• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    All of those are very bad, short term heuristics for quality. It’s perfectly fine for people not to finish a game.

    A player taking a break after a loss is again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, and not an indication that there is anything wrong with a game.

    Yes, people can and do have fun winning when they deserve to win, and they have fun losing when they deserve to lose. If they chose a difficulty where they dominate, they did that for a reason. If they chose a difficulty that beats them to a pulp if they make mistakes, they did that for a reason. Overruling player’s choices to break the game is not fun. It’s addictive. They’re not the same thing.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think anyone likes it when they can tell the game is lying to them, but you claimed that games that do this don’t stand the test of time, yet people love Mario Kart and Resident Evil 4, the two go-to examples of this concept, and it would be extremely difficult to say that love for those games hasn’t stood the test of time. It’s totally fine for you to seek out a challenge, and I agree with you that a game isn’t necessarily doing anything wrong if people don’t finish it, but these strategies in game development have tended to result in a happier player base. Anecdotally, I know a couple of friends who would sing praises for adaptive difficulty like this.