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
narcodis
View playlists
Closeauthor=Avee
C) Some players will be lazy and skip battles because they can't play the game right. They will be rewarded for their laziness by cheating. As a game developer, I don't want that.
"Laziness"? "Cheating"?
Some people just want to watch Aeris die. I don't think that means they're lazy, it just means they'd rather watch the story unfold than have to play an RPG to see it.
As a developer, why be against the idea that someone would want to play your game, albeit a bit differently than maybe originally intended? What does "Play the game right" mean anyway??
I've never once played Contra without using the Konami code because I like beating the game, does that make me a lazy cheater? Maybe, but I'm betting there are hordes of other players who do the exact same thing.
This is entirely game-dependent though. Some games would work well with a system like this, and some would not. Adding this sort of feature into games haphazardly to appease customers is a cheap and mediocre solution - it needs to be designed well before being included, and if it doesn't make sense - don't include it.
Just because the implementation is easy doesn't mean the affect it has on design and overall game experience will be small. If you want to make your game as accessible as possible to all skill levels, by all means, this option makes sense for you... but like any other media, not all games are designed for all audiences.
This is a very common thread that occurs while playtesting a game - players will complain about particular features (or lack thereof) and while sometimes they're 100% correct, often you have to interpret why they're saying that in the first place.
For example, during a Zelda-like exploration game I worked on, we received a lot of requests for a map to see where the player should go next. Now, part of our game's emphasis was exploration, which would be hampered if there was a tool that told you where everything was. But after a little observation, it became obvious that the map wasn't the issue - our levels were simply too large, and players were getting lost in empty corners and understandably getting frustrated.
Had we just went with their feedback and added a map, the game would have suffered, because the root of the problem would've remained. Instead, we delved deeper, interpreted what players really wanted, and after our next playtest there was little feedback about needing a map and it was more positive in general.
Just because the implementation is easy doesn't mean the affect it has on design and overall game experience will be small. If you want to make your game as accessible as possible to all skill levels, by all means, this option makes sense for you... but like any other media, not all games are designed for all audiences.
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.
This is a very common thread that occurs while playtesting a game - players will complain about particular features (or lack thereof) and while sometimes they're 100% correct, often you have to interpret why they're saying that in the first place.
For example, during a Zelda-like exploration game I worked on, we received a lot of requests for a map to see where the player should go next. Now, part of our game's emphasis was exploration, which would be hampered if there was a tool that told you where everything was. But after a little observation, it became obvious that the map wasn't the issue - our levels were simply too large, and players were getting lost in empty corners and understandably getting frustrated.
Had we just went with their feedback and added a map, the game would have suffered, because the root of the problem would've remained. Instead, we delved deeper, interpreted what players really wanted, and after our next playtest there was little feedback about needing a map and it was more positive in general.
Biggamefreak
1799
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.
I'm not getting defensive, I'm arguing against the article and here are my reasons against it.
Skipping combat because the player is frustrated is like asking for a reward without doing the challenge. Imagine in Monopoly, the player wants a hotel but wants to skip collecting the properties and paying the fees. Players would not feel accomplished, and there will be no competition in the game. Games are a challenge that players must overcome. Demon Souls and any Touhou game would be less fun if I skipped the hard parts.
Some games allow you to skip challanges because the challenge is too easy at your current level, (Earthbound) or you already passed them (any game with stage select.) That is a fair design for some games, but they should only be in place after you cleared the challenges.
As far as skipping things for the sake of control, some games let certain undesired areas be avoided and the players can do something else. If you want to meet the demon lord however, you must battle his guards to meet him.
hima
4237
Why not difficulty selection? And the combat is only skippable in the easiest difficulty. Dedicated players won't feel cheated, and casual players won't care being called a-casual-player because all they want is just to clear the game.
Zephyr
1241
I want a new, expensive TV, but I don't want to spend any money on it.
Sure, we're talking about challenges in games, but I still think of this when I hear about the option of skipping challenges. All in life is not free. Game progression should be the same I think. But unlike life, we get the option to make things fair in our games. Or we can choose not to, but that might or might not win the audience.
My final understanding is that it should all depend on what type of game it is.
If you want to focus on gameplay, then make sure every progressions has to be deserved. If the story is a larger focus, then you might ease it up a bit.
Sure, we're talking about challenges in games, but I still think of this when I hear about the option of skipping challenges. All in life is not free. Game progression should be the same I think. But unlike life, we get the option to make things fair in our games. Or we can choose not to, but that might or might not win the audience.
My final understanding is that it should all depend on what type of game it is.
If you want to focus on gameplay, then make sure every progressions has to be deserved. If the story is a larger focus, then you might ease it up a bit.
I'm thinking about making combat skippable in the New Game+ mode of BR. The original route has normal difficulty, but I'm going to make it a little bit harder in NG+ for hardcore players and give story-based players the option of skipping. Personally I don't like the idea that combat is skippable in a first playthrough because one of the story points in an RPG is the idea of combat. Your characters are fighting something. Combat exists in the first place to simulate the character's ordeals. It feels silly having a climatic final boss that you can just skip.
On another note, I found that in more action-y games with mission-based systems (The Simpsons Hit & Run and Jak 3 come to mind) that the ability to skip missions is a godsend. Some missions are obscenely ridiculously hard (some of the car ramming missions in H&R and the missile riding one in Jak 3) but the skip option only comes up after you've failed several times. If it's hindering progress in that form, skipping can work. But I don't think first time RPG playthroughs should really allow combat skipping.
On another note, I found that in more action-y games with mission-based systems (The Simpsons Hit & Run and Jak 3 come to mind) that the ability to skip missions is a godsend. Some missions are obscenely ridiculously hard (some of the car ramming missions in H&R and the missile riding one in Jak 3) but the skip option only comes up after you've failed several times. If it's hindering progress in that form, skipping can work. But I don't think first time RPG playthroughs should really allow combat skipping.
narcodis
It seems especially weird to allow skippable content in an RPG, where the game is geared around progression, leveling, building your character, etc.
I haven't read the rest of the topic yet (though I plan to), but I have to stop, drop and roll at this.
Leveling is the basic reason why people get stuck in a traditional RPG. This is why I, uh, don't really use levels - or if I do, they're significantly different than traditional levels.
If you can't possibly be five levels under the boss, then you can progress - and if not, it's because you're missing something crucial and less arbitrary than "levels." In Edifice: Frozen Torment, there is a ton of progression without levels, and you can pretty clearly say "I'm taking a ridiculous amount of Water damage from this boss. I should look for some gear that will help protect me from Water - say, wasn't there another hallway in this dungeon?" And then you find the piece of equipment that grants you a party-wide Water resistance buff, helping you defeat the boss and any future Water-abusing foes.
That sounds about 50x better than "...shit, am I too low-level? Or do I just suck? Huh." It's why Visions & Voices didn't have levels; it's a non-linear survival RPG, where sometimes the best choice was to completely avoid battles.
ftr I think levels are dumb and passe in most cases. Games that do levels well:
-League of Legends L1-18 (the cap) in forty minutes! Good thing games last thirty-sixty minutes (or Dominion games last ~fifteen-twenty minutes but you gain XP passively over time as well as from kills, so you will still get high-level unless you're constantly dead).
-Dissidia 012 There are an utterly insane amount of aspects that I'd have to explain to make this understandable, so just know this: it does them well, and is incredibly flexible (you can change your level from 1 to your current max at almost any point, you can set foes to be different levels, you get nice rewards for fighting underleveled...)
-The World Ends With You Change your level from 1 to your current max at any time; lower levels increase rewards from battle. This is completely optional and nonessential, but lots of fun. Levels also change nothing but your maximum HP - your equipment determines your damage/defense.
-Umm... that's all I can think of. Levels are stupid. Funny how none of those games are traditional RPGs. =3
***
As for the concept of skippable combat itself, I think it's a swell idea for a lot of games. I agree completely that it's not going to hurt you to know that somebody out there skipped a fight. Butthurt basement dwellers are butthurt basement dwellers.
I personally will probably keep my games like Visions & Voices: touch encounters that you're not really forced into fighting most of the time. To beat V&V, you only ever need to fight two battles, even to get the true super-powered-up final boss ending. Both are tough bosses, yes, but you can lockpick, trap, forage and dodge your way to getting the gear you need to survive.
No levels, no need to force combat.
For the record Craze, I completely agree with you... I didn't when I first read the topic/article. I dunno, the more I think about it, the more I realize that people being able to skip combat really doesn't matter.
Obviously it's not for every game.
Obviously it's not for every game.
I stopped reading around the middle of page two, because you guys have absolutely terrible arguments. You're screaming "but I'm a special snowflake" and "life is hard" and it's like
that does not matter in this discussion at all
that does not matter in this discussion at all
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
Basically, the way I see it, "skippable" fights are exactly the same as having an area death spell that works 100% of the time on every enemy in the game. "Skip battle" is just the name of another skill you can use to win fights, and it's the best skill in the game - it's unbalanced and totally overpowers all other skills. I don't think a lot of people would ever use the other tactics for defeating enemies if that one was available. If the option didn't exist, I don't think they'd ever miss it or consider cheating to get it, but putting it right in front of them makes them consider it a valid tactic that you intended for them to use.
Now for normal battles that's totally different. Damn near every RPG in existance already includes skippable normal battles (for no reward). Whether you like that or not, it's already there. I think if you want to argue that it's a good idea, you should realize you're talking about skipping bosses (which DOES give the reward, since the reward for fighting the boss is unlocking the next part of the game) including the final boss.
On the other hand Youtube kinda makes the entire idea redundant. If I just want to watch the game without playing it I don't even have to have a copy of it. IDK. Maybe I'm just a relic of a bygone era with an outdated mentality
Now for normal battles that's totally different. Damn near every RPG in existance already includes skippable normal battles (for no reward). Whether you like that or not, it's already there. I think if you want to argue that it's a good idea, you should realize you're talking about skipping bosses (which DOES give the reward, since the reward for fighting the boss is unlocking the next part of the game) including the final boss.
On the other hand Youtube kinda makes the entire idea redundant. If I just want to watch the game without playing it I don't even have to have a copy of it. IDK. Maybe I'm just a relic of a bygone era with an outdated mentality
LockeZ
Maybe I'm just a relic of a bygone era with an outdated mentality
Going to go with this, yeah.
(Amusing that kentona started this topic.)
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
Thinking about it, Breath of Fire 5 actually has this skill, and it even works on bosses. In dragon mode you are immune to all damage and can kill most bosses in 1-2 turns. You can only use it a few times over the course of the entire game, though, which to me makes it tactically interesting instead of cheap.
Kentona has admitted that he doesn't play games on various occasions, so, of course he wants an option like this in them. :9
author=LockeZ
Thinking about it, Breath of Fire 5 actually has this skill, and it even works on bosses. In dragon mode you are immune to all damage and can kill most bosses in 1-2 turns. You can only use it a few times over the course of the entire game, though, which to me makes it tactically interesting instead of cheap.
You say "cheap" as if someone was doing this against you or something.
Have you tried playing Skyrim on the easiest setting? Combat may as well be skippable at that point.
System Shock has difficult sliders that on the easiest setting literally make enemies stand still and die in one hit.
Skipping combat is really just taking the "easy mode" to it's logical conclusion.
Or going back in time, have you ever used a walkthrough? Maybe not, but people use them in order to get past things they'd rather not bother with thinking through. Developers often included walkthroughs with the game itself. And these were included with Adventure games, where exploration and solving puzzles were the only mechanic in the game! Why on earth would people do that?
It's not out of disgust for the game, or wanting to "cheat" the game. It's because they want to explore the environment, hear the music, speak with the NPCs, and see how the story unfolds! Is this so bad? That's what the point of this all is; what difference does it make if people choose to play this way?
For the record, I love a good challenge, and don't ever skip fights.
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
Walkthroughs and strategy guides are a good analogy, actually. Typically when I use a walkthrough in a game it's because I feel like the game is so shittily designed that it's not worth going through the trouble of beating without one, but I'm invested in it and want to finish or get to the better part. So to me, a walkthrough is the best choice for the player sometimes, but for the developer it's a cop-out solution compared to fixing the game to be fun.
author=LockeZ
you should realize you're talking about skipping bosses (which DOES give the reward, since the reward for fighting the boss is unlocking the next part of the game) including the final boss.
This seems like a stupid, extremist hyperbole. I don't know why you would include combat-skipping as a mechanic to ease the player's experience (
author=narcodis) but then take it to the illogical conclusion of being able to skip the game's final boss. whut
It's not out of disgust for the game, or wanting to "cheat" the game. It's because they want to explore the environment, hear the music, speak with the NPCs, and see how the story unfolds!
author=LockeZ
So to me, a walkthrough is the best choice for the player sometimes, but for the developer it's a cop-out solution compared to fixing the game to be fun.
Some of my favorite games have had walkthroughs that I've used, and there was nothing really wrong with the game or anything. And it was still fun either way. It's just an option.
Assuming there are no inherent flaws with the combat or anything, why would it be bad to include an option to play the game differently?
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
@versalia: Uh, that's not a hyperbole on my part, that's the point of the article and the idea. Make all combat skippable so that the player has the ability to play the game as simply a series of cut scenes.
@narcodis: Because you as the designer have the responsibility to lead the player to playing the game the most fun way.
@narcodis: Because you as the designer have the responsibility to lead the player to playing the game the most fun way.
author=LockeZ
@narcodis: Because you as the designer have the responsibility to lead the player to playing the game the most fun way.
This suggests you believe there is a single most-fun way to play a game for all people. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in letting myself believe you don't actually believe this is true.
But beyond that, it also suggests all people play a game for one single specific reason. This simply isn't true, believe it or not.
Some people like to just get to the ending and know what happens. Some people like the challenge of combat, strategy, and action. Some people like to explore things, like to collect every doodad and macguffin, and like to talk to every single townsperson everywhere they go. Some people like doing all these things, some people prefer to do some things more than others, and some people simply don't want to bother with some of those things. Maybe not all the time, and maybe all the time. It doesn't matter. Why purposefully prevent people from playing a way they would rather play and stubbornly stick to forcing players to get through combat/puzzles/whatever in order to experience every other aspect of the game?
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
No, it just suggests some things are objectively more fun than others. Which is a fact. Fun is the manifestation of neurological activity which is caused by certain types of activities. It's true that some people respond more to one type of stimulus than another, but there are definitely patterns of enjoyment that are true for the overwhelming majority of people, and I think if you intentionally lead people to an option that most of them won't find fun you're going to be called a bad game designer.
