skipping content
polycounter lvl 5
I am interested in reading what others think about this, i know i skipped stuff when i was younger, and i didn't do any skipping of content since HL1 (so very annoying at times).
[ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdN4BTH1qa4[/ame]
[ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdN4BTH1qa4[/ame]
Replies
I see no issue including the feature as an option. But I don't think most people for decent games would use it on a first play through even if they don't have the time. Especially once they realize skipping probably makes things harder.
Even if I encounter a hard part and I'm offered to skip it as some recent games do. I simply don't cause I'm worried the next thing is probably harder and I'm just not understanding something. Then after doing it once I'd probably do it more, I don't like that idea thus i don't start.
Only context I could see skipping useful is on a second play-through or bad games.
His point on lets plays bugs me though.
This technically already exists with "time savers"
What boggles my mind though is the Twitter comments he's been getting around that conversation. Maybe it is a maturity problem, but it really sounds like people complaining/WTFing about it just didn't take the time to stop for a second to think and realize that even if all games had a skip feature, it wouldn't affect them in the slightest. Of course I am not saying that every dev should implement it, but there are definitely many games that would benefit from it without any bad side effects. As a matter of fact I am having a hard time thinking of any game that would suffer from it.
Games relying on combat filler do bore me to death, and because of that I end up just watching these kind of titles as uncommented Let's Plays just because of the cool art. Ironically enough I would be much more likely to actually buy these games if they came with a skip feature, or even an "autoplay" mode leaving you the option to take control whenever you want. The only game that I know of offering this is REZ, and that didn't turn it into a bad game. Furthermore, hearing in this video that a version of FF has the option to skip combat actually makes me want to buy it !
On a similar topic I am actually very surprised that no game company/publisher ever thought of creating their own official Let's Plays videos. If such videos were ad-supported, wouldn't that be quite profitable ?
well, who would watch that if you can find an ad-free one on youtube?
i agree with the skipping/fast forwarding for single player games btw. like many, i don't have the time and patience to do multiple attempts after dying anymore, i just drop the game entirely. because of this, i usually don't buy any story based games anymore at all, just watch a playthrough to get to see the content.
Thing is that an option to skip content will inevitably make many people destroy games for themselves, just like an easy option to cheat and totally messes with the artistic vision for a given game. Theres probably no best middle ground here, at least if talking about classical singleplayer campaigns.
if someone ruins the game for them self well that is there own fault.
Everything that is done affects how the player plays percieves and enjoys the game.
If I give the players a weapon that is better than anything else and their game gets very dull and boring as a cause - even while clearly realizing that, the player will rather stop playing the game than simply not use it.
If you add convenient options to skip content, then many people that would otherwise enjoy the intended game will use them to harm their experience. Its like watching children, you have to make sure things run well. You have to know what the user wants and is best for the user, thats just how humans are. I can not just say "Well they wanted to eat all the halloween candy at once" let them.
What people think they want and what people truly want/need are two very different things.
You will not find the answer to what they really want by asking them. They say they want X, but thats just what they think they want, and you have to look beyond that.
As another example, I destroyed good parts of the warcraft 3 campaign for me, even tho I clearly knew id enjoy the missions a lot and had all time and intensions to do them, while being clearly aware that I was destroying parts of the best campaign Ive ever played for me. I tried but still I couldn't stop doing it, just entering a word in chat was way too convenient.
spoken like a true engine programmer talking to artists.
i think it's simple on my end: i paid 50 quid for the game, the whole game. there's some bit i can't be bothered to grind through three hours in but want to see what comes after. if i choose to 'ruin the experience' for myself, i should be able to do that, just like i can skip something in a movie that i do not want to see.
like i always fast forward through chestbursting scenes in the alien movies, which does not ruin the overall experience of watching the movie to me.
I dunno about new games but most of older games have cheats that allow you to skip maps or noclip through them anyway.
This is the perfect way to go about it.
The option is there for people who feel they really need it, but it's not really exposed so it doesn't tempt everyone else.
I can definitely understand and it surely make sense, but its about numbers.
Why would I put 10 people at risk of severely harming their experience to increase the experience of 1-2 people that want to skip through the content (and likely care less about the game than the others)?
To be fair this can also apply to all the "hardcore gamers" claiming that enabling a skipping option would mean the death of gaming
Another example would be the MGS series. I personally love going through these games without killing anyone (which certainly makes them quite challenging) but having the option to shoot lethal weapons does not in any way harm the enjoyment I am getting from non-lethal runs.
Even games relying fully on high difficulty could benefit from a skip option. I spent quite some time on Retry (super difficult iOS game) but ended up dropping it after a while. If I were to pick it up again today it would probably feel too hard because of lack of practice, yet I'd love to see what the final levels look like !
It dosnt have to be paid, it can also just be inconvenient.
(Of course I am not talking about things like iOS strategy games offering extra stats/powerful items for real money, as these rely on the gameplay to be crippled in the first place.)
I get the feeling that most gamers opposed to that idea (I am not talking about folks here, but about the kind of gamers leaving comments on articles about the iOS FFVII which I just had a look at) have a very odd mindset. Something along the lines of "if you don't want to play the game the way I played it when it first came out, then don't play it at all". I find it completely backwards, since the fact that someone gets to experience a different version of a game they like does not retroactively affect the experience they had with the game when it first came out 15 years ago ...
The reaction to the Black Ops 3 campaign experiment is going to be extremely interesting to see. To anyone not stuck in a "gamer" mentality, the option to skip annoying/boring/badly designed parts will probably appear as a no-brainer !
This is exactly how I feel. I almost never play a game for more than a couple of hours. So I miss out on a lot of the (probably) cooler content. I'd love to be able to skip ahead.
Is it stupid? absolutely.. can I understand it? sort of
It's like playing an mmo and doing raids for weeks for some armor.. and then the next expansion arrives and others get it without any effort
Now I think it's perfectly fine to allow that, atleast for most singleplayer games. I just really hope that it won't affect the game design. I can imagine that they will need to design the game in a way that allows for a perfect experience, no matter if you skip till the end. It could destroy the progression.
Regarding game design being affected by it : I am personally totally fine with progression breaking down for someone skipping ahead. Paraphrasing TB, it would be just like a Game Genie hack or cheat code giving the player full inventory at the beginning of Super Metroid - it won't spoil the game for dedicated players, but it would allow players with very little time on their end to enjoy the great endgame mechanics if they so chose. What's not to like ?
(Also from what I recently heard, Black Ops 3 will not only feature skipping but also a super hard difficulty mode giving the player only 1 point of health for the campaign. It goes to show that the two extremes can very well coexist !)
as long as it's for single player games, I really don't see a loss here in any way except maybe some game designers egos or 'vision', which to be blunt don't really matter anyway if the player is not invested nor interested in following along in the way that was intended.
there will still be tons of us who want to play games as they are 'meant' to be experienced, but at the same time, I have totally been in the seat of 'ugh I wish I could just play x part or skip y part so I can get to what I like doing.
choice > no choice, especially when it's not going to have a negative effect on any other players experience
But, I try imagining a worse case scenario where I'm playing a favorite game for the first time, such as "The Last of Us" and I decide to skip to the final level, skip the combat, boss fight and just watch the final cut scene.
I would be saddened were that to have happened, knowing what events and story elements I've missed out on, the moments I stopped to smell the digital flowers, not having the added sense of value from fighting through the challenges, gaining a sense of mastery of the poor combat mechanics (ZING!), building an imaginary relationship with Ellie, and giraffes.
Often while playing through the game, there were moments where the game's combat mechanics were so unenjoyable, I wanted to just skip the challenge and just get on with the awesome story. Often these events would end my game session.
So while it's important to validate there is real value to the traditional consumption of a video game, consider the other side of the fence.
I'm sure these frustrations caused others to give up on the game entirely and never finish it. I could easily see a scenario where I had never finished a very great game.
This all should likely not be generalized. There are many games where skipping is likely a safe addition and others where it is rather not.
I feel big singleplayer productions mainly fall under this problem, they deliver story and combat and many people just come for either thing or are just not hooked by one part, while the game still keeps a +-50:50 ratio no matter what you enjoy.
Mass effect had this cool thing where you could select what you prefer, and it would make things shorter / easier - now that I think of it.
Also kinda on topic, people widely stopped adding cheats and free save points as the industry realized that they do more harm than good
Still off topic, but could you elaborate on that? I haven't looked much into the topic, but I was always under the impressions that cheats died out due to the advent of microtransactions, and DLC.
That, and I suppose convenience. Modern dev tools simplify debugging to the point where special commands are no longer needed or practical to help you debug in-game. It's something you have to go out of your way to add, anymore, and you need to go through the bureaucracy to get the go-ahead.
That said, I've never lost value from an experience because it included cheats as a fun little bonus (Battlefront 2, Rogue Squadron, Spore, Skyrim/Oblivion, Warcraft 3, etc.).
Admittedly, it'd bork the game if it was online only, but that's more of a niche case, unless it's only online for DRM and DLC.
Cheevos, too. But gamerscore matters to a niche about the size of the niche that's still actively bemoaning the loss of cheat codes from my experience.
The problem is that people always go for the easiest / cheapest way - "Foo strategies" even if it makes the game trivial and less enjoyable for them.
As i previously wrote as example;
If I give the players a weapon that is better than anything else and their game loses all challenge and gets very dull and boring as a cause - even while clearly realizing that(!), the player will rather stop playing the game than simply not use it and getting the fun back.
And thats the exact problem with cheats. People abuse it on a large scale and
just kill off games for themselves. The worst thing is that you are more likely to cheat on games you enjoy the most, thus often dramatically shortening the lasting appeal of a game.
Free save points are kind of similar, they allow you to do anything in a game without a challenge. It robs the game of any risk as you can just load instantly, which makes the game a lot less challenging, which is a main factor for having fun.
a quote from somewhere; "if the audience knew what it wanted, it wouldnt be the audience, it would be the artist"
Skipping content in Dark Souls is different than skipping content in Call of Duty or Mario.
Plants vs Zombies starts you off with 2 plants. You figure out very quickly how those 2 plants work, and how best to master their use.
You can't just give a player all 48 plants and expect anyone to know how they work no matter how good they are at games. SAme holds for Metroid, Zelda, or most RPGs.
Anyways, Skipping ahead artificially sucks. Watch the youtube walkthrough if you don't want to play the game.
I used to love cheating in games, I would get 60% of the way through a game and find Im getting bored of the grind or Im simply not loving the gameplay or combat or I just dont have time to play it for 30 more hours but want to see the story and environments and cutscenes so let me cheat please! I miss the old days of cheating haha.
I can agree with all this from personal experience, I wasn't thinking about this.
The most recent one I can think of is playing saints row 3 co-op with my friend. We were happily playing the game when I suggested "hey I wonder what cheats there are!" and so we did that had tons of fun for about 2 hours and never played the game again after that. We felt there was nothing left to do.
Later on in saint's row 4 we opted not to do that so we could actually play the game.
Sure having choices is great, but man I kinda wish i didn't do that with saint's row 3 and other games where I used cheats early. I could see not including them for this reason of wanting people to actually play the game, or only including them as end game content for more play time.
I'm not a person who often abuses save features though, i already know the consequences of that so i just don't.
I agree with this statement too...
I understand this is a product they own but i think that gives them the freedom to mod it, i don't think the developers should feel obligated to offer tools that could potentially hurt the game experience for new players.
But NEVER include unskippable cutscenes ESPECIALLY when they play right after a check point...