-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
‘Unskippable gameplay’ is the new ‘unskippable cutscenes’
- Thread starter dock
- Start date
You're potentially looking down an endless well of accommodating to every possible player out there. Not that you shouldn't include it but there's always something someone won't like. I think this energy is better spent trying to incorporate as many accessibility features as possible (colourblindness modes for example).
Games should do whatever the designer feels is best for the game, as with all art forms.
Some games can have "auto-pilot", hell, some games do already, but there's no need for every game to follow the same standards. For some designers, the challenge the player is going through is part of the art form. For some designers, wasting the players time is itself part of the point. The secret boss in Undertale has a fairly lengthy pre-fight speech, precisely because he's going to take a ton of tries to beat. So they play with that lengthy speech. I know that seems more like the unskippable cutscene part, but it does interact with the gameplay too, and it's outright proof that yeah, skipping content can be bad (at least, bad in the sense of being counter to the intention of the game), and so designers should be allowed to control what the player can and cannot skip.
Era has this weird thing with wanting every game to be the same that I just don't understand. There is absolutely no universally good game design. Variety is what makes the art form great.
Make a game that gives the player complete control over their experience, make a game that forces the player to adapt to a very specific challenge that not everyone will even be capable of doing, make a game that randomises itself so that every player experiences something unique, but so long as what you're making has purpose and meaning then you aren't making it wrong.
Some games can have "auto-pilot", hell, some games do already, but there's no need for every game to follow the same standards. For some designers, the challenge the player is going through is part of the art form. For some designers, wasting the players time is itself part of the point. The secret boss in Undertale has a fairly lengthy pre-fight speech, precisely because he's going to take a ton of tries to beat. So they play with that lengthy speech. I know that seems more like the unskippable cutscene part, but it does interact with the gameplay too, and it's outright proof that yeah, skipping content can be bad (at least, bad in the sense of being counter to the intention of the game), and so designers should be allowed to control what the player can and cannot skip.
Era has this weird thing with wanting every game to be the same that I just don't understand. There is absolutely no universally good game design. Variety is what makes the art form great.
Make a game that gives the player complete control over their experience, make a game that forces the player to adapt to a very specific challenge that not everyone will even be capable of doing, make a game that randomises itself so that every player experiences something unique, but so long as what you're making has purpose and meaning then you aren't making it wrong.
If a game is great, people will stick with it. If it's a forgettable experience, people will give up quickly and start the next game.
That's how I see it. Whenever I skipped a game because of something like that it was because I couldn't be bothered to check on the internet how to go forward or simply already mostly lost interest and that section "gave me the rest" to not bother anymore.
If I am interested, I try until I got it (like in Dark Souls games or Nioh, which I am currently playing).
Ideally would be an adaptive difficulty but it's really hard to realize and do correctly I guess. You could also let the player skip sequences after 3 or so failures.
But autoplay isn't a good idea imo because what's the point in designing stuff if the game played itself?
That's how I see it. Whenever I skipped a game because of something like that it was because I couldn't be bothered to check on the internet how to go forward or simply already mostly lost interest and that section "gave me the rest" to not bother anymore.
If I am interested, I try until I got it (like in Dark Souls games or Nioh, which I am currently playing).
Ideally would be an adaptive difficulty but it's really hard to realize and do correctly I guess. You could also let the player skip sequences after 3 or so failures.
But autoplay isn't a good idea imo because what's the point in designing stuff if the game played itself?
OP
OP
Mario Galaxy 2 allows you to have an auto play mode for levels you get stuck on, and you can interrupt them at any time to take over. I used them on the 'race down a pipe/river' section that every 3D Mario has. You get a 'fake' star for these levels.
The games press complained about it at the time because they are jerks.
Some of Platinums games have a difficulty setting where the combat essentially plays itself so you can just experience the game, which is great for very young children or people who've never played a game before and want to experience the story of Nier Automata.
I've also seen mini games (especially puzzles) in games like Ratchet and Clank and uncharted where after a while the game will ask if you want to just skip it, which i think is fine because people didn't buy Ratchet and Clank for puzzles.
I think it really comes down to your target audience, From Software for example isn't trying to appeal to people who aren't familiar with dual analog stick controls, so they aren't tailoring a difficulty setting for those types of players. But if you want to try and appeal to everyone then an auto-pilot mode can be a good thing.
I've also seen mini games (especially puzzles) in games like Ratchet and Clank and uncharted where after a while the game will ask if you want to just skip it, which i think is fine because people didn't buy Ratchet and Clank for puzzles.
I think it really comes down to your target audience, From Software for example isn't trying to appeal to people who aren't familiar with dual analog stick controls, so they aren't tailoring a difficulty setting for those types of players. But if you want to try and appeal to everyone then an auto-pilot mode can be a good thing.
This.
Solutions:
1. Design the content better;
2. Make it optional and have impact on the game;
3. Don't do anything - there will always be people who don't like your content, don't compromise the game because of people who don't care.
The huge problem with this, is that it assumes that everyone hates those things, and because someone doesn't want to play that, everyone doesn't.
OP
OP
Is it better that I will never play through Undertale because I burned through all the health items because the bullet hell was too much? I won't get the play any more of Undertale's story because I can't dodge fast enough. Do you think undertale's story and world is too poor to withstand a player making progress with fewer hurdles?
The way I look at it is like so:
The things that people often don't like about a game experience is when they throw in things that clash with the harmony of what they're used to. Stuff like the hacking minigames of Bioshock or Mass Effect. A game like Geometry Wars or Tetris will never have an issue like this because it is designed around one thing: Shooting waves of enemies in the former, making lines with tetraminos in the latter.
However games like Bioshock or Mass Effect aren't going for arcade clarity. Instead they are "experience" games. Rather then being built around mechanics, they're built around characters or a story. They're the ones that are closest to movies because the delivery of set-pieces or story is their number one priority.
So for these games, they should have ways to bypass mechanics or gameplay types that disrupt this. If it brings the story or experience to a halt, it should be de-emphasised or even have an option to be turned off. I don't think my enjoyment of Bioshock or Mass Effect would have changed if either of these elements were removed entirely - in fact the only reason they remained was as vestigial elements of the genre forefathers they came from (System Shock 2 and Baldur's Gate)
As much as people don't like Gone Home, I certainly think that it's clarity of being a game to deliver a story at the players pace is the better option for big, experience type games.
The things that people often don't like about a game experience is when they throw in things that clash with the harmony of what they're used to. Stuff like the hacking minigames of Bioshock or Mass Effect. A game like Geometry Wars or Tetris will never have an issue like this because it is designed around one thing: Shooting waves of enemies in the former, making lines with tetraminos in the latter.
However games like Bioshock or Mass Effect aren't going for arcade clarity. Instead they are "experience" games. Rather then being built around mechanics, they're built around characters or a story. They're the ones that are closest to movies because the delivery of set-pieces or story is their number one priority.
So for these games, they should have ways to bypass mechanics or gameplay types that disrupt this. If it brings the story or experience to a halt, it should be de-emphasised or even have an option to be turned off. I don't think my enjoyment of Bioshock or Mass Effect would have changed if either of these elements were removed entirely - in fact the only reason they remained was as vestigial elements of the genre forefathers they came from (System Shock 2 and Baldur's Gate)
As much as people don't like Gone Home, I certainly think that it's clarity of being a game to deliver a story at the players pace is the better option for big, experience type games.
I wish I could skip all the bad takes in this thread to focus on the ones actually engaging with the issue.
The thing that came to mind first was Red Dead Redemption 2's crafting, which was miserable. Each item required you to select and then hold the button (for speed), which added up to like 10 seconds. For. Each. Item. Poor design choice, really annoying for ammo. That's something that I wished I could skip - I understand the realism thing but the game's boner for realism really made it more irritating in parts.
When it comes to that sort of stuff my rule of thumb is: "Only do it if makes the player feel like it should". If something is mildly annoying and I have to do it a million times, I'm gonna be annoyed. If I'm supposed to because the game is about player entitlement or something then it works. But if the reason for it is unclear (as it sometimes is from a player POV) or outweighed by negative feelings then buzz off and let me skip the minutiae so I can play the fun parts/interesting parts of the game.
When it comes to that sort of stuff my rule of thumb is: "Only do it if makes the player feel like it should". If something is mildly annoying and I have to do it a million times, I'm gonna be annoyed. If I'm supposed to because the game is about player entitlement or something then it works. But if the reason for it is unclear (as it sometimes is from a player POV) or outweighed by negative feelings then buzz off and let me skip the minutiae so I can play the fun parts/interesting parts of the game.
rule number 1 of the world, YOU CAN NOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY.
following that rule, we get to the conclusion that whatever you make, at the end, some people will not be happy with your choice. so the breaking point is, make a choice that makes you happy.
is making the players miserable with a high skill barrier? Do it
is making the game easy enough that anyone can complete it? Do it
is making the game broad enough to the common denominator to increase the wide spread and profits? Do it.
following that rule, we get to the conclusion that whatever you make, at the end, some people will not be happy with your choice. so the breaking point is, make a choice that makes you happy.
is making the players miserable with a high skill barrier? Do it
is making the game easy enough that anyone can complete it? Do it
is making the game broad enough to the common denominator to increase the wide spread and profits? Do it.
That's probably the best response you'll be able to get from this thread, OP.
I guess you can argue endlessly going either way while thinking about general reach and accessibility, but the sole fact that you found this very specific concept, that can break barriers within what a specific target audience finds more appealing when experiecing a game, is the answer on itself.
Almost impossible to find a definitive answer, but hey, you might as well use this to your advantage and stablish your own standards while creating content.
I get what you mean. I think whenever this is brought up I think back to one of the CoD games, at this point it's impossible for me to remember which one it was exactly- I think it was Advanced Warfare- but the point is it was the first (and maybe only?) one that allowed you to play any level from the campaign straight away, basically making any level skippable/optional should players be frustrated by it and want to skip it. And it was controversial, even though the director or whoever it was justifying it in an interview I remember had solid reason its inclusion. I remember him saying, how only a fraction of a fraction of players will ever see a CoD campaign through to the end, even the good ones, so why lock the ending away and have it only be truly available though YouTube? At least have the option to skip to the end should players want that due to time or just general frustrations with the game. I don't see a problem with it either.
It's obviously not applicable for *every* game, but yeah I can agree that for level based games it's something to consider at least. Chances are at least 1 level is gonna suck, so why lock the rest of the game away behind it?
It's obviously not applicable for *every* game, but yeah I can agree that for level based games it's something to consider at least. Chances are at least 1 level is gonna suck, so why lock the rest of the game away behind it?
OP
OP
Edit: the following is a garbage post, sorry about it. Leaving it here, but it's borderline reductio ad absurdism.
Imagine if Era made you read every post in full, rather than skimming until there was a good one.
Imagine if every cup of tea required you eat a tasteless biscuit, and the next cup of tea came with a bigger biscuit.
Imagine if every TV show made you pass a quiz to access the next episode, otherwise you have to rewatch the episode.
A lot of the gating in game structure is tiresome legacy of '3 lives and game over'
Imagine if Era made you read every post in full, rather than skimming until there was a good one.
Imagine if every cup of tea required you eat a tasteless biscuit, and the next cup of tea came with a bigger biscuit.
Imagine if every TV show made you pass a quiz to access the next episode, otherwise you have to rewatch the episode.
A lot of the gating in game structure is tiresome legacy of '3 lives and game over'
Last edited:
The solution to something like that is to just improve the interaction in question, not remove it. (Imagine what it would sound like to say "Resident Evil 4 would be better if all the combat was cutscenes" or "Super Mario Bros. 3 would be better if the platforming was all automated".) Uncharted is, at its core, a third-person shooter - do you actually think it would be made into a better game if its primary mode of interaction was removed or heavily simplified? By cutting down on its mechanics to that degree, as you'd say you'd want, you'd also strip away the medium's strongest method of drawing out emotional attachments from players.
If the "bad sections" you're talking about are underdeveloped side-segments like bad stealth things or minigames, things that wouldn't be worth fleshing out further and that are bad enough to make the player want to skip them, then they probably shouldn't exist to begin with and the game would be better served if the effort that would have gone into them would go to other parts of development.
Most worthwhile games follow this kind of sequential structure for a good reason; they build on themselves as they go on. Not my favorite game, but someone who fires up Ocarina of Time for the first time in their lives is going to have an awkward time if they magically skip straight to the Spirit Temple without understanding any of the game's mechanics. Making an entirely modular game that the player can remove chunks from as they see fit also means the content you design for the game can't layer itself together with the expectations and knowledge the player has built up from earlier portions of the game.
Last edited:
There are no "limited" health items in Undertale's non-genocide routes. It very specifically gives the player access to an item that essentially means you get infinite money, as well as an easy mode armour set that decreases in price every time you die. To add to that, the game is actually incredibly easy because it's balanced around a level 1 run. If you don't specifically go for that challenge run, buy that armour and fill your inventory with health items from your infinite money, then I'd wager it may well be one of the easiest rpg's ever made. Undertale does pretty much everything it can besides content skipping and invincibility to make the player beat it, because it's importmat that the player at leat sees the neutral ending for the message of the game to even start to make sense.
If you personally decide to go for the harder challenge runs, and give up because you find it too hard, then that itself is a part of the "art" of undertale. And I don't mean that in a cop-out way, I mean it's one of the game's very specific themes. The genocide route in particular is as hard as it is because the game actually wants you to quit, and permanently punishes you if you don't. I couldn't beat the secret boss, so I gave up, and that experience sticks with me. The game tried to stop me, and it succeeded. That's a very unique experience I've not had anywhere else.
Undertale's story isn't poor because some players quit, that's actually one of the things that makes it great. If the challenge wasn't there, it would actually lose the vast majority of its meaning. So yes, it is better that you'll never play through it. That's kind of the point.
But not every game is Undertale. For a lot of games, nothing would be worth the player quitting. Because different games strive to achieve different things. It's important to look at each game individually, see what it is it's trying to accomplish, before you start to suggest ways it could be improved. Which is why blanket statements like the ones in your OP never work.
Usually when I don't like a game enough to invest in it or the plateform it is in, I just watch someone play it on Youtube.
I like games how they are. I have mess time to invest in, so I make sure I choose wisely.
I like games how they are. I have mess time to invest in, so I make sure I choose wisely.
No game is perfect throughout, even Era's beloved Dark Souls And bloodborne have some proper low points bullshit.
But I cannot fathom putting in all that time and effort into a segment of your game with the thought that enough people would want to skip it.
Unless it's some corporate mandated shit then I understand.
But I cannot fathom putting in all that time and effort into a segment of your game with the thought that enough people would want to skip it.
Unless it's some corporate mandated shit then I understand.
If your game has a small pocket of content that the player hates playing so much that it causes them to drop the game entirely and forever, well then you've either created an awful game (depending on how many people drop it) or a game not suited to that players taste. Either make a better game or accept that you can't please everyone.
If you give players an easy route, many will take it at the first sign of hindrance instead of working to understand how to beat it.
If forcing players to overcome seemingly impossible odds is the core of your game's design, it should not have an easier mode or auto-pilot feature imo.
Saying that the option wouldn't be a detriment as it could be ignored is not true in some cases, ie: Sekiro.
If forcing players to overcome seemingly impossible odds is the core of your game's design, it should not have an easier mode or auto-pilot feature imo.
Saying that the option wouldn't be a detriment as it could be ignored is not true in some cases, ie: Sekiro.
So things added into games to break up the pacing are bad now?
I can see where you're coming from, in that some games have odd sections that can be pretty poor (Bayonetta Space Harrier section for example) but I still think it's a weird point
If most shooters were just 100% room after room of shooting and no other type of gameplay, no quiet sections, no slower paced sections, then the game would probably be the worse for it
Resi 4 has loads of set pieces and odd little sections that break up the shooting and the reason that game is universally adored is because it's pacing is incredible
I've liked this idea in a different context: I wish games would automatically skip sections I've already beaten ten times only to die before the next checkpoint. Just move the checkpoint further on.
For example, let's say in Not-Sekiro I've successfully managed to kill every enemy and make every gorge jump on the way to a mini boss twenty times, but I can't kill the mini boss for the life of me. To stop wasting my time the game adds a checkpoint to just before the mini boss. I've proven the section before him is easy, and I can destroy it, so to save me time and frustration the game now starts me after the section I've shown I can beat every time.
Another example would be in Mario. Imagine a level with a lot of difficult jumps followed by a pair of hammer bros. I can keep knocking out the jumps, but the hammers kill me every time. After the tenth time I beat the jumps but not the hammers, the checkpoint moves to be right before the hammers.
For example, let's say in Not-Sekiro I've successfully managed to kill every enemy and make every gorge jump on the way to a mini boss twenty times, but I can't kill the mini boss for the life of me. To stop wasting my time the game adds a checkpoint to just before the mini boss. I've proven the section before him is easy, and I can destroy it, so to save me time and frustration the game now starts me after the section I've shown I can beat every time.
Another example would be in Mario. Imagine a level with a lot of difficult jumps followed by a pair of hammer bros. I can keep knocking out the jumps, but the hammers kill me every time. After the tenth time I beat the jumps but not the hammers, the checkpoint moves to be right before the hammers.
Honestly, games shouldn't all seek to set a singular standard, not even for things like accessibility or difficulty range.
You should innovate, and find out what you think works best for your game.
I think modern games are nailing this with how we approach save systems. Auto saves, manual saves, checkpoint saves, secret saves, partial data saves, staggered saves... there's no single system that works the best for all genres so there's no standard being enforced by anyone.
Having a focus on being able to make your game enjoyable to many people, and/or to marginalised groups who don't get catered to as much is a noble goal.
Just iterate, play test, ask and observe what your audience thinks of YOUR game, not just games in general. Set your own goals.
You should innovate, and find out what you think works best for your game.
I think modern games are nailing this with how we approach save systems. Auto saves, manual saves, checkpoint saves, secret saves, partial data saves, staggered saves... there's no single system that works the best for all genres so there's no standard being enforced by anyone.
Having a focus on being able to make your game enjoyable to many people, and/or to marginalised groups who don't get catered to as much is a noble goal.
Just iterate, play test, ask and observe what your audience thinks of YOUR game, not just games in general. Set your own goals.
But that's just Doom and Doom 2. We do in fact need more of that.
OP
OP
Somewhat, but I do think striving for improved UX with entertainment requires a little absurdity.
Many of the suggestions about the purity of game experience clash with now reasonable requests like controller options or skipping cutscenes. Even pausing games can't be taken for granted.
Last edited:
Sure, but if every shooter was exactly like Doom, then things would be boring and the genre wouldn't have evolved
It's fine to like or want more games like Doom, or even just more shooters that put the shooting gameplay first and foremost, but if you ask developers to make games so restrictively then you'll limit the kind of games we get
If you play Half Life but want Doom, so hate all the slower sections, the non shooting sections, the puzzles, the story, then the answer isn't to ask for a skip button to just bounce from shooting section to shooting section, the answer is play another game you'd enjoy more
Doom (2016) also isn't just room after room of shooting. It breaks the shooting sections up with light exploration and platforming. If Doom (2016) was just 10 hours of room after room of wave after wave of enemies, the game wouldn't be as good as it currently is
Those analogies don't really work at all. This only really applies in the same framework of games.
At first I was like, skipping gameplay? No!
Then I remembered Spider-Man for PS4 let's you skip some mini game.
I think mini games should be, and maybe on different difficulties a penalty for skipping, or a bonus for not skipping.
IIRC, the penalty thing was a thing in Bioshock, for hacking? Can't remember now.
Mario & Luigi's Dream Team tutorials thread.
I hate it because it forbids learning from experimentation, and turns gameplay into repeating what you just saw.
Also these examples fit right in this thread, SPECIALLY the Rhythm Heaven one as the game is recent:
I hate it because it forbids learning from experimentation, and turns gameplay into repeating what you just saw.
Also these examples fit right in this thread, SPECIALLY the Rhythm Heaven one as the game is recent:
More games need an auto-play for sure. Nier Automata does it the best by giving you multiple options for specific mechanics like auto-attack, auto-shoot and auto-hack. When my sister played it she greatly appreciated the latter two because otherwise she would not be able to get through it.
Although I think stuff like movement and dialogue options should not be automated. Games like, again, Nier Automata lose all meaning when you're just watching it and have zero input.
Although I think stuff like movement and dialogue options should not be automated. Games like, again, Nier Automata lose all meaning when you're just watching it and have zero input.
I have no problem with the genre evolving and trying new things. I like HL. I am just sad that the Doom style arcade shooter is pretty dead and not even Doom (2016) revived the formula. Thankfully there's always more WADs to play. On to Sigil, I guess.
Most games now do have the credits in a menu, so you can skip right to them a lot of the time
You can also read chapter 1 of a book and then jump to the last page if you really want
OP
OP
You like games how they are, but how do you feel about others having the option to play in a way they enjoy?
Sure, its more than fair enough if you dont like that of course :) Its a subjective thing, so its no right or wrong answer to it. I guess i was also getting at the comment regarding them being pointless filler parts. I dont think they're pointless since they serve a purpose of story telling, and some sections do it to mask loading as well. Maybe it would be technically possible to design a skipping option even if those arent directly cutscenes, although that would clash against their vision of "no camera cuts". But technically it might been achieveable maybe.