Skippable Combat in Games

[fuchikoma]

For running and gunning, I had a lot of run in GTA4 - normally I'm bored to death of 3D shooting combat, but I didn't even notice until someone pointed it out to me that most GTA4 missions were combat-based - I was having so much fun regardless. LA Noire's running and gunning... I'd call it serviceable. Then, I didn't play very far into it yet because to me the facial expressions still look really unnatural so it always seems like people are lying because they look like they're acting. I can't quite reverse-engineer the game enough to figure out when it's trying to tell me they're lying and when it's trying to tell me they're telling the truth.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

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?

 

 

*cringes*

 

Oh god, did you really just say that? Are you trolling me or have you never played either game? They don't even use the same engine.

[TheMightyEthan]

You can skip it in Mass Effect 3 at least.

 

Can you actually skip it altogether? I thought it just made it ludicrously easy.

 

As for LA Noire, I'd say that LA Noire and GTA IV have the same gameplay in the same way that Homefront and Call of Duty have the same gameplay. Sure it's superficially similar, but the feel is a lot different.

 

*Edit* - Also, I think a lot of it has to do with what people perceive the "point" of the game being. In LA Noire the point of the game was the investigations, so people interested in that are going to be off-put when suddenly it changes to a mediocre action game. On the other hand, the point of GTA IV is the action game, so people who don't enjoy it just aren't going to play the game at all, or they'll only play it when they're in the mood for it.

Edited February 24, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[Johnny]

@FDS: Two games can feel very similar without using the same engine.

[Cyber Rat]

I think it depends on the game entirely. If you believe it won't detract from the experience that you can skip combat altogether, then there is nothing wrong with implementing it in my opinion. I think games at their core should focus on interactivity, whether it's pretzel moves or just choosing between Option A and Option B.

 

The developer of Cthulhu Saves the World asked on his Twitter whether a game was really a game if you could get the exact same experience watching a Let's Play (this was referring to Dear Esther). I don't really think that CAN happen, as even pressing forward to move and looking around the environment is more interaction than a movie. Heck, it's completely different to play a visual novel game on your own and watch a playthrough, because the interaction isn't in pressing buttons through menus, but making the choices YOU want.

 

What I'm trying to get at is, if you make your game such that people want to skip a certain aspect, you have either 1) failed in implementing that certain aspect; 2) the people who are complaining aren't really people who ever liked that aspect. You can skip cutscenes, you can mute music and play your own, you can usually remove excessive gore, you can turn on the lights and speakers while playing Amnesia... There are ways games are MEANT to be played, but if someone bought the product, they should be able to enjoy it on their terms. I don't know if there are people like this, but if you were to read all books by reading the last chapter first and then deciding whether you wanted to enjoy it, nobody is stopping you, but it's missing the point and would make your opinion on said product less valid.

 

I haven't played L.A. Noire, so not going to comment on how it was implemented there, but let's take a look at Heavy Rain. The game only saved between scenes, and it didn't prompt you, it autosaved, so you would think that the death of a character had weight. Now, this is also impractical, since your gamepad could die, your power could die, your phone could ring and a ton of other things. Yet, that design decision contributed to the game's atmosphere.

 

But again, as many have said, it's on a game-by-game basis. If you think it can work without detracting from the experience, by all means, go ahead. I'm not gonna whine over how someone else is enjoying a particular game.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Cyber Rat

[MasterDex]

On a game-by-game basis, I think it's fine but a lot of the people, at least over in the RPS article that are for skippable combat are blind to the downsides it could have with certain games. The biggest problem I see is where does it end? Do we start developing games that allow each individual to skip every part they don't like just to play what they do like? Are platforming sections going to be skippable? QTE's? micromanagement? It just seems that the biggest push for skippable combat is coming from people that aren't really interested in playing games in the first place, like Mrs. Hepler. Call me old-fashioned but I don't think they're the people we should be targeting most games at, especially when they think so resolutely that such an implementation would have no chance of affecting anyone that doesn't want to make use of it.

[Yantelope V2]

What would be the downside to skipping to any point in the game? You can do that with a book or a movie.

[MasterDex]

The downside would be in its implementation. Take Half-Life as an example. If combat were removed from that game, you've gotten rid of the majority of the game, the same goes for God of War. It could work with something like Uncharted or Mass Effect but it's not universally applicable without changing how games are designed as combat would have to be abstracted from everything else, there'd have to be clear points where you can say this is the combat bit and this is the walking bit and this is the story bit and so on. It would have an adverse effect on many games.

 

Edit: Also, I don't think the fact that you can do it with books and movies has any relevance to games. I believe the interactivity that games allow makes the question of skipping that interactivity more complex.

Edited February 24, 2012 by MasterDex

[Little Pirate]

I know Silent Hill 3 gives you the option to avoid in-game combat if you die enough the first time through. Personally I enjoy taking whacks at monsters as I progress through the story.

[Yantelope V2]

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that generally in games you have the chapter select menu and it's totally locked unless you've beaten the game. Why does it have to be locked initially? You don't lock the chapters on a DVD until you've watched them sequentially.

[deanb]

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.

Pretty much this is about as close you'll get to a working implementation. "Very Easy" mode. And many games already do it. Could you imagine instead a Bioshock devoid of splicers? It'd be stupid. Or splicers that just stood there. Half the point to Bioshock and its happenings are around the combat. "You're going to have to take out a Big Daddy, those tough things you've seen around n about. This is a tense part of the game". And in the game all you have to do is walk up to one and...I don't know. Maybe it just drops dead on its own? God could you imagine that opening section, hearing the splicers going about and losing all tenseness cos you know it doesn't actually matter. "Now get something heavy like a wrench even though you don't need to do anything with it" "Now you're going to need some ADAM...for some reason". Bleurgh. You're playing for a story that now largely doesn't matter any more. "ooh do I save the little sisters or harvest her?". Not really a choice now given that you have zero need to harvest her.

 

 

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.

Most games you can't do that either. If the choice of themes aren't to your liking in Visual Novels that's not really an issue of Visual Novels themselves, just the developers. Hardly like it's limited to mainly being anime style stuff.

[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.

 

Most games you can't do that either. If the choice of themes aren't to your liking in Visual Novels that's not really an issue of Visual Novels themselves, just the developers. Hardly like it's limited to mainly being anime style stuff.

 

Well okay, but I don't think anyone's saying you should be able to skip the combat in Halo. I thought it was assumed we were talking about games in which a large draw of the game is the non-combat elements.

[deanb]

Well okay, but I don't think anyone's saying you should be able to skip the combat in Halo. I thought it was assumed we were talking about games in which a large draw of the game is the non-combat elements.

Like the already mentioned Uncharted, Batman, Skyrim and Bioshock?

 

btw can I just point out that the person that actually brought up Batman as a game where folks would want to skip the combat is the same guy that wrote an 1,000 word essay on how "Rocksteady put the ‘bat’ in ‘combat’."

[Hot Heart]

Yes, I think the combat is great. Doesn't mean I would begrudge anyone who wanted to skip a fight or two. They'd be missing out but what do I care? I get to enjoy the game how I see fit and the developer already has a couple of sales regardless.

 

BioShock being easy would remove the tension. Can't you infinitely respawn from vita chambers and wear enemies down until you win? Unless of course you turn that off in the options...

 

It just feels like it's bordering on telling people that unless they play Halo on heroic, they just aren't getting the full/proper experience (maybe another interesting subject for discussion). Besides, Ethan's repeated the fact that we're talking about the possibility for games that have a bigger draw than the combat. All the other points I'm not going to reiterate. There are a multitude of games for which this can be considered or implemented.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well it just occurred to me that I think combat encounters should be skippable in every game. As people have always mentioned, games sometimes have difficulty spikes that it would be nice to be able to get past.

[Yantelope V2]

There have been numerous times where I've abandoned games because of difficulty spikes. Dragon Age is the most recent one I can think of. I actually tried to get around it with cheat codes before I gave up.

[Hot Heart]

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.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG3aHvPG6H8

[deanb]

A lot of games come with adjustable difficulty, it's a viable compromise between who would like to play a game that's not cut up into tiny pieces of defined "game" and "not-game" parts, and those that suck and like DVDs.

 

What exactly are people looking for? No combat cos it's too hard (in which case that's solved with lower difficulty), or no combat because they just want the story (in which case there's plenty of LPs).

 

If you want to play a game, expect to end up...playing games. Do people just accidently wander into GAME and think they're getting something like LotR when they pick up a copy of Skyrim with "Games for Window" splashed across the front? I guess the BBFC sticker might cause some confusion on what it is they're buying, but not really enough to throw all the other elements out the window.

[Yantelope V2]

Well, again, it depends on the game but I can see people wanting to play MGS for the in depth story but not have to be all sneaky and avoid getting killed all the time.

[MasterDex]

I don't think MGS is a very good example considering its been highly criticized for its longform cutscenes and exposition and its whackadoodle plot points. Even if someone did want to skip the stealth and avoid getting killed all the time, why would they buy it in the first place? There are far better spy thrillers out there for much cheaper and the plot and scenes are readily available.

 

One of the arguments against this is that if you want to skip some element of gameplay then it could signify that there's a flaw with that element that prevents you from enjoying it. Now, this flaw may be subjective such as being too difficult for a certain person or not feeling quite right to control, etc but I think offering the option to skip the combat, if it catches on, might encourage developers and publishers to play things a little safer. I mean, what's the point in spending more money and more hours to find a nice difficulty curve for less skilled players and an equally nice one for those looking for more of a challenge? It removes the impetus to find better gameplay solutions. Implementing such an option will likely pay off for the publishers and developers as they can grab that huge audience of non-gamers and keep costs down as they don't need to try so hard to adapt gameplay itself so it has wider appeal.

 

As I typed this, I thought of a possible solution to this issue that, at least, would suit people that aren't very good at games - AI-assistance. It'd be something in between automation and interactivity. Lets take God of War for example. Instead of the player having difficulty blocking and dodging and using combos, it'd work on a QTE type system with perhaps health benefits, etc where movement is taken care of by the player while blocking and dodging are automatic and combos and attacks are simplified to a single button press here and there and here and there, you get the picture. I think Bayonetta had something like that, not quite as automated but it was there.

 

Finally, for difficulty spikes, I like the solution that some games (like The Witcher 2 -I'm not a fanboy, honest! ) offer that allows you to lower the difficulty on the fly.

 

TL;DR: I think offering the option to skip gameplay content (be it combat, puzzles, etc) is the lazy solution.

[TheMightyEthan]

Dean, why must you insist on equating "gameplay" with "combat"? Those are not synonyms.

[deanb]

Dean, why must you insist on equating "gameplay" with "combat"? Those are not synonyms.

In which world does combat =/= gameplay?

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh I so wish I could downvote you right now...

 

Combat is one kind of gameplay, but it is not synonymous with gameplay. Kind of like how "pizza" is not synonymous with "food". Allowing people to skip combat does not mean they are not playing a game.

[Johnny]

For example, in western RPGs, the gameplay involves far more than just combat. Exploration, tackling the quests in the order you choose, dialogue sequences and choices, etc.

[Hot Heart]

Interesting point, Dex, but I would think that people being able to skip your combat would serve as a greater impetus to improve it. We all know games manage to screw up bits of their games, so it would be nice if we could just ignore them if we so wish. Like Dara O'Briain and his Gears of Doors, he could get past that and enjoy the rest of the game. Developers pay attention to what people are saying elsewhere, I'm sure they'd pay attention to people complaining that they just had to skip a section for some particular reason. That is, if they didn't already have metrics set up to pay attention to this kind of gaming behaviour.

 

No one's saying that cutscenes and dialogue should be unskippable so developers will work to improve them. Developers are always looking to improve technique/design/whatever. This just goes a step towards removing some hassle certain players may have with a bit of a game.