Skippable Combat in Games

[deanb]

So this is a topic that was supposedly mentioned many years ago but recently brought up for some unrelated nastiness.

 

Basically one of the developers (I think writers, so maybe a bit of a biased viewpoint) for Bioware suggested that combat should be optional and skippable in games. Letting the player focus upon the narrative of the game. Cos obviously one things games suck at is good combat and really great dialogue n stories

 

Now I've had a run in with John Walker on Twitter (who is pro-skippable combat), so I've managed to get my thoughts in line on this one.

 

I feel that if you are interested only in story, then there's other mediums that better serve your needs such as films and books. Should you really want to "play games" (which is clear you're not keen on the idea if you're wanting to skip the game parts) then there are visual novels, and interactive fiction. Letting you make choices, while avoiding combat and game-play situations. Or you can even watch LPs. There are, I feel, plenty of opportunities for those who are only focused in the story of a game to follow it without having to cock about with the games to let folks play without the actual game-ey bits in.

 

John reckons I'm being selfish (he did, he called me selfish straight up. Bastard *), and that it wouldn't affect me at all. However he seemingly works under the assumption games play out in a matter of combat-cutscene-combat-cutscene-combat-town-boss-cutscene, and so on. Where it would be simple to trim out "combat" n "boss" segments and leave with the story and dialogue. However in my experience a fair chunk of the dialogue happens within the combat and action. Meaning you'd either have to write the game in such a way that nothing narrative-ey happens within combat or the boss fights. Or code the game to allow the game to masturbate, while you sit back n watch n listen to the dialogue. Both of these solutions lead to detracting development that could be spent on refining other elements (like..more combat!)

 

I feel the call for combat-skippable games is almost like the currently disease of RPG elements, which I love RPGs, infesting other genres. IF you want RPGs, there's plenty of RPGs play those. If you want just stories, plenty of those too. Just combat, just puzzles, just strategy, etc etc. We have a berth of genres for all type n sizes without needing to hijack other genres with our own preferred mechanics. Playing Portal, without having to do the puzzles. It's like bubble wrap without the air filling.

 

So what are your view points on the topic?

 

 

*http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/23/escape-escape-embracing-skippable-combat/#comment-922104 - we made up

[Strangelove]

I dunno. I think a lot of people skip games that theyd enjoy the story of just because the gameplay sucks to them or its a genre they dont like.

I personally dont like adventure games, but I loved Grim Fandango because of its writing. I really dont find those games fun and this was no exception. Me playing that game was a complete fluke. I would have loved for the game just to solve shit for me if I couldnt figure it out in 15 minutes.

Those old Fallout games and stuff like Baldur's gate? Never gonna play those either. Not my style. But I assume they have pretty decent stories that Im probably missing out on.

 

rpgs though? Yeah, most rpgs are 80% inflated gameplay and the rest is story and cutscenes. Well, unless its an FF game. Then id say its half and half.

 

While people argue that videogame stories still suck compared to literature and film, videogames are only rising. It is getting better and videogames in the last few years have been shifting towards storytelling and filmlike quality as it's main draw. Back then stories were just inconsequential, now its a draw. Not everyone has time or the effort to learn statistics about guns or finding hidden objects to keep the story flowing. Gamers need to realize this. While videogames now are piss easy to us, for the average person they still ask a lot of them. Theyre more complicated than before.

 

To be honest, I think one of my friends would totally love Bioshock 1 and ME2....if she knew how to play videogames. I feel like shes missing out big time. There needs to be a solution to this. Options never hurt anyone.....except gamer's egos.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I don't mind lower difficulty levels or Super-Guides like in the recent Mario/DK games, and I think Nintendo's implemented it well enough. As for skipping combat entirely or just letting someone play through the story in a game, I feel that if your game is built such that the story and gameplay are so out of sync that they can easily be separated, the design probably suffers from severe ludonarrative dissonance. Go watch the cutscenes on YouTube if you can't handle the combat.

[Yantelope V2]

I think just providing players with a very low level of difficulty is probably the best option. You should be able to set the game to such a level that it's very very hard to fail. Failure is a large part of what separates gaming from other mediums and it's also a large part of what prevents newcomers from embracing it as a medium. I've been increasingly playing games at lower difficulties because it reduces failure, allows me to complete games quicker and I can still experience the mechanics of the game just fine. I played through BF3 on easy because the reviews I read said you can die randomly and it's annoying. I find myself more sensitive to frustration in games these days so I embrace the lower difficulty.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

What about games that have a great/interesting story with some level of interaction that you can only find in a videogame? I think combat should be skippable in those games. I would have loved to skip combat in DA:O and still play through the story how I wanted. The same with The Witcher. Though I do like The Witcher 2's combat.

[TheMightyEthan]

I don't think allowing you to skip combat should be put or would work well in every type of games, but some games (like LA Noire) are suited to it. In LA Noire I was interested in the investigations and such, and the action sequences were not very well done, so I was glad I could skip them if I failed 3 times.

 

On the other hand, something like Mass Effect would have to be completely restructured to let you skip combat, so for something like that I think there should just be a piss-easy difficulty (like Mass Effect has, so that's a good example for two reasons).

[Yantelope V2]

Also, I've noticed a tendency for games to call the piss-easy mode "normal" and I'm fine with that on two levels. Calling your hard mode "nightmare" sounds cooler anyway and calling the easy mode normal doesn't make you feel like a wuss.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I don't think allowing you to skip combat should be put or would work well in every type of games, but some games (like LA Noire) are suited to it. In LA Noire I was interested in the investigations and such, and the action sequences were not very well done, so I was glad I could skip them if I failed 3 times.

 

On the other hand, something like Mass Effect would have to be completely restructured to let you skip combat, so for something like that I think there should just be a piss-easy difficulty (like Mass Effect has, so that's a good example for two reasons).

 

Yeah, I agree that it definitely only fits certain games. I think it's great design in the first place to have your game setup to not be gameplay heavy if it doesn't need to be. I keep thinking of Heavy Rain while I type that. They didn't even attempt to have a combat system or anything like that. They had a vision and stuck to it.

[Hot Heart]

This was going to be part of some massive thing I was planning for PXOD on the idea of 'options'. As in, the more: the better. Sorry if this is a bit disjointed...

 

I think Nintendo's super-guide thing is a good compromise but I reckon combat should be skippable. I mean, it's an option, you don't have to do it. While people who would like to skip stuff can do so. Sure, they may miss stuff but that's their choice. Same as if you skip through whole cutscenes or conversations. It's the same as completing a game on easy. You probably didn't get the full experience of a game's mechanics, but that was your choice. You can always go back and play again if you want. People should have decent control over 'optimising' their own game experience. It has no impact on you, personally.

 

I doubt it's that people want to skip all combat either. In some cases maybe they just need to get to a savepoint (itself a problem that should not be present in this day and age) or are struggling with a particular section. I know I was offered the choice to skip an action sequence in L.A. Noire but I refused, despite failing 5-6 times. I did, however, turn auto-aim back on because that sequence was nigh on impossible without it. Yes, I fiddled with another option, temporarily. I probably wouldn't have felt any different if I had skipped it but I'm too damn stubborn sometimes.

 

I'm sure a lot of people just enjoy wandering around Skyrim or Oblivion but find the combat lacking (I know I do). That's not to say the combat is bad but if they don't enjoy it, why can't there be an insta-win button? They may have robbed themselves of some form of 'accomplishment' but they still get to explore the sites as well as partaking in discussion with friends. They get to experience this game without missing out completely. And I don't think I even need to go into the benefit to disabled gamers.

 

I can't think why you would not want to try and include more options in your game, allowing you to reach a bigger audience/market. Especially something that probably requires very little extra effort.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well, for a lot of games, the "insta-win button" is just the easiest setting.

[Hot Heart]

Sort of, but it still requires a bit more time and effort. And I was only talking about some sort of 'instantly kill all enemies' button for games like Skyrim because they don't have action 'sequences' that can be skipped as such.

[deanb]

Options are good, easy option is fine. As far as something like Oblivion/Skyrim goes it's potentially a quick fix with a console command. Though it'll most likely break a bunch of shit to have it so that there's no enemies. Or enemies that don't attack. Which then means going in and Bethesda dedicating their time towards making it so quests still work even if the "fight the dungeon boss" doesn't happen.

Is there a market for these things? Is it worth the developer spending their time adapting their game to work in "story only mode"? Are your limited game funds going to be wasted in catering to a small section of your audience?

 

I personally feel it's an extremely niche market. It's catered to with an inclusion of an easy mode, of which you'd have to normally go out of your way to die with. It's a bit like suggesting maybe films like Final Destination should come with a less gory video track for those that don't like blood n guts. Why are you buying horror films? Buy some rom com. In the same vein there are plenty of non-combat orientated games.

I don't like horror games, it'd be absolutely absurd to suggest that frictional should have made it so we could play Amnesia without any of the scares in it. It'd require a complete re-write of the game to cater to someone that is not a fan of the genre.

 

I'm in Bioshock 2 at the moment, the story/dialogue and the combat are not always two separate entities. Many times the combat is a plot point. Which means in order to remove the combat, which would mean, I don't know removing the splicer? (and thus a large part of the atmosphere of Rapture), or making it so your character could auto-fight or something, which would then mean coding this ability into the game. Though in which case you may as well just boot up the LP.

[Hot Heart]

I'm going to ignore comparisons to other media because that is completely redundant. Games are about interactivity on a level that other media aren't.

 

As much as you can say 'go find something else that is more like what you want', not all games are the same and you can't change people's desire for a particular IP. People were disappointed there were no good Batman games because they wanted to play as Batman and experience that world. They weren't going to accept some other game where you can sneak around and punch people just because that's kind of what Batman does. People want to wander round Skyrim and see things, not look at screenshots or play a visual novel. Personally, I'm not like that but I wouldn't hold it against people who were.

 

And this whole niche market thing. You're not sacrificing one part of your market to appease another: you're including more choice for more people. Even if it means the most minimal of effort and can confuse a narrative, a developer can always say something along the lines of 'We do not recommend you do this blah blah...' or they can just have a little text box you can go read if you want a quick summary of events you may have missed during combat.

 

Also, I think there may be some stigma involved with having to play things on easy compared to just not having to do them at all. Save yourself some private loss of dignity or embarrassment maybe.

 

And, finally, when did Bethesda dedicate time to making sure things work?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Hot Heart

[deanb]

I know games are about interactivity, but taking out the game mechanics reduces it to a film where you control the camera. And even then you wouldn't always even be doing that. It's taking the game out of "Video Game".

 

If you're wanting to "play as batman", you're not really going to be doing that if you have all the combat encounters just play out for you. It's pretty much Batman:TAS just in 3D with the camera angle behind Batman most of the time. You may as well just watch TAS itself, or an LP. If you're just wanting to look at things in Skyrim, why not just look at screenshots? You get to see Skyrim just with none of that pesky RPG stuff like combat, levelling up, stats, inventory management etc.

 

I'm not saying you're sacrificing one part of your market in favour of another, I'm saying your'e sacrificing part of your budget and development time to appease the opposite of your market. You're developing your game to work in such a way that it'd appeal to people that don't actually want to play your game. And not in a "don't like the franchise/studio/publisher" kind of way either. They just con't care for the RPG/RTS/FPS side of your RPG/RTS/FPS game.

 

I like Warhamemr 40K. Say I'm not someone that likes RTS titles. I'm not going to go and pick up Dawn of War, an RTS, expecting it to have some kind of "Skip the RTS parts" button. Why would I buy an RTS if I don't like RTS games? Why should Relic, a company that primarily works on RTS titles, have to cater to me, a non-RTS fan?

 

I'd say you lose even more dignity in doing something moronic like buying a game in a genre you don't even like.

 

I'd rather Bethesda dedicate to making their game work, than making their game not be a game.

[Hot Heart]

Many games are so multi-faceted that in certain cases the combat is not all-consuming. Is Skyrim not a good example of this?

 

If you're including something like Batman: Arkham City as an example, I don't see anything wrong in allowing someone to skip a combat or stealth section. I'm sure not everyone wants to skip every single bit. They might struggle with a particular boss fight, or they may have gotten halfway through and found it too difficult (assuming there's no adjustable difficulty partway through). It covers all sorts of different scenarios. The combat in The Witcher bored me, I would've preferred to have skipped it.

 

Looking at screenshots of Skyrim is not the same as being able to walk around. I know I'm against comparisons but it's akin to looking at photos of holiday destinations or landmarks and deciding you don't get anything extra by visiting them. I quite enjoyed exploring all the Duke Nukem 3D maps (people made looooads of them) when I was a kid (hey, it was a big deal back then), and all that involved was turning the monsters off. It was a nice option.

 

Yes, it won't work for every single genre or game but I feel it's definitely something worth exploring. Especially when it probably requires less effort than adding a multiplayer mode that barely anyone plays (can of worms: opened?)

 

And whole 'not be a game' thing. It's such a fast-evolving medium, it can be difficult to define what constitutes a 'game'.

 

EDIT: And a nice little article on the subject http://nightmaremode.net/2012/02/why-some-game-developers-shouldnt-like-games-16687/

Edited February 24, 2012 by Hot Heart

[WTF]

I guess it depends on the kind of game. Generally I'm against skippable combat but that's because I love gameplay over story with the rare exception.

[Strangelove]

I always thought itd be a good idea to fix up the health of your character and the enemies to make the game ridiculously easy.

I personally have some of the worst accuracy ever. Ive met lots of people with the same problem. Thats why so many stick to stuff like Angry Birds instead of basically ever other game.

There should be a beginners mode in Bioshock that gives you twice as much heatlh and cuts the enemies health by over 50%. Sure its laughable to us, but for people who are going to unload a machinegun on an enemy and miss most of those shots, it would be a godsend and i think they would still have fun and enjoy the combat.

You have to make easy modes where you wont hardly ever die unless youre a 2 year old.

[TheMightyEthan]

I know games are about interactivity, but taking out the game mechanics reduces it to a film where you control the camera. And even then you wouldn't always even be doing that. It's taking the game out of "Video Game".

 

In a film I can't my dialog choices, affect the ending, etc. Yes there are visual novels but those tend to all be very similar in terms of themes, settings, etc.

[MetalCaveman]

I would like to have that as an option in certain games, for example, when I was playing FFXIII, I was enjoying the combat until the last part where it got so frustrating I was about to stop playing, swearing never to try again, in that case, an option to skip certain fights would'be been awesome, since I did end up forcing myself to continue because I was curious about what happened next in the game.

 

There have been a ton of other games in which a simple section was enough to get me to drop the game and never play it, or search for cheat codes or lower the difficulty, but some games don't offer that option, currently, one of the games I'm playing is Agarest Zero, most of the fights are boring and in other cases, frustrating, also, as far as I know, I can't lower the difficulty, having the option to skip combat in this game would allow me to enjoy the story events without dealing with the combat parts.

 

So you see, an option like that would be extremely helpful for a section like that, specially since not everyone has the skill and/or time to figure out how to deal with situations like those that I described. Though I agree, having an easy difficulty where it's pretty much impossible to die would also solve that problem, thing is, some games that offer easy difficulty also lock story stuff unless you play on harder difficulties.

 

Suggesting to look into other mediums if you want to skip the combat is a bit annoying IMO, specially once you consider that, you can't find Agarest Zero in other mediums, you can't get Bioshock in other mediums, basically, games have unique stories and characters and people shouldn't have to miss out on all that stuff just because they may not have the skills to deal with the other aspects of the game.

 

It wouldn't work with every game, but I do think it should be an option in games that are linear enough to handle an option like that, for other games, just make it so enemies can be killed with ease or make the player an invincible killing machine or something like that.

 

Basically, everything that's already been said.

[Johnny]

I really don't mind this in the implementation Mass Effect 3 is doing it. All arguments that "It's not a game without the combat" falls on the detail that this doesn't change the game for the player who wants to play with combat. I like that they are offering the choice.

 

If it was an option at individual fights, I would probably end up abusing it and ruining the game for myself.

I feel saying that people who enjoy the story a lot more than the combat should go to another medium is silly and kind of elitist.

[Little Pirate]

Hit the A button to save the world!

[Johnny]

 

[fuchikoma]

It's funny Bioware should mention that. Normally I'd think that removing combat would... take the game out of the game. I'd make one exception though. If I could, I'd skip it in Mass Effect or mod it to be some kind of turn-based JRPG like system. I really wanted to try out Bioware's famous dialog trees and roleplay elements and the series sounded fascinating from all the people raving about it. Once I started into it, I did a bit of combat, realized there would be a lot more where that came from and stopped playing. That half of the game just isn't a game I want to play. It's a shame I'll also miss out on the rest of it, but to me it's not worth slogging through one to get to the other.

Edited February 24, 2012 by fuchikoma

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

You can skip it in Mass Effect 3 at least.

[Strangelove]

Why do most people say that the gameplay outside of investigations in LA Noire sucks? Its almost exactly like GTA4's gameplay.

I hated GTA4 and I didnt like LA Noires gameplay for that same reason. Are we all on the same boat here? Or is LA Noire's running, driving, and shooting better than GTA4s?