is erased if the battle isn't forced upon you. As long as the boss isn't being cheap, why take that sense of accomplishment away from the player? In retrospect, I did feel that sense when I finally did defeat that awful boss in Wild Arms, despite how frustrating it was the first two times. Would eliminating the battle completely destroy the experience of the game? No. Would it take away from my own personal pride? A little bit, yes. Less so because I had already beat the game once before, but that isn't a usual factor.
I summary, I've thought about it in the past. But I have come to the conclusion that it just wouldn't be a good idea, and there are many players who would feel cheated by the added option.
Would I do this in my own games? Well, I actually gave players the option of eliminating gameplay completely in Esoterica... but that was an uncommon project. I wouldn't do it for an RPG, mostly because I rarely use boss battles at all anyway, and there is sometimes a certain sense of accomplishment players can feel when they've completed something that was a bit more difficult than what came before it, and that accomplishment is erased if the battle isn't forced upon you. As long as the boss isn't being cheap, why take that sense of accomplishment away from the player? In retrospect, I did feel that sense when I finally did defeat that awful boss in Wild Arms, despite how frustrating it was the first two times. Would eliminating the battle completely destroy the experience of the game? No. Would it take away from my own personal pride? A little bit, yes. Less so because I had already beat the game once before, but that isn't a usual factor.
I summary, I've thought about it in the past. But I have come to the conclusion that it just wouldn't be a good idea, and there are many players who would feel cheated by the added option.
I say go for it. It sounds like a simple feature to implement, no one is forced to use it, where's the problem? This is an age where anyone can, with a few clicks of the mouse, look up a FAQ that tells them exactly where to go and what to do in any game they can imagine, or even, in many cases, download a prepared save file in which another player has already done the hard parts for you. If we're okay with that, then we shouldn't be so bothered by this.
This is a really weird idea to me. I would never skip combat, but I guess some people want to.
I take it back. I would've totally skipped the combat in several of the later FF titles (8 and 10 in particular). Maybe some titles could benefit from it.
And thinking back, there are some games who have done this that I've actually loved. For example, many blizzard RTS games (Warcraft 2 and 3, Starcraft) allow you to just type in a code and automatically win. I even did this myself just to see the endings of the campaign. I later went back and played through them proper.
Yeah I dunno, I'm back and forth on the idea. If people want it, that's great, but definitely not for me, and definitely not something I'll be putting in my game.
I take it back. I would've totally skipped the combat in several of the later FF titles (8 and 10 in particular). Maybe some titles could benefit from it.
And thinking back, there are some games who have done this that I've actually loved. For example, many blizzard RTS games (Warcraft 2 and 3, Starcraft) allow you to just type in a code and automatically win. I even did this myself just to see the endings of the campaign. I later went back and played through them proper.
Yeah I dunno, I'm back and forth on the idea. If people want it, that's great, but definitely not for me, and definitely not something I'll be putting in my game.
My only argument against making it possible to skip combat (or any puzzle, dungeon, challenge or what have you) is that the option to skip a challenge can change the way the player approaches said challenge.
If you have to overcome something difficult, you knuckle down and you learn the tricks, you practice the skills and you gain the know-how. You talk about that challenge with your friends, and maybe because of all this buildup, it becomes one of the most memorable parts of the game.
Once you have the option to skip that challenge, however, your motivation may be lessened. Maybe you'll give it a few tries, decide you don't care enough, and then just hit skip and tell yourself you'll try it again later. Of course, you probably won't, because all you'll remember is how hard it was.
Being able to skip the challenge may entice a player to skip what might be a truly fulfilling part of gameplay - overcoming a great challenge.
This is just theory of course. I doubt I'll ever willingly design a game with skippable challenges, but that's because my games are usually all about those challenges anyway.
If you have to overcome something difficult, you knuckle down and you learn the tricks, you practice the skills and you gain the know-how. You talk about that challenge with your friends, and maybe because of all this buildup, it becomes one of the most memorable parts of the game.
Once you have the option to skip that challenge, however, your motivation may be lessened. Maybe you'll give it a few tries, decide you don't care enough, and then just hit skip and tell yourself you'll try it again later. Of course, you probably won't, because all you'll remember is how hard it was.
Being able to skip the challenge may entice a player to skip what might be a truly fulfilling part of gameplay - overcoming a great challenge.
This is just theory of course. I doubt I'll ever willingly design a game with skippable challenges, but that's because my games are usually all about those challenges anyway.
author=slashphoenix
My only argument against making it possible to skip combat (or any puzzle, dungeon, challenge or what have you) is that the option to skip a challenge can change the way the player approaches said challenge.
If you have to overcome something difficult, you knuckle down and you learn the tricks, you practice the skills and you gain the know-how. You talk about that challenge with your friends, and maybe it's one of the more memorable parts of the game.
Once you have the option to skip that challenge, however, your motivation may be lessened. Maybe you'll give it a few tries, decide you don't care enough, and then just hit skip and tell yourself you'll try it again later. Of course, you probably won't, because all you'll remember is how hard it was.
Being able to skip the challenge may entice a player to skip what might be a truly fulfilling part of gameplay - overcoming a great challenge.
This is just theory of course. I doubt I'll ever willingly design a game with skippable challenges, but that's because my games are usually all about those challenges.
The article is arguing more that maybe some people would rather prefer to just play the game as if it were a visual novel. And in that case, so what? Let them eat cake.
Achievement systems and such really make this sort of feature plausible, as it allows you to show off that you actually beat the hard boss etc.
prexus
309
Battles are not inherently skippable because they are gameplay whereas Cutscenes and Tutorials are the glue that holds the gameplay together.
When designing an FPS, do you design it so that players can skip all of the levels, and just watch the cutscenes? Do you let players make all the enemies de-spawn so they can explore the maps and collect all the items?
When designing a platformer, do you put all the collectables on a flat plane that you never run the risk of danger on?
My point is that, for the most part, people play RPGs for the Battles. I know there are many people who are drawn to RPGs because they are a great way to tell an epic story; but if you aren't interested in the battles, the character management, and exploring the maps.. You may as well be reading a book/visual novel.
If you are dying 15 times on the same fight, either the designer didn't balance the battle properly, or you aren't meant to be doing that content yet. Either because it's optional and meant to be a challenge, or because the designer didn't account for something and you've missed part of the game.
When designing an FPS, do you design it so that players can skip all of the levels, and just watch the cutscenes? Do you let players make all the enemies de-spawn so they can explore the maps and collect all the items?
When designing a platformer, do you put all the collectables on a flat plane that you never run the risk of danger on?
My point is that, for the most part, people play RPGs for the Battles. I know there are many people who are drawn to RPGs because they are a great way to tell an epic story; but if you aren't interested in the battles, the character management, and exploring the maps.. You may as well be reading a book/visual novel.
If you are dying 15 times on the same fight, either the designer didn't balance the battle properly, or you aren't meant to be doing that content yet. Either because it's optional and meant to be a challenge, or because the designer didn't account for something and you've missed part of the game.
author=narcodis
The article is arguing more that maybe some people would rather prefer to just play the game as if it were a visual novel. And in that case, so what? Let them eat cake.
Achievement systems and such really make this sort of feature plausible, as it allows you to show off that you actually beat the hard boss etc.
Achievements are nice, but my point was that by giving the player a button to opt-out, you're forever changing the way they will look at your game and the challenges within it. I believe some games (specifically, those designed around it) could benefit from a "skip" button, but it doesn't belong in every game.
author=slashphoenixauthor=narcodisAchievements are nice, but my point was that by giving the player a button to opt-out, you're forever changing the way they will look at your game and the challenges within it. I believe some games (specifically, those designed around it) could benefit from a "skip" button, but it doesn't belong in every game.
The article is arguing more that maybe some people would rather prefer to just play the game as if it were a visual novel. And in that case, so what? Let them eat cake.
Achievement systems and such really make this sort of feature plausible, as it allows you to show off that you actually beat the hard boss etc.
I don't see why. It's not like the challenge of the battle isn't there at all anymore, it's just something that players who would rather just watch the cutscenes, talk to people, and see the ending can choose to do. It's like a level skip cheat code or something, but the game is just being up front about it.
There are plenty of games who allow for skipping content where the integrity of the gameplay has not been affected.
author=kentona
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?
Get A Guide Dangit!
or replan your entire strategy.
It's possible the game is just freaking badly designed or you just suck at it.
I will be honest tho that I did thought about skippable battles before but it just doesn't feel like you worked hard for it. Fight and claim the prize!
or you could always cheat.
And there's always Story Mode.
There's a place for skipping combat, cutscenes, other game content. It's not all rpgs though, or most rpgs for that matter.
I would say, allow the gamer to do it, but highly discourage it.
Biggamefreak
1799
You can skip combat by running away from it. You won't get rewarded from fleeing because you did not do the challenge. I think it is the right thing to do in games.
I think skipping vital gameplay elements will remove player attachment from the experience. The experience is no longer happening to you, and doing things is a core feature in games. The player must do the challenge and get the reward while avoiding failure. I love doing things in games. If things are done for me, I am not playing, and the game would act like a movie and not a game.
I think skipping vital gameplay elements will remove player attachment from the experience. The experience is no longer happening to you, and doing things is a core feature in games. The player must do the challenge and get the reward while avoiding failure. I love doing things in games. If things are done for me, I am not playing, and the game would act like a movie and not a game.
author=Biggamefreak
You can skip combat by running away from it. You won't get rewarded from fleeing because you did not do the challenge. I think it is the right thing to do in games.
I think skipping vital gameplay elements will remove player attachment from the experience. The experience is no longer happening to you, and doing things is a core feature in games. The player must do the challenge and get the reward while avoiding failure. I love doing things in games. If things are done for me, I am not playing, and the game would act like a movie and not a game.
That's the point of the article, though... no one is saying anyone HAS to skip gameplay elements, so why get defensive about it? Some people clearly would like to, it's not like it would ruin the game if the option is there.
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
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?
That means the game wins and you lose. Now you get better or you quit playing.
If you want your game to be difficult, completing the game should be a meaningful accomplishment, given to those who truly excel at playing. If you want your game to be easy, then... make it easy enough that no one can ever get stuck. Difficulty settings give you the best of both worlds! Like I said before, I think you just need to make better use of the tools you have.
I played L.A. Noire, a detective game for the Xbox 360, which mostly plays similar to Phoenix Wright, but also has chase scenes (both on foot and in cars). If you fail a chase scene three times you get the option to skip it. I think the consensus by pretty much every article and review I read and every player I talked to was "...wut". It felt like an admission by the designer that the gameplay was flawed.
I dunno, admission of flawed gameplay is assuming a bit much. You may be right, but that could also just be completely a design choice...
I don't feel like doing this anymore, let's move on to the interrogating, that kind of thinking.
I don't feel like doing this anymore, let's move on to the interrogating, that kind of thinking.
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
That's a good point, skipping minigames actually doesn't bother me at all. I would go so far as to say minigames often bother me when they're mandatory. I usually want to get back to the game I signed up for ASAP.
The chase scenes in LA Noire didn't feel like a minigame to me because there wasn't any part of the game that felt like "core gameplay". But the investigations and interviews were presumably supposed to feel like the core gameplay and I totally get where you're coming from.
The chase scenes in LA Noire didn't feel like a minigame to me because there wasn't any part of the game that felt like "core gameplay". But the investigations and interviews were presumably supposed to feel like the core gameplay and I totally get where you're coming from.
author=LockeZ
The chase scenes in LA Noire didn't feel like a minigame to me because there wasn't any part of the game that felt like "core gameplay". But the investigations and interviews were presumably supposed to feel like the core gameplay and I totally get where you're coming from.
You're right, which is why I edited my previous post, but you responded first. I guess I can save it by saying 'in general' about minigames.
It's an even bigger stretch for rpg combat, but let's say there's game content that the user is much more interested in. Giving them the option to skip what they don't feel like playing isn't completely unreasonable. It just seems odd in the case of rpg combat.
Avee
5794
author=narcodis
That's the point of the article, though... no one is saying anyone HAS to skip gameplay elements, so why get defensive about it? Some people clearly would like to, it's not like it would ruin the game if the option is there.
Say I release an RPG that has skippable battles.
Three scenarios are bound to happen:
A) Some players won't skip battles. They prefer to play the game in its entirety.
B) Some players will use the fight skip feature to play specific parts of the game. That's fine with me. But there are already numerous ways to satisfy these players.
C) Some players will be lazy and skip battles instead of trying to win them. As a game developer, I don't want that.
I don't think anyone is being defensive here. We are just expressing our views about what we believe a game is about.
author=sbesterMy experience is yes : I've fallen on a very few unbeatable bosses, in amateur rpgs, due to bad gameplay by the maker. The only way around was cheat, which I did, but it was pretty pointless because it ruined the game. Every time I've done this, sometimes out of boredom or laziness, it ruined the game, or, at least, left very little to it.
Would eliminating the battle completely destroy the experience of the game?
Now, if the maker-designer him/herself offers the option to skip it, case I've never fallen on, I suppose that should make a difference, not sure though, nor how much of a difference, but I tend to think it would not do much good to the game?
When I do fall on bosses that are beyond my capacities to beat (or where I would have to invest much much more than I'm ready to do for a game), If i'm not deluding myself, I don't feel frustrated, because, well, this degree or type of difficulty is simply not my thing. I'm not a fan of action rpgs which are normally where extremely hard bosses are found.
This said, I've had terrible frustrations because I couldn't follow the story due to a too difficult puzzle (and bugs of course), in that case, if the maker offered to be able to skip it, I must say I was only too happy and always thought it was a good option to have introduced in the game.
How about this idea:
They can INSTANTLY escape any battle and get the exp needed, but it takes away gold each and every time you do it.
Also to make them not just horde up gold, a thing set up in which you do earn gold during certain things, but can't make it by killing monsters or selling items, and that there is an actual limit as to how much is in the actual game, and if you've got "so much gold out of so much gold" you get unlockables. This way they won't SKIP it just for shits and giggles or boredom.
They can INSTANTLY escape any battle and get the exp needed, but it takes away gold each and every time you do it.
Also to make them not just horde up gold, a thing set up in which you do earn gold during certain things, but can't make it by killing monsters or selling items, and that there is an actual limit as to how much is in the actual game, and if you've got "so much gold out of so much gold" you get unlockables. This way they won't SKIP it just for shits and giggles or boredom.
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
The idea that just because a player wants to do something, they should be able to, kind of feels like it's the opposite of game design.
Your job as a game designer is to know what's fun - better than the player does, if you're any good at your job - and guide the player to experiencing that. By default most players don't pick the fun gameplay, their brains aren't wired that way. They pick the path of least resistance. But then they get way less satisfaction out of it in the end. But they keep doing it anyway because that's how human brains work. People usually sacrifice long term deep enjoyment for short term shallow enjoyment unless something keeps them from doing so.
Also, struggles are more enjoyable to overcome if you didn't create them yourself. By giving the player an "instant win" skill that works in every battle in the game, the player's mind feels subconsciously like there is no inherent challenge in the game, there are only challenges that the player creates for themselves. There is then a vastly diminished sense of overcoming adversity when they win, because the game wasn't attacking them, they were just attacking themselves.
That is my feeling, anyway. I don't want to proclaim that it's fact, but it's based on professional psychological studies and stuff I learned in college psych classes and likewise relatively trustworthy sources, so I want to at least suggest that it's way more likely to be fact than most of the things I say.
Your job as a game designer is to know what's fun - better than the player does, if you're any good at your job - and guide the player to experiencing that. By default most players don't pick the fun gameplay, their brains aren't wired that way. They pick the path of least resistance. But then they get way less satisfaction out of it in the end. But they keep doing it anyway because that's how human brains work. People usually sacrifice long term deep enjoyment for short term shallow enjoyment unless something keeps them from doing so.
Also, struggles are more enjoyable to overcome if you didn't create them yourself. By giving the player an "instant win" skill that works in every battle in the game, the player's mind feels subconsciously like there is no inherent challenge in the game, there are only challenges that the player creates for themselves. There is then a vastly diminished sense of overcoming adversity when they win, because the game wasn't attacking them, they were just attacking themselves.
That is my feeling, anyway. I don't want to proclaim that it's fact, but it's based on professional psychological studies and stuff I learned in college psych classes and likewise relatively trustworthy sources, so I want to at least suggest that it's way more likely to be fact than most of the things I say.
