Escape! Escape! Embracing Skippable Combat

The argument was made by Jennifer Hepler six years ago. Back then the BioWare writer argued that if dialogue can be skipped in games, then why not combat?

Ignoring the hideous treatment Hepler has received this week, and we will be*, the argument remains a truly excellent one, and one I want to explore.

I enjoy combat in games. I play lots of games just for the combat, and if there's a story attached then that's a bonus. Clearly, being a right-thinking individual, I can't stand boss fights, but otherwise rolling in the ruckus is lots of fun, and a huge reason to be playing games.

I'm also someone who adores narrative in games. That's my first love in this pursuit and always has been. Growing up on text adventures, when the closest you got to combat was reading that it had happened, being told a tale is a massive motivation for my time spent playing games. Not an exclusive one by a long stretch - my fondness for action-RPGs, third-person combat, and Burnout Paradise ensures that I'm just as likely as any to shout "BLAH BLAH BLAH!" at talking characters as I search for which key skips their blather. Just let me hit stuff! Look at me - I'm varied.

If I'm not reviewing something, I'll exercise that ability to skip past dreary, pointless dialogue. If it's proved to add nothing to the game, or actively made me want to not like it, then it makes far more sense to Esc Esc Esc my way through and get to the next bit I enjoy playing.

So why can't the same apply to combat?

What's interesting is the primary response seems to be extraordinarily defensive. "But that's not the point of the game!" they cry. "You may as well watch a film if all you want is a story!" And it's not even the poorness of those arguments that's the issue here. What's so strange is that people are arguing at all. Because to say, "I would like it if combat could be skipped" is not the same as saying, "You HAVE TO skip all the combat in a game or we'll kill your parents." But the only rationale I can find for why people are so incredibly angry or upset by the possibility of Escape's powers working elsewhere is because they're perceiving it as an infringement of their own potential enjoyment of a game.

Which it is not.

The idea that someone would play the utterly brilliant Dragon Age and skip the conversations feels monstrous to me. Miss out on all the amazing jokes with Alistair? Skip over the scathing sarcasm of Morrigan? Fail to outrageously flirt with Zevran? Let alone not reading the Codex, and learning of the thousands of years of history that precede the events in which you're taking part? But... but... BUT! That would ruin the game!

But then, just possibly, there might be one or two people who didn't enjoy Dragon Age's dialogue. No, really, there may. And for them, their time in Thedas is much better spent with the pause-based RPG combat, intricately controlling their band of characters with carefully balanced tactics, each member refined to the precise AI responses they desire, while improvising techniques amidst the frantic Hard difficulty battles. They couldn't give a flying dragon plop if your influence on Alistair is causing him to have a crisis of faith, nor does their mind get filled with the consequences of Qunari invasion of Kirkwall. They don't let it concern them, and they click straight through it.

So why can't the person who just cares whether Morrigan will get one over on her mother, or if a dwarf can make it as a mage, have the same ability to hop past the parts that don't interest them as much?

Yes, of course, if we were talking about Dragon Age specifically, it's rife with reasons why missing combat would be problematic. But we're not. We're talking about games that haven't been developed yet. Games that could throw out approximated amounts of XP for skipped battles, or whatever the particular shortfall might be, for the player who opts to jump forward to the next conversation-based quest. And we've not even considered the practical motivations - replaying a game to see what other narrative options were there would be much easier, and certainly more convenient, if you could just focus on the dialogue and make different choices.

To argue that removing the requirement to play all the combat in a game is to render the experience to being equivalent to that of a film is to completely miss the nuance of gaming. Beyond the sheer obviousness that try as you might, it's awfully difficult to have an influence on a film's ending, the simple act of clicking a mouse changes the way you experience the media. What about Visual Novels then? Aren't they narratives you read and occasionally influence? Yes, yes they are, which is why I fully argue that they're games. But let's not get sidetracked there - that's not the concern here. The point is, if my skipping a shitty boss fight, or hopping over a particularly frustrating combat sequence, to you means I'm making a game the same as a VN, um, so what?

That's what's so very mystifying about the argument. We don't need to be having an argument! Because no one anywhere is suggesting that combat should be removed from games, and certainly not that anyone should be under any obligation to skip combat, why is there even a reaction at all? It's like someone wanting to ban people from visiting Burger King because they pick the tomato out of their Whopper. They're not forcing you to miss out on your tomatoey goodness - they're just eating the burger differently than you do. Your burger stays just the same.

Deciding how other people are allowed to play games, or believing that other people playing differently is an affront to you, is mystifying. Such a solipsistic view of the gaming world is utterly without merit or value to you or anyone else. If people want to skip combat, you should get on with not caring at all.

Everyone pays for the game, and while we have no stinking rights of ownership, we do still at least cling to the right to play it how we choose. If I want to play Skyrim with a no-clip cheat on and walk through every wall in the game, I can. It would be a strange thing to do, certainly, but it wouldn't be a problem for you. And if I want to skip all the combat in Torchlight and just read the quest descriptions, you'd rightly think me insane, but it wouldn't make your enjoyment of the game change in any way.

I think skippable combat is a fantastic idea. I doubt I'd use it very often. I can imagine Deus Ex: Human Revolution being a lot more fun if I could exercise the right to skip its awful boss fights, and I certainly might consider it if I'm playing an action game with a frustrating difficulty spike I'd like to see the other side of. In fact, I find it utterly bizarre that we're not allowed to jump to any chapter of a game when we first install it. We're allowed to with films, and no one can stop you turning to the last chapter of a book. Goodness knows why you'd want to, but there's no reason you shouldn't.

Getting to the end of a game doesn't need to be a privilege, earned through hard labour and toil. It's something anyone can be allowed to do, however they wish. Sure, this "achievement" culture has broken some people's understanding, and heck, take them away from me if I skip something - I'll somehow cope. But I don't see why anyone should be restricted from seeing any part of a game they've bought for any reason. And if skipping combat is a way to do that, then skip away.

PS. Massive thanks to @caterwail for linking me to this:

Watch on YouTube

*We am not interested at all in discussion of the despicable campaign of hate directed toward Hepler in the last few days, and any comments about her will be deleted, and we'll ban anyone we choose. It is NOT being tolerated. If we need to, we'll just switch off the comments.