|
I would like to thank rabesandratan for pointing out this gamasutra article or I would have missed a very interesting discussion. For those that missed it, Nintendo is preparing the "Wii Help" which is a system that will make the game play itself if the player is stuck at a tough section and would like to get past it without playing it. The gamasutra comments section is ablaze with people talking about it and as someone who focuses on gameplay the idea of skipping it has some interest to me.
To me this is a dangerous idea on par with online access for console games due to the level that it can be abused. Gameplay in a video game is the main point of a game hence why the word game is included in the phrase. I know that some people think that everyone should be able to beat every game with little or no effort, but that isn't right. Now I completely understand the difference between frustrating design and challenging design, the former is bad design and the latter is good design. Games are meant to provide a challenge or stimulation to the player, being able to skip sections of it will keep the player from actually improving their skills. I can understand the idea of playing games just for their stories but not playing a video game basically goes against the main functionality of games. For my point I want to look at two different topics one being the target demographic and two on the issue of gameplay itself.
First on the target, according to the article this kind of system is aimed at younger gamers and more casual gamers and I have to raise some kind of offense to this. Before I begin my rant I want to say that my background is in the form of challenge for gameplay, I like games that are relaxing but I also like to play games that make me sweat. When it comes down to it, I believe that if you want to skip parts of a video game then you are doing it wrong unfortunately (I know the common response here and I'll talk about it in a few minutes). There are many ways to give less skillful players an advantage without downsizing the game experience. One of my favorites was in the first Sly Cooper game that if the player failed a section enough times the game would give the player extra health. I liked this as the designers didn't need to simplify the gameplay but instead gave less skilled players a little more help. The other part of this point is that it should let anyone regardless of skill level be able to beat a game and this is also where I have a problem.
I remember reading in a game design book a few years ago that one of the popular concepts for design now is to make a game that everyone should be able to beat and I did not like that idea. I can come up with a list of games both older and more current of titles that their difficulty was either the main attraction or the cornerstone of the experience. This is one of those concepts that are too broad for its own good in my opinion as should games aimed at the hardcore gamers of the genre be made to attract complete newcomers? Now this is not aimed against games that have different difficulty levels, I fully support having the game scale to the person's skill level, this is against games that in order to get a larger audience either scale back the design or simplify the game. Next it's time to talk about the gameplay and what danger this poses to it.
Let me come out and admit it, there are plenty of games that I've played that having something like this system would have been great for. However I personality would never use it and this is where my 2nd point against this comes in. If a game features a section that is poorly designed enough to warrant this system then the designer has failed and I've seen it happened plenty of times. An imbalanced section, a sharp spike of the difficulty curve and so on can become a wall for most gamers to progress. Metroid Prime 3 features several poorly designed sections that made me came close to quitting and one that finally drove me away (the final boss fight). Having the Wii Help would have made life easier but really should we ignore bad design because of this system? This is where I believe the danger of this kind of system comes in, as it gives designers a free pass against balance. I had the same reaction to the rise of downloadable content on consoles as a way of rushing games to the market or abusing that system similar to how EA has done with cheats that can be bought for certain games. I want to make a distinction between skipping game sections and providing in game hints as I'm fine with the latter. Another favorite mechanic of mine was introduced in Myst Uru where the player could get different degrees of hints on every puzzle in the game from the Myst web page. From a gentle push in the right direction to a step by step guide and I think something like that would be a better fit.
Determining what is considered a challenge and was is considered bad game design is a bit too much for this topic but an important part of this discussion. We all have our own opinion of challenge in games but when we're not dealing with the latter, the point of video games is to play them. If someone isn't good enough to figure out Lego Star Wars then maybe they're not ready for that game yet. There are many games I've played when I was younger that I had a different experience playing them now with more experience under my belt. Instead of trying to shoehorn every gamer into every game, try aiming for those that will appreciate what you are going for, or in other words the target audience.
Josh
|
I think that the strongest point here is that it simply covers up bad design. If the target audience is unable to figure out how to win, the designer has done a bad job. If the target audience finds the game impossibly hard, the designer has done a bad job. And if the player can actually skip a level that had some challenge they couldn't beat and never need the skill set required to overcome that challenge again, then the designer has also failed. That last point is different from the first two. I'm saying that games should build on the player's skill set, so if Level 4 is where you get the ability to swing across gaps using your rope and you have to skip the level because you can't get it right, you should find yourself unable to beat Level 5, because Level 5 should require you to swing across gaps with your rope while shooting zombie bats in mid-air. After all, you were supposed to have mastered the swing skill in the previous level, so you should now require an extra layer of mechanics in order to feel appropriately challenged; just swinging across gaps should be boring by itself, and should be something you can do in the background while dealing with other challenges. What happens if you use the warp pipes in SMB without actually being skilled enough to beat the levels you're skipping? You get absolutely destroyed by the later worlds because you don't have the basic skill set from the levels you skipped. Proper game design removes the need, and the value, of a skip-level system.
I also need to say that this "children need help" idea is nonsense. When I was kid, we walked barefoot to school through twenty miles of snow, and it was uphill both ways, and by god we liked it. But no, seriously, The Legend Of Zelda was the top game in Nintendo Power for how long? And it was really hard and gave almost no clues about anything, even important stuff like the location of dungeons or how to beat the bosses. There was no Internet/GameFAQs either, and most kids I knew didn't have the Nintendo strategy guide book. But we all beat Zelda, and most of us beat both quests, because the mechanics were solid and we could either win or lose by our own devices; most of us were taught to try to win and do our best at everything, so we did exactly that. Kids today are no different, there hasn't been some massive backslide in evolution that leaves them clumsy and slow-witted. They don't need "every child gets a trophy" in school or athletics and they don't need their video games dumbed down or played for them. Although it's not going to ruin our whole society or anything drastic like that, people can rise to the expectations placed on them, and children learn how to deal with challenge largely through play. It's better to teach them that perseverance wins in the long run than it is to teach them to ask for help every time they run into a challenge that they can't immediately conquer. It's also belittling and offensive to imply that children can't master difficult things, games included; if you don't think so, imagine if this feature was described as "for women" or "for black people." Suddenly it's completely out of left field and pretty offensive.
OK, I've almost written my own blog entry now, and I'm talking about raising children.
Personally I think the SMB warp pipe mechanic was more design for the expert players then the newcomers or less skilled. In the sense that to normally get to one you would need to either have an advanced knowledge of the area or the skills needed to reach it.
About it being more of a video guide, that would be less "evil" my book but there are so many different factors to think about. Such as the as mentioned saving or with games today achievements. One issue that I wanted to mention but thought it would come off as too elitist is on the topic of multiplayer games where the single player is a tutorial in some sorts. If we have players never learning the concepts needed to play online due to this system, then it could hurt the online community with having the player base split in terms of skill level.
What I’ll say for now, however, is this:
Bad design is not the only reason someone might want to use this feature. There are other legitimate reasons for someone to use it.
My knee jerk reaction to your post is that you are not considering all the angles and instead using “Bad Design” to make your point about this topic.
You also referred to the feature as dangerous. I don’t think such a term is useful in determining the merits of the feature. Many things are dangerous but useful. (Internet, Weapons, Books, Social Networking, etc)
Lastly, a video game is a complex form of entertainment. Games are composed of multiple components: Art, Music, Technology, Mechanics and so forth. All of these components work together to produce an experience for the player to enjoy. With the total package of a game players can find many ways to enjoy it. (Some that don't even involve the Mechanics portion!)
As for yourself, if you cannot(or don't want to) find enjoyment by using such a feature that is absolutely fine. But, this in no way proves or means that others should be barred from it.
I won’t expand further due to time =\
I think it is also fine for many games not to include such a feauture. It should be totally up to the developer to include such a feature.
My main point is that the feature has positive uses. It is not simply a blanket for bad design. It is not simply a feature to cater to the newbies, babies, and weak folk.
In response to the title of your blog, "Should failure be an option"
I say:
In some games, failure can be an option and the game does not necessarily suffer for it.
Unfortunately, what the complaints about "Wii Help" all seem to boil down to is people saying something along the lines of "I have one particular idea about video games and I don't want anyone else playing them differently."
Also I do understand the various mechanics but as I mentioned, I'm coming into this from a gameplay perspective. If all someone wants to do is see a story or view the graphics on most games then they are missing a key component of video games and are really in that case not the target audience for the game. Although there are plenty of indie or "artistic games" that focus more on storyline or artwork over gameplay and they are fine for this kind of experience.
There are many ways to balance or affect difficulty in video games, but just giving the solution of "let the player just skip the entire section" is a cop out . Now if we find out that this system is just a hint system then no harm no foul, however if it allows players to skip sections of gameplay then we have a problem.
This is exactly what I believed you to be saying. Of course it can be dangerous for the quality of games, many things can be. My point is that the feature in itself is not inherently dangerous, which I think you are suggesting. The only danger comes with poor implementation, which can be avoided with good design. Why must it be dangerous? It can be used for good purposes. As a designer myself, I know that something like this could be an excuse for poor designers to write off their bad designs, however, that means nothing. That would only be a fault of the criminal designers, not the feature itself. Designers can properly use the feature for good, it's what they get paid for. Are you saying that if this feature came into existence designers worldwide would view it as their opening to finally make those sloppy game sections because they now have a scapegoat?
"Also I do understand the various mechanics but as I mentioned, I'm coming into this from a gameplay perspective. If all someone wants to do is see a story or view the graphics on most games then they are missing a key component of video games and are really in that case not the target audience for the game."
I'm at a lost as to how the above statement is supposed to show flaws of the feature. The above statement appears to be more of a critique of the individuals that might use the feature, which of course has nothing to do with the feature itself.
But in response,
They are skipping, not missing one of the components of the game. They prune off what they don't want just like I take olives off of my pizza. Story and graphics centric individuals are also still in the target audience. One who purchases a game is automatically in the target audience of the game industry. We target those that want to buy our products.
Furthermore, my point wasn't about these story centric players. (although it can be) I'm mainly talking about legitimate "gamers" that enjoy playing games and for whatever moment of fancy choose to skip a piece of gameplay. They are still the target audience (game players and game buyers), they just for whatever reason wish to skip over a piece of gameplay. So why should they be denied this optional feature?
You say that you understand that their are other components of a game but that you are mostly concerned with the mechanics portion, that's fine. Even from that perspective this optional feature poses no harm to the gameplay. Again, for those that wish to never use the feature they don't need to, for those that want to they may, and for the developer that doesn't want to implement it they don't have to, and to the bad designer that would use it as a scapegoat shame on them. So please tell me how exactly this is a threat to the gameplay and for who? It is up to the player to use it or abuse it if they wish, which eliminates said threat, because for the player that doesn't want to use it the feature doesn't need to exist!
"There are many ways to balance or affect difficulty in video games, but just giving the solution of "let the player just skip the entire section" is a cop out ."
A cop out by who? If you mean the player my only response is, so what? That's their business. If you mean the Developers I have already stated my stance on this. A game can be wonderfully designed(difficulty balances included) and still this feature may be desired by many types of players. Why do you insist that the feature can only be used as a band aid for bad game design? Some gamers for whatever their reasons may want to skip a piece of gameplay. Are you saying that the only time a gamer would want to skip a piece of gameplay was because of bad game design?
"Now if we find out that this system is just a hint system then no harm no foul, however if it allows players to skip sections of gameplay then we have a problem."
I'm a little confused by the "we" in your last statement. Who exactly has a problem? Certainly it isn't the players, after all they can just not use the feature, just like turning on or off invert y axis. So do you mean that the game industry would have a problem?
Re: Pizza argument , this is a bit too subjective for me. You say that it's just like taking off olives off your pizza, then why order them in the first place? To me it's like ordering a steak with potatoes on the side and throwing out the steak and eating the potatoes. The other part of this is the slope that's on, what if player A skips a section and then comes across the same problem later on, then they skip another section and so on. As with a lot of video games it is about the escalation and something like this used repeatedly can ruin the experience . If a player wants to skip entire parts of a game then what was the reason for playing said game in the first place? I'm all for giving players a push in the right direction or toning it down but as others have mentioned this is like ignoring random chapters of a book.
Now I'm going to have to challenge you with this question. Can you give me a legitimate situation that the player will want to skip a section of a video game that doesn't have to do with story, art, save points, difficulty , or bad game design?
"However there is the possibility..." "
Possibilities are not enough to hang this feature, there needs to be probable cause. Will most designers probably start using it as an excuse for bad design? If so then you would have a point about this feature, but this isn't the case.
...of this system being abused for the reasons that I mentioned."
Abused by designers, yes, this is your best point IMO, but it still says nothing about the feature itself. The feature itself is not inherently bad because bad designers might do bad things with it.
"Re: Pizza argument , this is a bit too subjective for me. You say that it's just like taking off olives off your pizza, then why order them in the first place? To me it's like ordering a steak with potatoes on the side and throwing out the steak and eating the potatoes."
My pizza statement was a flippant analogy and almost a joke. But, just as you say, to you it's like ordering a steak with potatoes on the side and throwing out the steak. And that's fine, but that's for you. Others may view it differently, others may view it like my pizza. Why order the pizza at all? For the sake of analogy how come we can't assume that this is one of those piazzas where the topping mix has all the ingredients already mixed in and olives is one of them.(this exist in reality, the analogy is not far fetched at all). And yes it is all subjective, which helps my point. To each his own. Since the feature would be an option and not required there is room for everybody, it would be a matter of taste. According to taste you would never use the feature, no big deal. But this shouldn't phase out those that would and it also says nothing about the merits of the feature, which is what I think we should be discussing instead of my pizza analogy, which was only a response to one of your statements that I believed to not be strongly related to the merits of the feature. =p
"The other part of this is the slope that's on, what if player A skips a section and then comes across the same problem later on, then they skip another section and so on. As with a lot of video games it is about the escalation and something like this used repeatedly can ruin the experience ."
Yes, so what if this happens? If the player wishes to buckle down and get better they will, if they don't want to they won't. I wouldn't go so far as saying the experience is ruined, this is what they gamer chose to do. Who am I to tell the player how to play their game or how they have ruined it.
"If a player wants to skip entire parts of a game then what was the reason for playing said game in the first place?"
It's all up to them. You ask what would be the reason for a player to play a game if there are portions in it they want to skip(There are many reasons why one might play a game and skip some portions), I have already provided an answer in my previous post but I will state it again. But first, why should the player be required to answer concretely to such a question. Why do some players like to invert their Y axis when they can leave it normal? Why do some players like to play a game on hard when they could play it on easy? These are all matters of whim and preference.
It really boils down to because they just want to, what further explanation is needed?
"Now I'm going to have to challenge you with this question. Can you give me a legitimate situation that the player will want to skip a section of a video game that doesn't have to do with story, art, save points, difficulty , or bad game design?"
Before I indulge you in this challenge what is it's purpose? Are we still discussing the merits of the feature or is this something you're just interested in?
Anyways, lets pretend that in a game there is a portion of a level I'm not interested in. It has nothing to do with the difficulty, I just don't like it, just as I don't like chocolate ice cream. (Notice that me not liking the portion of the level has nothing to do with bad level or game design, I just via my fancy and preferences don't enjoy it as much as others might)
It really is that subjective, which is why I see nothing wrong with this optional feature.
argh, that was longer than i wanted..ZzzzZ
How do you feel about cheat codes such as god mode?
I find that If I apply the logic that you have set forth in your blog to cheat I must come to the conclusion that cheat codes are dangerous to games and should never be present in them. Furthermore by your logic, when a player uses a cheat code they ruin the game experience.(in its entirety)
Would you agree?
"Before I indulge you in this challenge what is it's purpose? Are we still discussing the merits of the feature or is this something you're just interested in?"
A little of A and a little of B, and the example you used is one I used for bad game design. Take god of war 2 for instance, great game that I can think of 4 examples off the top of my head that would have been better skipped due to how annoying or just plain bad they were. Another thought just came to mind on the effect this feature will have on reviews. Do we take off points for games with bad features or leave them be because the player can just skip them?
Another part that neither of us have talked about is the possible effect on game development, if this becomes a feature in games, what happens if it becomes a required feature by publishers? How about on the type of game? For example in a RPG what happens if I try to fast forward past a tough boss fight that I'm not fully leveled for? Should developers spend extra time having to program this feature as well as going through their game to find the perfect run to put into the games. What happens if there is no perfect way to play the game, like an open world sandbox title. There are way too many variables for this type of system
One analogy that I think could be used for this system is on the current political statement on nuclear weapons, important to have but never use. If you want to have this feature in your game , great but should be the very last end of the world situation for it to be used.
OK. Slow down here. I don't know why you do this, but what you've done here is ignored all possible valid points that people who don't agree with you can make in favor of casting them as though their ideas come out of some weird, personal, psychological problem. This isn't correct. Maybe they seem to boil down to this insane rationale because you don't understand what they're saying. Maybe it's because you're not listening. But regardless, you're wrong about it. There are concerns that stem from legitimate understanding of the medium instead of childish hangups.
I going to restate my point. Good design very often shows or teaches a skill, has the player use the skill, and then layers other skills on top of that. If the "show or teach a skill" part works right, the "use a skill" part should be possible. If the player can use the skill and gets through that part, then the designer should know that the player has the skill down, and the skill can be layered with other skills as the game goes on. That's a very simple design pattern and it's seen in tons of games, from Super Mario Brothers to Metal Gear Solid. If a player skips the "teach a skill" or "use a skill" section because the player can't handle them, the later stages of the game are going to be even worse, because the player will be expected to have mastered the skill and be able to execute it while doing other things. Skipping it ruins the designer's ability to know "OK, I'm building Level 4 now, so I can be sure that the player mastered the skills I taught in Levels 1 through 3."
Showing a video hint tutorial is one thing. Skipping levels, in a well-designed game, is not a good idea. A well-designed game with appropriate difficulty settings does not need this feature, and in fact is damaged by its use.
(Oh, and before I forget, I personally don't like the idea and anyone who does isn't as hardcore as I am and doesn't deserve fun, because if you don't like to play my exact way, you're wrong and a bad person.)
Cheat codes and the feature in discussion are similar items. Namely, optional features that allow users to bypass gameplay elements. But the existence of a cheat code within a game does not make it any less enjoyable. Do you see where I’m going here?
“…the example you used is one I used for bad game design. Take god of war 2 for instance, great game that I can think of 4 examples off the top of my head that would have been better skipped due to how annoying or just plain bad they were.”
How is my example one of bad game design? I’ll restate it here just for reference
(lets pretend that in a game there is a portion of a level I'm not interested in. It has nothing to do with the difficulty, I just don't like it, just as I don't like chocolate ice cream.)
This is not an example of bad design it is merely preference. If there is a batch of Rocky Road ice cream at my house and I’m only interested in eating the Strawberry and Vanilla have the ice cream flavor designers failed? No, it just means I don’t like chocolate. My example is also unlike your God of War 2 instance. There is no “annoyance or plain bad” it’s simply a case of not my type. So your counter statement is an inappropriate use of my example as they are dissimilar.
“Another thought just came to mind on the effect this feature will have on reviews. Do we take off points for games with bad features or leave them be because the player can just skip them?”
We take off points like we always have for bad features and bad designs in a game. You’ve provided no reason for why Miyamoto’s feature would cause reviewers to give an ok stamp to bad games. So there is no reason to assume that it will. Never in my time have I seen a games poor features ignored because God mode was included in the game. Have you?
“Another part that neither of us have talked about is the possible effect on game development, if this becomes a feature in games, what happens if it becomes a required feature by publishers? How about on the type of game? For example in a RPG what happens if I try to fast forward past a tough boss fight that I'm not fully leveled for? Should developers spend extra time having to program this feature as well as going through their game to find the perfect run to put into the games.”
What do you mean neither of us have talked about this. That was one of the earlier things I stated. I’ll post it again here
(One more thing...
I think it is also fine for many games not to include such a feature. It should be totally up to the developer to include such a feature.)
I’m with you on this. If developers were forced to implement the feature I would be against it. There is no probable cause to suggest that they will be forced to do so. Especially due to the time, money, and effort this feature would cause such games as an RPG. But for some other games it may be simple to implement and non-costly.
“One analogy that I think could be used for this system is on the current political statement on nuclear weapons, important to have but never use. If you want to have this feature in your game , great but should be the very last end of the world situation for it to be used. “
It’s fine to take this stance if you want. It would be your game. But not everyone in the gaming world needs to take this stance. They can liberally use this “nuke” because it’s in the privacy of their own home and no one is getting hurt.
I think we're both right in some regard about this feature and another analogy came to mind, is comparing a game to mountain climbing. Some are in for reaching the top and others are in it for the trip itself up the mountain. There is no right answer as to who has the better experience. Too much about Wii Help is up in the air right now for anyone to make a factual assessment of it's uses.
Your mountain climbing analogy is solid.
We will just have to see what Wii Help has in store for our future.
“A well-designed game with appropriate difficulty settings does not need this feature, and in fact is damaged by its use.”
No one is arguing that this feature is needed. It has in fact been stated to be optional.
You have also not shown that use of this feature damages a game. You have instead pin-pointed one scenario that may cause trouble for the player that abuses it, then used the made up scenario to proclaim that use of the feature will indeed damage the game. This is a logical fallacy, but I won’t get into it here.
Furthermore, the scenario you provided is not one in which the player is simply stuck and unable to learn the skill. The game can include a tutorials section in the menus can it not?
Please don’t take the above solution as the best one I can come up with, it is knee jerk and ultimately not required to show that there is no sound reasoning being followed in your post to conclude that use of the feature must/needs damage a game.
In a game designed to satisfy Gamist play preferences, failure is not an option. Winning through rule-following is so important that the key player attribute required (and rewarded) in such games must be persistence: if you just keep at it, you'll eventually win. In a Gamist-oriented game, a help system is not unreasonable because it serves the goal of letting the persistent player win.
In Simulationist play, it's OK for failure to be an option. In a simulation, persistence -- running at a problem in the same way every time -- will not be enough to allow the player to win. The key attribute of the Simulationist player is not persistence, but perception: if you can figure out the rules of the simulation on this run, you can use that understanding to win next time. So to a player who naturally comes to games with a preference for Simulationist play, failure is OK -- even desirable -- as long as it provides useful information for improvement.
To a Simulationist, then, Wii Help might be annoying to the degree that it reduces the value of perception as a player attribute.
And that, I think, brings us back to the importance of understanding what one's target audience wants in a game.
CM, the scenario I provided IS one in which the player has failed to learn the skill and is thus skipping parts of the game. It's also not some weird, highly-specific situation that wouldn't come up very often and that I just made up for this argument. It's a really common scenario, and the way around it has been used in game design since...like, forever.
Use of the feature is pretty much guaranteed to undermine good teaching/skill progression. It also ruins pacing by stripping out the highest-intensity moments.
Think of it like the fast-forward feature in a movie. When you put a movie on, do you actually use that feature? Do you skip past the dialogue in X-Men so you can get to Hugh Jackman killing people? Do you skip the emotional pain and relationship troubles in romantic comedies to get to the happy wedding at the end? Do you skip through the gross-out parts of teen comedies to get to the part where the attractive teenagers close the bedroom curtains after the prom? Of course not. The feature is there, but using it is a really bad idea.
Once you've seen the film, the chapter selections on the DVD or the idea of skipping around to your favorite parts makes sense. But even in a kung-fu movie, skipping the "plot" scenes, no matter how shallow an excuse it may be for having a small Asian guy knock people down with acrobatic moves, damages the film unless you've already been through it. If the film is any good, every scene is important, and nothing unnecessary is left in the final cut. The same is true of tightly-designed video games. If there's a part that isn't balanced right, doesn't fit with the skill progression, or is so forgettable that it could be skipped without messing the game up, then it's a design flaw. I honestly cannot think of a counterexample to this point, and I've tried to. I can't think of a game where I say "this is a good game, and this part of the game is good and done right and definitely belongs here, but it would also be OK if the player could just skip it on the first play-through."
Please notice that on subsequent plays-through (or play-throughs), skipping around is a totally different issue, just like it is with movies or books.
I never said that the scenario you described would be uncommon I said that it was a crafted scenario, which it is, since the feature we are discussing doesn’t even exist yet.
But since we are on the topic I would like to explain my issues with the above scenario with regards to how it relates (or doesn’t’) to the credit/discredit of the feature in discussion.
Your scenario argument is something like this(please feel extremely free to modify this if you believe I have misrepresented you in some way):
1. If players abuse the feature then they will fail to learn crucial skills in the game and their experience will be damaged as the game at some point will become too hard.
2. Some players will abuse this feature.
3. Designers will have to take into account this abuse.
3. Therefore, players will have their experiences ruined and designers will have difficulties designing their games. AND Therefore the feature damages a game.
My issues with your argument are that it fails to address other scenarios and uses this one scenario to make factual statements about the feature. Furthermore, your main premise in the argument is not necessarily true.
Regarding Premise 1: Abuse of the feature does not necessarily lead to a failure to learn crucial skills in the game. A tutorial portion in the game may be provided in the games menus, the player may consult the instruction manual, and the player can always replay the level and not use the feature if they feel that they need mastering of said skill.
Your first premise is false. Players can abuse the feature and still learn crucial game skills via the methods described above and of course by other methods that Designers can design. Even if your premise were true, players that never learned these crucial skills are probably the type that don’t care to learn the skills in the first place, they are simply enjoying the game in a different way.
I have plenty more to say about your argument but I think I’ve said enough. In closing your argument jumps to conclusions and rests on speculation about a scenario that fails to address basic(or any) solutions to the problem it proposes.
“Use of the feature is pretty much guaranteed to undermine good teaching/skill progression. It also ruins pacing by stripping out the highest-intensity moments.”
To the player that wants to abuse this feature they aren’t interested in good teach/skill progression. The above statement does not show how the feature ruins a players experience. How is it ruined when it’s what they wanted? Perhaps in your view it’s ruined. This is a perfectly fine stance to take but it has no bearing on the player’s experience, it is instead how you view the scenario to be.
“Think of it like the fast-forward feature in a movie. When you put a movie on, do you actually use that feature? Do you skip past the dialogue in X-Men so you can get to Hugh Jackman killing people? Do you skip the emotional pain and relationship troubles in romantic comedies to get to the happy wedding at the end? Do you skip through the gross-out parts of teen comedies to get to the part where the attractive teenagers close the bedroom curtains after the prom? Of course not. The feature is there, but using it is a really bad idea.”
Do I? No.
Might someone? Yes.
Does this mean that people shouldn’t fast forward their movies? No.
Does this mean that people shouldn’t fast forward their movies without having watched it all the way through the first time through? No, it’s totally up to them to do as they please with the fast forward feature.
“The same is true of tightly-designed video games. If there's a part that isn't balanced right, doesn't fit with the skill progression, or is so forgettable that it could be skipped without messing the game up, then it's a design flaw.”
Yes you have defined a design flaw. What exactly does this have to do with the feature and its use. Yes, the feature could be used to skip over bad sections in games(what’s wrong with that?). But it can also be used to skip over good sections of games. That doesn’t mean that the feature is the cause of bad game design and it also doesn’t show that the feature ruins games. It also doesn’t mean that players are going to “miss out” on the good parts of the game, that would be their choice.(and again I say, if they wanted to skip it why stop them).
“I honestly cannot think of a counterexample to this point, and I've tried to. I can't think of a game where I say "this is a good game, and this part of the game is good and done right and definitely belongs here, but it would also be OK if the player could just skip it on the first play-through."
Your inability to see how it is ok for a player to skip a "good" portion of a game is strange to me. We are not their parents or their authority. It is always OK for them to choose what they will.
First I find it amussing that most, if not everyone discussing this idea has no intention to use it (I'm no exception mind you) as people frequenting Gamasutra or other gaming sites are long time gamers, mostly, and have grown to the challenge. It would be an interesting thing to ask the intended "audince" of this element their opinions about it.
First off I would like to start by paraphrasing an article over Destructoid (sadly I don't remember which one exactly) "Who hasn't asked someone next to you for help and they would take the controler and finish that hard section for you?". i think that in our younger days everybody, or most of us did this to get past harder parts of the games. Hell I even asked for a friends help to pass the Forest Temple in Ocarina of Time (a thing with Wallmasters evoking spiders during the time my arachnophobia was at its highest). Still nowdays I can finish the Forest Temple and those hard sections by myself and surpass most of the people that helped me in my days. This will be the same for the generations that grow up with the feature. For younger players this feature will be the friend/parent/brother/uncle that passes the hard parts and then lets you enjoy the parts that they can play.
Still speaking about younger gamers there is a thing that a lot og us adults seem to forget. The break point of frustration is quite lower for kids than for adults. While a more grown up gamer can spend hours trying to break an especific point of the game, a younger one may throw the control before the tenth try. This feature will enable them to pass those frustration points. Also as a young gamer knowing that it was possible to pass a certain section and seeing how it was done made me want to replicate the feat by my own and improve myself as a gamer. I didn't just go by "OK that is over to the next thing" it was "That is how it's done, now I want to do it too". Most kids are proud, and will probably lie¿ke to brag how they could pass that point that has all their friends trying and failing, only to use "Demo Play" to pass it. If said point is about learning a skill necesary for the game and some ones skips it, thye will learn the hard way that is was something they should've learnes. If they don't care about it, "Demo Play" will not harm them, they will never become "gamers" as they will be more about just breazing through the game than actually enjoy playing it. The people that abuse of the "Demo Play" would normally never either play the game or finish it anyway, so no real harm is done. To those that see that the skill is a necesarry one and prefer to try to get the sense of acomplihment will retry the section, but they can still enjoy other parts of the game while they try to master that skill.
To casual players. They don't really want a challenge, at least not one that makes them go over the same section over and over again, as they are people that can't spend that much time or don't see a real reason to throw too much time into gaming. Again "Demo Play" will not harm them, as they can pass a section instead of dumping the game all together. Later on, when they have more time and/or willingness to overcome tha part they can do it. This will simply allow them to enjoy the full game.
Yes, I agree that the sense of acomplishment is a big thing in gaming. But I don't see how this feature will harm it. To those interested in the sense it can be perfectly ignored (it is not like it kicks in automatically) or used as a guide. To those that aren't into games, they can use it to simply finish the game. The latter would just dump the game or don't buy it and nothing is lost by implementing the feature and the former won't have any problem as their efforts will still be worth it, even if they use it. The people who abuse the "Demo Play" are probablly not interested in the sense of acomplishment that we hold so dear, they just want to let time pass by playing a little.
I don't see it as a bad thing that developers try to include everyone into their games. And while this feature allows them to do that more easily, but it will allow to go for the target audience without sacrificing the broadness. All the elements that said audience wants can be included, but other kinds of gamers that aren't interested in the hardest parts may simply ignore that and still enjoy the game. That is how i see the system working, as it will no be necesarry to "dumb down" aby element.
And now to th las part, lazy developers. If a developer designs a part of the game to be passed by using this idea, it is a horrible developer. But that is the fault of the developer, not of the feature. A game like that will probably be bashed and hated, not because of the "Demo PLay" but for the horribel design.
I insist this isn't meant to people that lurk at blogs, it is for starters and other kind of players. (And sorry for being so redundant, I'm too sleepy now).
In the words of "Tim the tool man ... 'I'm measuring the oxygen intake of the latex enamel."
In my case... I like to watch paint dry, or watch the grass grow... But I really like to fish. Yes siree. I like to fish.