• Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Are you claiming the only saving grace of those games is the difficulty?

    If not, then why not allow people to enjoy the other parts of the game?

    Their philosophy sucks. They lose nothing by adding more options.

    • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      This isn’t a very honest argument. If the only saving grace of the game was its difficulty, nobody would mind not being able to finish it.

      Something is lost and gained with every substantive choice in game design. That’s what makes the choices interesting, and worth discussion.

      Let’s play with that idea. Take one of my favourite games of all time, Morrowind. It’s hard to get through, maybe. Weird UI, weird bad combat. Those are flaws. But it also has a big fat 0 to 100 difficulty slider. Is that a flaw? I would argue no, because in that game the intended struggle is to engage with the world and the story on your own terms. The combat is all window dressing for the real struggle, which is with the story’s frustrating ambiguities.

      In the case of Morrowind, some of the difficulty fails to serve the intended experience and some of it supports that vision wonderfully. It’s not a flawless game, but importantly I am discussing how the difficulty helped or hindered the creative vision. That is art criticism, and it’s a more interesting conversation than arguing over personal preferences.