I'm starting to feel like maybe it was a bad idea to respond to this thread. You're obviously not really taking the discussion seriously.
-
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
IMO
Where possible, games should hjave the option to call in other players to help you with or finish a section for you.
The same thing is ultimately achieved, Bbut with the addition of the person seeing a player take on the section and beat it meaning they could actively learn how.
Where possible, games should hjave the option to call in other players to help you with or finish a section for you.
The same thing is ultimately achieved, Bbut with the addition of the person seeing a player take on the section and beat it meaning they could actively learn how.
This reminds me I hate that you can see credits in the menu, lol.
To me that was part of the reward for completing a game.
I'm playing Red Dead 2 right now and it seems absurd that i need to hold X the entire horse ride to every mission.
+ 1
Also I don't understand those who skip cutscenes in their first playthrough specially in story driven games like The Last of Us... like seriously how can you play it like that? You are NOT experiencing the whole experience and the full package... you are butchering the experience in a very hideous way.
It's like jumping into the last season of a TV show or last half hour of a movie or last two chapters in a book.
Where's the fun in watching the credits from the main menu, though? That ain't right.
We've kind of moved off topic now, but yeah there is nothing wrong with wanting underrepresented genres or types of games to make a come back (I want more character action games for example)
In regards to the OP's point, I just don't really understand why developers should spend hours making fun, challenging and balanced games only to let a player skip huge parts of it because they don't like a certain section or gameplay style
I'm all for accessibility options, or skipping tutorials, but "skip level 3 because I don't like water levels" seems odd to me
That said, it wouldn't stop me from playing the game as intended, so if games did add these features in I wouldn't be annoyed, but I would disregard the opinion of someone speaking about the game if they didn't play it properly, in the same way as I'd ignore someons opinion of a book or film if they only watched or read some of it
That's stupid. Might as well never watch youtube, use cheats, look up walkthroughs, play with friends, in a dark room, with no sound, in a different language, and so on. Developer's intent doesn't mean much.
I like the idea of "god modes"/cheat codes/console commands. Those options need to be brought back wherever they've been eliminated, IMO.
Unlike turn-based combat, random battles and the use of 2D graphics—other characteristics of games I enjoy/prefer and many others deride as "tiresome legacy"—there has never been any technical reason for limiting a player to a certain number of tries before they simply "fail". It's a decision with specific pros and cons.
Has this decision often been made without being given the consideration it deserves? Absolutely, because it's rare for humans to really thoroughly interrogate their decisionmaking. Game designers included.
I take exception to this assertion.
Unlike turn-based combat, random battles and the use of 2D graphics—other characteristics of games I enjoy/prefer and many others deride as "tiresome legacy"—there has never been any technical reason for limiting a player to a certain number of tries before they simply "fail". It's a decision with specific pros and cons.
Has this decision often been made without being given the consideration it deserves? Absolutely, because it's rare for humans to really thoroughly interrogate their decisionmaking. Game designers included.
There's a reason for this (makes your history in game development easily provable) ...but bruh, same 😞
Last edited:
Days Gone's flashback sections I wish were skippable. The forced walking in that game is very slow.
I assume it's because most developers know a huge percentage of players won't beat the game, so they might as well put the credits in the menu so people can watch them if they want
But, Undertale isn't that hard. Like, I went through it without getting a single gameover. And the game actually lets you grind free money to buy health items if you need to. At some point isn't the fault with you? Unless you have some kind of medical condition that affects you ability to play the game, this comes off as a rather shallow. Combined with your SMG2 comments, it feels like you want something more along the lines of a themepark ride, a la Disney's "It's a Small World" rather than a real game. At somepoint, requiring skill and effort is part of the presentation of a game, and allowing people to fast forward through any parts that require effort would cheapen the rest of the game, as well as break the gameplay, since the player no longer needs to pass skill checks to progress. This definitely would be the case for Undertale.
Autopilot sounds like such a shitty band-aid that attempts to fix the symptom and not the actual problem. If this is your solution you're missing the point and should be asking why people would need an autopilot to begin with?
Assuming the gameplay in question is fun but maybe too challenging for some players than some sort of power-up or advantage can be temporarily given. This is also a band-aid but one that at least offers the chance for the player to still play.
The real question is why is any of this needed to begin with, what is wrong/concern with the section you would add it to?
Assuming the gameplay in question is fun but maybe too challenging for some players than some sort of power-up or advantage can be temporarily given. This is also a band-aid but one that at least offers the chance for the player to still play.
The real question is why is any of this needed to begin with, what is wrong/concern with the section you would add it to?
Dont you like the combat in those games because you find it too hard or because its boring? But regardless of the reason, its fair enough if you dont enjoy that type of gameplay in those games of course, but wouldnt it be a lot of extra work for the developers to add cutscenes in addition to all of that gameplay? Or do you mean to replace all the shooting gameplay with cutscenes instead? If so, that would make those games a lot more boring, in my opinion, and also remove something from the game rather than to give the player more options.
Last edited:
I agree with you but it's not even just that, a lot of games tell you what your next objective is in the cut scene, or they're used to transition to a new location
I don't get how people can play to the end of a jungle mission, skip the cut scene a second in, and resume playing the game with the character now injured in a snow level, and just carry on with zero idea what to do, and no curisorty as to how the fuck they went from being fine in the jungle to injured in a mountain range
Yeah it's weird. Not because OP might have their opinion about how they specifically want to play or make games. But because the medium can obviously support all kinds of experiences, so talking about shoulds and shouldn'ts is usually pretty pointless. There are people out there that think like OP and they'll make games like that. And there are people that don't and won't. And the medium will be better off with the variety of experiences. Sometimes somebody is going to want to make something more focused on story and such. And sometimes somebody is going to want to make a game-ass game. With hard-set rules, skill checks, etc. And sometimes people will make things in between.
Interactive entertainment can cover a lot of ground, and naturally, it will.
I like what GTA 5 did (not sure if it's in previous Rockstar games) if you fail a mission to many times it'll let you advance past it. More games should have that option.
Sometimes it's to mask loading
I don't mind them as long as they're not too frequent and as long as I have some plot/expoisiton to listen to or something interesting to look at
So are you saying you're cool with OP's proposition or it sounds stupid? You can't have it both ways you know? Or did you think that proposed solution was getting implemented by someone other than the developers themselves?
OP
OP
'It was easy for me' is always a dangerous way to look at games, as they ignore so many factors such as familiarity with systems from previous games. Even the type of controller makes a big difference, but disability isn't the only reason to be poor at intense pattern dodging.
Where was the free health grind option for me? One of my mistakes was probably trying a pacifist run first time, because keen fans talked about this being the best way to play.
In terms of difficulty, I've completed Bloodborne without almost any summoning, but I followed a text guide from vg247 which helped me. I'm not great at games but I understand some games are tricky.
I don't think this is a new thing and it's an issue I have with a lot of games. Even some of the best games have typically frustrating sections and I can't skip them like I could cutscenes. I recently played Vampire Bloodlines for the first time and loved it but there were certain sections towards the end that were long enemy gauntlets that just weren't fun and got frustrating. I maxed my stats and enabled god mode, and even then it was still long and frustrating. I will probably look for a mod that shortens those sections if I replay it.
I think it's also worth mentioning the site and elsewhere has an issue with unconventional criticism or suggestions, falling way too hard on entitlement arguments or artist intent arguments when they disagree with something.
I think it's also worth mentioning the site and elsewhere has an issue with unconventional criticism or suggestions, falling way too hard on entitlement arguments or artist intent arguments when they disagree with something.
The solution here is to make them skippable (assuming for subsequent playthroughs) . The design makes sense though as it keeps the player engaged (hands on the controller), developers get more control on what you're looking at, helps control the tempo and allows for seamless transitions back into the regular gameplay.
Watching cutscenes is the least video game like solution to telling story, forced walking is one possible solution (your mileage may vary on how much you like it as a solution).
Even skippable cutscenes isn't something I feel I'm entitled to. I dislike it, but I just criticize it instead of demanding the option. Even replayed God of War before they added that option in a patch.
There's also the difference that an unskippable cutscene keeps you from experiencing the gameplay for longer, but if you just want to experience the cutscenes, going on youtube and choosing the one you want to watch is definitely faster than going through the loading that comes with skipping gameplay, and is even free.
People who "just want to experience the story" don't even have to buy the game, let alone buy it and then bother devs and fans demanding time and money to be spent to make the game they want, instead of what the game is.
I think this is a significant difference in tone that isn't often recognized in those discussions. This is pretty much a branch of the "Sekiro should respect its players and add an easy mode" discussion, and as someone who enjoys From games and don't think they need an easy mode, I would never say a game is disrespecting me for not having an option to skip cutscenes. I can deal with things I dislike existing.
Trying to please everyone just leads to bland AAA garbage, and for my tastes, I'm yet to be proven wrong. Naughty Dog's best game is also their most controversial, with a lot of people intensely disliking the protagonist and his actions, the level of violence and etc, even among some of their biggest fans.
And I mean, some people do really love what I call bland AAA garbage, but that only further proves the point: "some" people really love it, not everyone. Even trying to please everyone is something that can only be called special by a segment of players. You can't equally please everyone.
If you want to introduce such an option to your games, go ahead, I have nothing against it. But I do hope you understand that not every game designer out there needs to share your vision.
There's also the difference that an unskippable cutscene keeps you from experiencing the gameplay for longer, but if you just want to experience the cutscenes, going on youtube and choosing the one you want to watch is definitely faster than going through the loading that comes with skipping gameplay, and is even free.
People who "just want to experience the story" don't even have to buy the game, let alone buy it and then bother devs and fans demanding time and money to be spent to make the game they want, instead of what the game is.
I think this is a significant difference in tone that isn't often recognized in those discussions. This is pretty much a branch of the "Sekiro should respect its players and add an easy mode" discussion, and as someone who enjoys From games and don't think they need an easy mode, I would never say a game is disrespecting me for not having an option to skip cutscenes. I can deal with things I dislike existing.
Trying to please everyone just leads to bland AAA garbage, and for my tastes, I'm yet to be proven wrong. Naughty Dog's best game is also their most controversial, with a lot of people intensely disliking the protagonist and his actions, the level of violence and etc, even among some of their biggest fans.
And I mean, some people do really love what I call bland AAA garbage, but that only further proves the point: "some" people really love it, not everyone. Even trying to please everyone is something that can only be called special by a segment of players. You can't equally please everyone.
If you want to introduce such an option to your games, go ahead, I have nothing against it. But I do hope you understand that not every game designer out there needs to share your vision.
OP's proposition is that "all" games should do the same thing, which would be going against the intentions of any developer who disagrees.
If you have content so bad players rather abandon you're game completely than dealing with it you should think about cutting it entirely.
That said, it all depends on what you want to achieve with your game design. Games like Getting over It are reveling in their unforgiveness and tediousness but people don't complain about it (at least after they cooled down a bit after playing) because they realize that's the whole idea behind it.
That said, it all depends on what you want to achieve with your game design. Games like Getting over It are reveling in their unforgiveness and tediousness but people don't complain about it (at least after they cooled down a bit after playing) because they realize that's the whole idea behind it.
Here's the way I view it. As someone who's been gaming for 30 or so years I've had several instances where I'm playing through a game and highly enjoying myself, only to come across *that* boss. You know the one, the one that for whatever reason is just giving you or I an insane amount of trouble. You or I have died countless times, well over 50 attempts and we're just not making any progress. It may not even be a "difficult" boss either; it could be something that 95% (made up stat) of the people you know who have played the game breezed through. But for whatever reason it's just got you stumped and frankly you've had enough. In the old days, this is where a cheat code or Game Genie would come into play because goddamn it I was having so much fun and then THIS damn boss is ruining my fun. And this is when I was a much younger lad who had less games and a lot more time to devote to learning a single game.
Despite the naysayers, this absolutely can kill a game I was otherwise having fun with. I had this experience with FFVIII most vividly; I saved myself into a bad situation where I could not beat a boss because it was determined by the party's average level (I did not know this because I did not have a strategy guide; I received it as a gift and it was just the game and nothing else) and because Squall could not be removed from the party he was in the 90s when the rest of my characters were in the 30s (because they didn't get levels if not in the active party I kept switching out the party members I could to try and get them up to speed but again I couldn't remove Squall). So... the beginning of Disc 4, after boarding the Ragnarok. Once you're there, you can't leave, and there are NO random encounters for you to grind if you're under-leveled. So I get to Adel and fight it, and I just can't. It's bloody impossible. After several tries it's no good. As a last resort I look online (the horribly outdated internet of the year 2000), find out the horribly impossible situation I've saved myself into, and had no other choice but to start the game over from scratch, this time ensuring Squall's level didn't get very high in order to maintain balance. (I did this by having my party members attack Squall until dead, and just didn't revive him as I leveled everyone else LOL). I didn't feel good or proud or accomplished when I finally beat Adel on that second playthrough, just exhausted.
I was livid when I found out. About 30-40 hours of gameplay just... wasted. I had been enjoying the game up to that point, but that single encounter fucked me over so hard that FFVIII remains my most loathed Final Fantasy to this day. Mind you, I was in college then. I had a lot more free time then, so I COULD start over. Today I wouldn't even bother. I don't have that kind of time anymore for stupid roadblocks that hit this hard, and I have a lot more of a backlog. These days if a game just keeps doing this to me over and over at the exact same point, I will just drop the game. And even if I finish the game eventually, I'll never replay it. I would love the OPTION to be able to get past a point like this if I've died enough. A game can keep track of an insane number of player stats regarding a playthrough, if I die, say 50 times at the exact same spot, the game knows. It could be programmed to either allow me to just auto-clear a spot if I agree to it with maybe a condition being the loss of an achievement/trophy, or do the New Super Mario Bros. thing of just giving me an invincibility powerup until that one boss/section/whatever has been cleared. Importantly this must be able to be turned off in the options so the ultra hardcore gamers (tm) can ignore it completely.
Despite the naysayers, this absolutely can kill a game I was otherwise having fun with. I had this experience with FFVIII most vividly; I saved myself into a bad situation where I could not beat a boss because it was determined by the party's average level (I did not know this because I did not have a strategy guide; I received it as a gift and it was just the game and nothing else) and because Squall could not be removed from the party he was in the 90s when the rest of my characters were in the 30s (because they didn't get levels if not in the active party I kept switching out the party members I could to try and get them up to speed but again I couldn't remove Squall). So... the beginning of Disc 4, after boarding the Ragnarok. Once you're there, you can't leave, and there are NO random encounters for you to grind if you're under-leveled. So I get to Adel and fight it, and I just can't. It's bloody impossible. After several tries it's no good. As a last resort I look online (the horribly outdated internet of the year 2000), find out the horribly impossible situation I've saved myself into, and had no other choice but to start the game over from scratch, this time ensuring Squall's level didn't get very high in order to maintain balance. (I did this by having my party members attack Squall until dead, and just didn't revive him as I leveled everyone else LOL). I didn't feel good or proud or accomplished when I finally beat Adel on that second playthrough, just exhausted.
I was livid when I found out. About 30-40 hours of gameplay just... wasted. I had been enjoying the game up to that point, but that single encounter fucked me over so hard that FFVIII remains my most loathed Final Fantasy to this day. Mind you, I was in college then. I had a lot more free time then, so I COULD start over. Today I wouldn't even bother. I don't have that kind of time anymore for stupid roadblocks that hit this hard, and I have a lot more of a backlog. These days if a game just keeps doing this to me over and over at the exact same point, I will just drop the game. And even if I finish the game eventually, I'll never replay it. I would love the OPTION to be able to get past a point like this if I've died enough. A game can keep track of an insane number of player stats regarding a playthrough, if I die, say 50 times at the exact same spot, the game knows. It could be programmed to either allow me to just auto-clear a spot if I agree to it with maybe a condition being the loss of an achievement/trophy, or do the New Super Mario Bros. thing of just giving me an invincibility powerup until that one boss/section/whatever has been cleared. Importantly this must be able to be turned off in the options so the ultra hardcore gamers (tm) can ignore it completely.
Exactly!!
That's why my head can never ever ever ever get around gamers like these... like seriously it's impossible for my brain to process this :/
OP has clearly stated "Skipping gameplay" should be a standard every game should provide, just as "skipping cutscenes".
OP
OP
I want games to automatically play through parts that make me want to stop playing forever.
I'd prefer to set the game on autopilot and fastforward/skim through it. When I'm reading a book with a terrible combat or sex scenes I just skim paragraph by paragraph.
A properly designed game should be a series of increasingly difficult challenges appropriate for genre, with the player building experiences that are used in the challenges going forwards.
If you can't beat a required challenge (A) you're likely going to also have problems with challenge (B) and (C) afterwards. Now, of course some games have unintended difficulty spikes where a hard area is randomly in the middle of otherwise easy games, but poorly designed games aren't going to be fixed by a skip button either.
And the biggest issue is that you risk players skipping segments that teach them things they really need to know for the rest of the game. If you are given the option to skip a really challenging segment like, say matador in SMT: nocturne, yes you could in principle continue, but you're then going to have to keep skipping segments routinely instead of playing the game because you had the option to not learn how the game expects you to deal with its mechanics.
And frankly, the problem of "I want to watch the game despite not being willing to play it" has already been solved well enough by YouTube.
If you can't beat a required challenge (A) you're likely going to also have problems with challenge (B) and (C) afterwards. Now, of course some games have unintended difficulty spikes where a hard area is randomly in the middle of otherwise easy games, but poorly designed games aren't going to be fixed by a skip button either.
And the biggest issue is that you risk players skipping segments that teach them things they really need to know for the rest of the game. If you are given the option to skip a really challenging segment like, say matador in SMT: nocturne, yes you could in principle continue, but you're then going to have to keep skipping segments routinely instead of playing the game because you had the option to not learn how the game expects you to deal with its mechanics.
And frankly, the problem of "I want to watch the game despite not being willing to play it" has already been solved well enough by YouTube.
That sounds really bad imo. And considering how many action segments there are there wouldn't be much else to do in the games if those were all cutscenes. It's not like the puzzle sections where you carry something and make it fit somewhere are fun to play or cleverly done, it's just filler content. The problem, as I see it, is that the action simply isn't as well done as it could be. Shadow of the Tomb Raider could've been a great game with better and more interesting action, it had tons of platforming and exploration as wellmade filler content. And the stealth were at it's core great, but as soon as stealth wasn't an option anymore the action became dumb and was just about dodging or standing still and point and shoot at whatever were rushing to attack you. And the Crash Bandicoot sections were all horrible.
If you don't enjoy the gameplay why not just watch a let's play?
Super Meat Boy is too hard for me (Or it was when I tried it a decade ago) but it's designed from the ground up to be hard, quick restarts, short levels etc, even the way it shows all your attempts at the end of each level reinforces the game is meant to be an obstacle to overcome
It would undermine the design of the game if I could just pause and move my character to the right place on the screen whenever I wanted, or if I could skip every level
I wouldn't build up the skills in earlier levels to beat the later levels, so I'd be skipping and cheating forever, and my overall impression of the game would be a bad one
At some point you just have to realise not every game is for everyone, and not every game will be enjoyed by everyone
If you as a designer, want to make a game that is really easy or let lets you skip parts of it, then more power to you, it will probably work because the game would be designed with than in mind
Reading chapter 1 and 2 and then skipping to chapter 6 because chapter 3 started out dull in a novel is possible, but it's not the best way to experience that novel considering it was written to be read in order
Or you could want for games to have been designed in a way that didn't want you to autopilot through parts of them? You know solutions that make you want to PLAY the game you're PLAYING.
I understand. How feasable is it to add this to every game, and why do you think that this isnt common in games? Honest question.
The problem, OP, is people are built to strive to be efficient. If there's a more efficient way to do something, we will often take it, even if it's less fun. See, e.g., savestates making old games trivial; sinking into one repetitive efficient form of combat even though a variety of more fun (but less efficient) ways to dispatch an enemy are available; taking the warp pipes in Mario 1 every single time so you miss most of the game.
So when a dev includes a more efficient way to get something done (or provides you a way to avoid a punishment such as trekking back to your corpse), people will often take it, even if it ultimately makes the game less fulfilling and fun. If that's what a dev wants to do, that's fine, but a lot of the time they don't want to do that, because it compromises the experience they want to make.
Re: developer intent: I don't see any problem with a player trying to circumvent a developer's intent, whether with Game Genie or hacks. But I also don't think it's the dev's obligation to provide you with the means to circumvent their intent.
So when a dev includes a more efficient way to get something done (or provides you a way to avoid a punishment such as trekking back to your corpse), people will often take it, even if it ultimately makes the game less fulfilling and fun. If that's what a dev wants to do, that's fine, but a lot of the time they don't want to do that, because it compromises the experience they want to make.
Re: developer intent: I don't see any problem with a player trying to circumvent a developer's intent, whether with Game Genie or hacks. But I also don't think it's the dev's obligation to provide you with the means to circumvent their intent.
Well my mistake then. I had assumed your beef was with the idea of skippable gameplay, as it does appear to be for most of the detractors in this thread.
Your not alone. For me seeing credit options in a menu tells me the credit sequence will be unremarkable as anything better than a simple list of names likely has some spoiler content. Imagine seeing the credits song in Portal before playing it. A few games do have two credit screens with the end game one being better but it's pretty rare.
I don't disagree with this point in general, but I think in this case, the suggestion is badly aimed. If a game is too hard or too boring, that is a game design problem and shouldn't be 'fixed' with a skip button. It just shouldn't be there.
That depends on the player though, a lot of people wouldn't want Mario games for example to be redesigned so it's auto pilot solutions work well for younger or casual audiences.
Then design the gameplay so that it's fun instead of making it so bad that you could compare it to a tasteless biscuit?
Obviously not every game is for everyone, I don't get this sentiment that eveything has to be, books and movies are the same way.
It's not like you can read a philosophy book, not understand it and then skipping a couple of pages would make you understand it better or that you could say that you finished it then.
Cheats existed and were the solution but they've now been nearly wiped out cause publishers rather monetise them than give them to you for free.
I am all for more cheating options in single player games, especially on consoles, but the game should atleast discourage you from using them cause you'd be playing the game wrong then.
Not getting past that one boss or segment that always kills you is annoying but you don't get the same satisfaction when you cheat to get past them, especially if the game gets harder after that, cause then you cheating didn't make any sense.
I always like when games give you specific tips to how you gameovered, shows that the developer really cared if when its relevant to your situation.
People saying "just design better games" sound harsh, but it's pretty much true, in my opinion.
I recently finished Quantum Break. The final boss is a huge difficulty spike, along with some horrible checkpoint placement (puts you before the cutscene, not the fight, so two loading times to try again), the fight itself is awful, just a bunch of enemies and bombs exploding that kill you in one hit with perhaps not enough of a visual cue. It's both hard and boring. It's honestly a trash fight.
But here's the thing: If they gave an option to skip that fight, it would still be a trash fight. Players wouldn't think "wow, that was fun! Loved that boss!" after skipping it, they would think "holy shit that was garbage, skipped". You don't want players thinking your content is garbage, and adding an option to skip won't change anyone's minds about that. It may remove the annoyance, but it won't make the game better. If you're dedicated to improve the user experience, you're better off taking the feedback and trying to improve the horrible parts with patches. Even if you still add an option to skip it.
You can't just add that and call it a day, and think "those who disagree with my flawless vision for that part can just skip it", you need to take responsibility. Some times your content is trash. Skipping won't change that. And personally, I'd rather drop a game that has too many trash parts than keep playing the good ones and skipping the rest. Feels like a waste of time to skip through garbage for some fun here and there. Surely there are better, more worthwhile experiences out there to put my limited time in.
I skipped the live action parts in Quantum Break because I knew I wouldn't like them. Did I end up liking the game? Hell no. I hate it, most likely the worst AAA game I've finished this generation, even made me want an Alan Wake 2 a lot less than I did before. I should have just skipped the game entirely. Giving me the option to skip the misguided live action stuff didn't make the game better, it still suffers from horrible design priorities. Maybe if they didn't focus as much on the trash parts I skipped, it could've been better, like previous Remedy games.
I recently finished Quantum Break. The final boss is a huge difficulty spike, along with some horrible checkpoint placement (puts you before the cutscene, not the fight, so two loading times to try again), the fight itself is awful, just a bunch of enemies and bombs exploding that kill you in one hit with perhaps not enough of a visual cue. It's both hard and boring. It's honestly a trash fight.
But here's the thing: If they gave an option to skip that fight, it would still be a trash fight. Players wouldn't think "wow, that was fun! Loved that boss!" after skipping it, they would think "holy shit that was garbage, skipped". You don't want players thinking your content is garbage, and adding an option to skip won't change anyone's minds about that. It may remove the annoyance, but it won't make the game better. If you're dedicated to improve the user experience, you're better off taking the feedback and trying to improve the horrible parts with patches. Even if you still add an option to skip it.
You can't just add that and call it a day, and think "those who disagree with my flawless vision for that part can just skip it", you need to take responsibility. Some times your content is trash. Skipping won't change that. And personally, I'd rather drop a game that has too many trash parts than keep playing the good ones and skipping the rest. Feels like a waste of time to skip through garbage for some fun here and there. Surely there are better, more worthwhile experiences out there to put my limited time in.
I skipped the live action parts in Quantum Break because I knew I wouldn't like them. Did I end up liking the game? Hell no. I hate it, most likely the worst AAA game I've finished this generation, even made me want an Alan Wake 2 a lot less than I did before. I should have just skipped the game entirely. Giving me the option to skip the misguided live action stuff didn't make the game better, it still suffers from horrible design priorities. Maybe if they didn't focus as much on the trash parts I skipped, it could've been better, like previous Remedy games.
I would love if games had a "skip this bit" option. There's no reason not too, games are for entertainment and if a bit isn't enjoyable there no point wasting lifetime with it. Sure, don't give me the trophy, that would be my choice.
Autopilot maybe for content some people can't get past.
Otherwise you simply can't please everybody. Some will see the entirety of the game some won't regardless of its design.
Otherwise you simply can't please everybody. Some will see the entirety of the game some won't regardless of its design.
I'd say it's rare because most games don't have credits that are in any way special, so there's no need to create two credit screens.
I can't think of any game with interesting credits that allowed you to skip to them, at least.