Now Ubi’s opened the door, can we have our “Skip Boss Fight” button?

[Jester Joe]

Dark Souls has brain dead easy mode. It's called summoning help. There is absolutely 0 prestige in beating any Souls game.

Even Cuphead is no where near as hard as the "its the dark souls!" meme claims. It is hard to S ranks on expert yes, beating the base game on regular is pretty much on par with Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze(and I didn't see people claiming it was "the dark souls of.." probably because they didn't see their favorite streamers who are shit at games failing at it)

It depends from my experience. I accidentally summoned Solaire before one of the first fights, and yeah, he wrecked the thing. (accidentally as in, first time playing, had no idea what it did, just pressed buttons)

But otherwise, some bosses it's just more of it distracts them, rather than making it completely faceroll. Granted, I don't think Souls should be the "go to" example of hard modes and punishing games (I'd even give that to the original Super Mario Bros first). I'm just saying as an example. And even then, still my point stands. The Call of Duty can be far harder of a campaign on single player, but yet it seems there's more "honor" on the internet at least to beating Dark Souls despite being able to cheese fights with summons.

And also probably because you know, Wii U exclusive and all.

[Mehrunes]

Overall, meh. If people want to skip content and some devs capitalize on that, whatever. I don't really see the point, since to me, like dope_danny already said, it boggles down to "These are people who dislike playing a game so much they want options to not have to play it." (and in regards to StrawberryZebra's reply to them about the issue being challenge, challenge is an intrinsic element of games that stems from their nature and is not limited to video games, but present in card games, board games, war games, sports, etc.). Still, whatever floats their boats. If

That being said, the actual arguments presented in the OP and the later stuff Tauror linked it the next post look like their author tried to create and emotionally feed a Chaos God of autistic screeching. And people demanding things like Dark Souls to be easier and devs like FromSoftware to coddle them and bow down to their wishes are simply engaging in whiny, entitled nonsense. Dark Souls isn't even hard anyway (recently played Dark Souls III, this being my first Souls game, and in terms of difficulty it was almost disappointing), it's just "find the easy to spot pattern" mixed with "roll to win".

Who the hell skips around in any of those forms of media.

literally who

My two cents for real now, although I'm not sure why an article that starts off talking about skipping sections of movies should be taken with any degree of seriousness, is whatever the devs want to do, let them.

If Cuphead wanted to add a super casual mode for those who just want to roll through the game, let them. Clearly though, they didn't want to, so in that case, ALSO let them. Don't sit there and complain that you can't enjoy the game. The devs shouldn't have to compromise their creation just because it's too hard for some people.

Welllll, I kinda felt compelled to skip some of the Greyjoy chapters before Euron appeared because they were dreadful and added little value to the overall story. I mean, I didn't in the end, but after reading each of them I regretted it.

Wouldn't that be up to whoever makes the game?

Some amount of effort is kinda required by default though. If you remove any requirement of effort you're left with no gameplay whatsoever (or at least the option to skip it in its entirety) and are left with a movie, not a game. Games are an interactive medium. Interactivity requires effort to exist. I guess technically it could still be up to the creators since a dev could call it a game for some reason, but that'd be just them using words incorrectly.

You realize games like WoW prove the (Developer will put in way less work/development time) opinion is bullshit right?

First of all, WoW doesn't allow you to skip content you partake in. It has a wide range of content to choose from, but once you pick something, you either do it, or you fail it. There's no "skip this boss" button. Secondly, even if it wasn't the case, one developer equals all developers now?

[Deleted]

Prestige matters to some people.

If anyone can pick up the game and say they beat it, it loses the value of being able to say it yourself. You might consider that silly, but there's literally nothing wrong with taking pride in an accomplishment. And there's a fine line between pride and arrogance of course.

Example- Compare how many times you hear people brag about beating a new Call of Duty game, even on the highest difficulty, compared to how many times you hear people brag about beating Cuphead, or Dark Souls. I would bet the Cuphead/Dark Souls area wins out, because those games only have one mode, hard.

I also fully understand that, but i think prestige is pointless. I am by no stardard good at most games, but i can easly do dark souls, Far on Soul1, 2nd playthough, And i can do it. and most people would agree, Just Doing dark soul 1 playthough is hardly any presiges. So i can see no reason why it would be different with an easy mode.
most preistige in the game is now Boing No death, or souls 1, or useing only shield. All of this would still be there. Doing the game on normal is hardly prestiges. i liked it, i liked the efford i had to put into it, and how easyer it was the 2nd time around. what matters to me is, let more people try it, with the skill cap they have.

[Mehrunes]

That works on the assumption that the players WANT to overcome the challenge of the game. "Players" who just want to look around the world and see the story once just aren't looking for that challenge at all. They're, essentially, thinking about games as being interactive movies. If that is something desirable for video games is another matter entirely, but the Author is attempting, badly, to justify his opinions that all games should be like the ones Telltale make. Little to no combat and 100% story driven.

Then they are looking at a wrong form of entertainment entirely and are misrepresenting the very nature of games. Challenge is one of the core elements of what constitutes a game in general and is interlinked with the other ones (rules and interactivity). The very idea one wants a "game" to be interactive but not challenging is internally incoherent. Interactivity breeds the challenge. Even Telltale games have an element of challenge in quick time events, i.e. one of the form of interactivity (at least the TT games I've seen had some). Ones that can be failed. Ones that require self-improvement on part of the player in case they fail them. Wanting challenge to not exist in games would be like me wanting to partake in casual drinking while demanding the alcohol producers for the hangover to stop being a factor in the experience and for ethanol to not taste like crap.

You forgot "the way I want them to play it" from your comment that I quoted there. So yeah, it is an elitist mentality to expect someone to play the game the way you want them to play it, and if they can't or don't want to, then they don't deserve to play it at all.

1. It wasn't @Verdugo's comment, it was @Vespian's. 2. That part wasn't actually present in what you quoted there. You built it out of straw. Now, it could be argued their portrayal of people wanting to skip bosses and whatnot as effectively wanting to not play the game in general was a straw-man too, but transplanting "fight fire with fire" saying onto straw-men seems rather weird.

[Mehrunes]

If a boss fight is skippable surely a better question is why does it need to be there in the first place. Has it just been tacked on because a focus group as told them that games should have boss fights? If people don't like boss fights it's possible to make games that don't have them. Or to make boss fights that people who enjoy the rest of the game will enjoy. Or boss fights that are tuned in line with the rest of the game, if relative difficulty to non-boss encounters is the problem here. Unless it's a truly optional boss, that players can seek out if they wish, but otherwise completely bypass through proper in game means.

It kinda depends on what skipping a boss entails. If it's something like "press X to skip this cutscene" but about bosses, then your post applies in full. But bosses could also be made to be skippable through gameplay mechanics. Things like talking your way out of it, some clever insta-kill measure abusing the boss' weaknesses (and the journey to learn them beforehand), sneaking by the boss or finding a longer, possibly hidden, way around it, hiring mercenaries to kill the boss for you, so on and so forth. Then again given how the topic stems from an article written by a game "journalist" who's apparently offended by the concept of challenge in video games, i.e. doesn't understand the very concept of what he's writing about, the thing I wrote about are more of a digression.

When you play monopoly, you start with all the hotels?

Actually, Monopoly has an immense amount of misconception in regards to its rules (some make it harder, some make it easier, some make it just weirder). So I suppose it's technically possible someone plays it with a house rule like that (well, depending on what you mean by all the hotels, given how there's a limited supply of them).

I approach video games as just another story to be experienced. There is no deeper meaning. I dont owe the devs anything. They have my money and they are not entitled to anythign beyond that. When something stops entertaining me, i walk away from it. I rarely finish games because of this. If there was an option for skipping parts that i dont find entertaining i would likely stick around and experience more of said game.

So from my perspective, comparing games to books/movies etc is legitimate. I care nothing for being challenged by pixels. Outside of MMOs, im only there for a brief story experience and then i move on. I dont have to worry about cancerous quicktime events or boring play mechanics in my favorite books.

Unless you're friends with the devs of the games you buy, chances are the devs don't even know about your existence, let alone care about said existence enough to feel any form of entitlement towards you. The only form of entitlement on the grounds of challenge and skippability of content would exist on the side of the players. And your non-sequitur about devs' entitlement and your explanation of what you like and dislike doesn't unmake the fact that comparing an interactive medium (let's even ignore the part were challenge is one of the key elements of games) to non-interactive ones is comparing apples to oranges.

[LaserChild9]

It would not affecr you. I mean you can dissagree. But How does it affect you. Will it ruin your experinse? Will it insult your friends?
Yes it would loose it Rep, but thegame would be as good, better i would say, Because more people can try it. I am not saying neff the orginal game mode, but i am all for more people can try it, and play it

Anyone can try Dark souls already, they just choose not to. Like me, I haven't played it because I know it is stupidly hard and it would frustrate me, but I wouldn't want a super easy mode to stroke my ego. The problem with this attitude is that it's just people that are shit at video games, or people that are too lazy to improve at video games, deciding that they deserve to be able to participate. The real world is not like that, some stuff is hard and requires skill and dumbing things down for people does not help anyone, it just sets a precedent that if you whinge and cry enough, someone will make things easier for you eventually.

- - - Updated - - -

what matters to me is, let more people try it, with the skill cap they have.

But why? If they need to learn then they should do that, it should not be just made easier for them. Would you teach a child to give up if its too hard and that someone will make it easier one day?

[Mehrunes]

yes add it. I want a super easy mode. it does not hurt anything. What is up with people being like " IF OTHER CAN ENJOY THE GAME AS WELL IT RUINS MY ENJOYMENT!!!" i honestly, no trolling, belive dark souls should have a easy mode. It wont hurt the none easy mode people..

It would hurt the product itself, so yes, it would hurt the normal players. Easy mode wouldn't make itself. Let's operate on the scenario where FromSoftware went with just scaling down HP and/or damage instead of altering mob/boss behavior or reworking the core mechanic of dodging on lower difficulties. Which would still not be easy for people who can't roll for shit and for them it'd just change things from "this boss reaped my guts through my eyeballs with that hit I couldn't avoid" to "I suffered death through a thousand cuts", but let's assume a line has to be drawn somewhere and a game with multiple difficulties doesn't have to be made with the lowest denominator in mind because it'd make the game stuck in development limbo.

Those numbers would still have to be balanced. Properly enough for it to actually constitute an easy mode that doesn't fell half-assed and doesn't have unintended difficulty spikes on certain bosses, or in locations with high mob density. Which takes time. Time that could be instead spent on polishing the game as it was actually intended, for the intended audience to enjoy even more.

I don't like found footage movies. I don't expect their directors to include a version filmed properly for me to experience the movie's story in a way I find more enjoyable as well. It'd result in a complete clusterfuck where both versions suffer. If I was really interested in the premise, I'd hop on wiki and read what the plot is. Or watch YouTube videos analyzing it. Just how people can experience a game's story as well. Not all games are for everyone, just like not all movies are for everyone. And that's fine.

It would not affecr you. I mean you can dissagree. But How does it affect you. Will it ruin your experinse? Will it insult your friends?
Yes it would loose it Rep, but thegame would be as good, better i would say, Because more people can try it. I am not saying neff the orginal game mode, but i am all for more people can try it, and play it

Other than the claim of it not affecting the intended audience being false because development resources aren't infinite, how on Earth would the game be better? The amount of people trying the game does nothing to affect the game's quality. When we're at the stage of people trying the game, the game is already out. The only way it'd affect normal players is by giving them easy targets for invasions. But that's if FromSoftware didn't separate those players online as well. And in that case it's still be a mixed blessing, because easier invasions also mean worse team mates for blue and white phantoms. For both PvP and bosses.

And that also depends on whether or not people basically playing the game for the story played with online functions on to begin with. Speaking of playing it for the story, given how it is presented extremely indirectly to begin with, I'm kinda not seeing the point. Even less so when you add the fact that one of the main themes and main elements of the ambiance and general mood is hopelessness, which is fueled by the difficulty.

[Mehrunes]

Prestige matters to some people.

If anyone can pick up the game and say they beat it, it loses the value of being able to say it yourself. You might consider that silly, but there's literally nothing wrong with taking pride in an accomplishment. And there's a fine line between pride and arrogance of course.

Example- Compare how many times you hear people brag about beating a new Call of Duty game, even on the highest difficulty, compared to how many times you hear people brag about beating Cuphead, or Dark Souls. I would bet the Cuphead/Dark Souls area wins out, because those games only have one mode, hard.

I wouldn't go as far as pride, let alone comparing myself to other players for prestige as far as single player games like Dark Souls are concerned (I mean, yeah, it has online functions, but those are more of a side thing to the main play-through experience rather than a core mechanic), but still, Midir was a great challenge and it was accomplishing to finally beat him. And yet, his story could be written down on a post-it note, with ample space to spare. Other than the challenge, what's there to be experienced from a fight like Midir? Nice visuals? You can get that by watching a let's play.

[StrawberryZebra]

Then they are looking at a wrong form of entertainment entirely and are misrepresenting the very nature of games. Challenge is one of the core elements of what constitutes a game in general and is interlinked with the other ones (rules and interactivity). The very idea one wants a "game" to be interactive but not challenging is internally incoherent. Interactivity breeds the challenge. Even Telltale games have an element of challenge in quick time events, i.e. one of the form of interactivity (at least the TT games I've seen had some). Ones that can be failed. Ones that require self-improvement on part of the player in case they fail them. Wanting challenge to not exist in games would be like me wanting to partake in casual drinking while demanding the alcohol producers for the hangover to stop being a factor in the experience and for ethanol to not taste like crap.

Not entirely the wrong form. When it comes to making you feel like a part of a living, breathing world games are leagues ahead of their competion. It's why we've seen a huge rise in the number of "Interactive Experiences", those games jokingly dubbed "walking simulators". For a lack of a better term, they're still considered to be "games" by the public at large, and even professional games journalists, despite being something quite different at their core. They do have a similar level of interactivity to video games, which is where the confusion lies, but without an underlying ruleset they don't quite meet the critiera to be called games.

If VR ever takes off in a big way expect to see Interactive Exeriences really take advantage of it. They can put you right into the heart of a story world, and allow you to interact with it's characters and explore it's world in a way that a film or novel wouldn't be able to replicate. They also avoid a lot of the issues plaguing more traditional games on VR at the moment - That the gameplay is terrible and clunky.

There really does need to be a distinction made between what constitutes a "Video Game" and what is an "Interactive Experience" . Both should exist, but calling them both "games" does them both a disservice I feel. Some people just want to explore Hogwarts, then hang out with Harry Potter and his friends. I get it, I really do. Some people want fight huge monsters armed with nothing but a flimsy sword and their underpants. And I get that too. Thinking of both of these types as being "gamers" is what's driving a wedge between players and developers trying their best to cater to both sides.

[Halicia]

There really does need to be a distinction made between what constitutes a "Video Game" and what is an "Interactive Experience" . Both should exist, but calling them both "games" does them both a disservice I feel. Some people just want to explore Hogwarts, then hang out with Harry Potter and his friends. I get it, I really do. Some people want fight huge monsters armed with nothing but a flimsy sword and their underpants. And I get that too. Thinking of both of these types as being "gamers" is what's driving a wedge between players and developers trying their best to cater to both sides.

To be fair... both Candy Land and Texas Holdem Poker are "games", but you won't see any world championships for candyland. If you want to get specific, thats what descriptors are for... but calling an "interactive experience" a game is simply calling a duck a bird.... because it is.

[Yriel]

Totalbiscuit said it best, just bring back cheat codes.
If someone wants unlimited life or invulnerability in dark souls then they should enter a cheat code and be fine with it.

[StrawberryZebra]

To be fair... both Candy Land and Texas Holdem Poker are "games", but you won't see any world championships for candyland. If you want to get specific, thats what descriptors are for... but calling an "interactive experience" a game is simply calling a duck a bird.... because it is.

I was talking about "Interactive Experiences" which are very definately not games. Like The Beginners Guide, Dear Esther or That Dragon, Cancer - Where there is ZERO game play to be found. Calling them games is underselling what they are and what about them makes them unique. They're something else entirely and we only call them "games" because no one has come up with a better descriptor yet.