SKIPPABLE COMBAT?

I really think at the end of the day, it comes down to the game. Like any design decision, this isn't something that can be applied to or rejected from all games without exception.

We could take a look at the Invincibility Leaf in Super Mario 3D Land. It's an option presented to players who aren't doing well on a level. It makes Mario so powerful that beating most levels is trivial at best. While I'm sure many younger or less skilled players may have appreciated it, some hardcore Mario fans took it as an insult. "This game is telling me I need help."

Now, part of that problem lies in the presentation; if a game offers you hints or "cheats" to beat it after failing often, it feels like the game is treating you like a child that needs looking after. A skip button for battles could easily feel the same way. Although I agree with Craze's belief that grinding levels is an aging tradidion, and it can become a virtual, monotonous chore, adding a "skip this battle" button can very easily come off as condescending, and doesn't address the core problem - why are people trying to skip in the first place? Adding alternate systems that break up monotony, or better yet, eviscerating anything monotonous and leaving it to die on the cutting room floor, is a much cleaner solution, and will lead to a much purer product.

Of course, there will always be people who want to skip battles, cutscenes, content, or whatever. Is choosing to appeal to these people the right option for your game? Who knows. Do some research and see what people think - don't just take it at face-value.

I guess I'll give my couple of cents on this. Maybe. We'll see.

I probably won't say anything that hasn't already been said in this topic but I'm one of those that don't properly see the vehement anti-skippable-parts-of-game. (yeah I'm going to go not only battles but make everything skippable!)

The one point I can concede about the problematicness of skippable battles is the one Lockez mentioned somewhere between all the complaining about his self-control issues.

When you have the option to skip a battle (or any challenge), the way you approach it will change. It is similar to how your approach to a challenge will change if your game has permadeath or if there are checkpoints (or quicksaves) everywhere in the game.

By change I don't necessarily mean in a bad or good way. Just that it will change and a game designer has to have that in mind when designing a challenge. Just like he has to have it in mind when designing it around permadeath, savepoints or constant checkpoints. I'd say that unlike what most people seem to think in this thread it forces the game designer to make challenges interesting enough that players don't just skip them, though also make them easy enough so people don't skip them. Of course it would also allowe designers to throw in some strange variation occasionally. Things that before maybe were optional sidequests putting them in the player's face seeing if there's some aspect the player might not otherwise have found that they find really enjoyable. And if they don't like it they can just skip it.

Similarily unskippable parts of games can be annoying when replaying games. Though many games have a kind of stage select or unlocked missions upon replaying. Alternatively a game might have loads of save files. (though with inexplicable limited save slots for some games that might not be feasible) If I'm playing GTA (4) and want to have fun in that game I'll have to play through a ten hour tutorial of the game first. Learning how to drive a taxi and whatnot. When what I'd really like is to jump in the game with a rocket launcher and shoot some stuff for a while. If certain parts of GTA4 were skippable that'd be possible. As it is now I suppose I just have to buy Saint's Row.

You could say the same thing about certain minigames in games. You have a snowboard section in your game and for some people it's just infuriating but others really love it. Making it both mandatory and skippable makes people who like it find out about it (I made the same point above) and those who find it infuriating can skip it.

Sometimes there are parts of games I don't enjoy at all. For me personally it's boss battles. I like mowing down goons but when something takes up the whole screen and has a pulsating red thing on its chest I just want it to be over. Resident Evil 4 is a great example. I really loved fighting regular enemies, headshotting, kicking, whatevering. But whenever one of those supermonsters appeared I just wished it was over and I'd be able to shoot through the next guy's wooden shield.

There are plenty of games with an almost skippable mechanic. The Total War series are great in that they let you simulate certain battles. And usually when there's 1000 vs 100 it's just not worth it to sit through that loading screen. And although not really skippable I think it's great that games nowadays offer dynamic difficulties. In Mass Effect I can pause the game at any time and turn down (or up) the difficulty, in games like Left 4 Dead there's an AI director that analyzes player performance and tries to tailor a suitable challenge. (within the difficulty setting chosen of course) A game like Atom Zombie Smasher lets you on startup customize so many game options that there's bound to be a combination that suits every player.

These games all Work As Designed despite having "multiple designs". And even then many games can be fun in ways they never were designed to be. Say an open world game where you turn off combat and spend the whole game buying and selling stuff as a merchant using some rudimentary trading system built into the game. This minor feature suddenly becomes the meat of the game. Emergent gameplay is one of those "things" nowadays and sometimes designers can sort of "help" stuff like that happen more easily by putting in options.

And as a final point I don't know what kind of self-control issues some have but I played loads of Civ2 with a cheat option RIGHT THERE in the menu bar and although I did use it occasionally (often during endgame when civ games are notoriously not-as-good-as-before) it wasn't some kind of compulsive "I MUST CHEAT NOW". I can agree that it's true that forcing people cheat is usually a sign of bad game design, but I'd say allowing your players to cheat isn't.

tldr
Random rambling with no point. Or some old point like "my fun isn't better than your fun" or "giving players options is a good thing" or something like that.

I was going to go on a rant about how one can avoid battles altogether in certain Wild Arms games, but that's not what this thread is about.

The closest thing I know of that even comes close to this idea of skipping a battle is from Suikoden IV. There is a rune called a Slash Rune. When faced with a regular encounter filled with enemies that the player would normally be able to "Let go", using the rune causes all the enemies to die. The player is granted whatever rewards the battle gives. No questions asked. Probably one of the few fun points of that game, too.

author=kentona
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)

To be perfectly honest, this should be either completely optional or a huge reward and not mandatory. New Game + would definitely be a good start as a huge reward for this type of system.

Oh, man the P-Wing! It might have felt like cheating, but it was fun!

This thread is already very long so I skipped most of the posts, but I actually think it's an interesting idea. I don't know that I support an outright skip function, but I think games could do a lot more to ease player burden for some.

Maybe make the Autobattle button intelligent. By seeing an appropriate technique or strategy against a given boss, it might encourage the player to hop in and get personal satisfaction in finishing the fight. Or just Autobattle to victory if they don't.

Though, this doesn't address the problem of players not finding combat fun and just wanting to play for the story (which is the crux of the issue, really), so maybe a skip button is okay. The idea that somebody would pick up an action video game to skip the action seems like a poor consumer decision to me, but it wouldn't get in the way of my enjoyment either.

I prefer allow easy skip battle over insta win battle.

nah earthbound is right. there was also the star power up in super mario RPG that allowed you to auto win battles for a limited time. It was p cool because you got the exp from it. They would usually position the star power ups near a bunch of enemies to make the player go on a fun killing spree while also getting a bonus. Stuff like that works because it's built into the game and with good reason.

The only reason I'm seeing for an outright skip is "HMM HMM video games are like books" or MASS AUDIENCE WOO

Earthbound's system was pretty great, if someone came up with a script like that, I'd implement it in a second. But, aside from that, skippable combat seems pretty pointless. I was okay with have the no encounters skill in the final fantasy games, but even then, they only made sense for general exploration, not meaningful dungeons.

Come to think of it, doesn't Dhux's Scar kind of apply this "skip battle" feature as well? All battles, even boss battles, allow you to insta-win with a certain character's skill, but at the cost of PP or something that can give you a bad ending if it's too low. That's one example of a skip battle function applied well.

Although that doesn't allow you to insta-skip to boss 7 or something like that.