I know I’m preaching to the choir, but difficulty is a very important part of evaluating a game.
Because while there are games that are hard but fair (e.g. Cuphead), there are actually shit games that are hard but completely unfair (e.g. Jupiter Strike for the PS1) in how difficult they are and/or artificially difficult.
There are even games which are hard, fair, but also unfair. In example Lunatic Mode Fire Emblem games, the enemies have the same stats as you! They're not like one tenth your power, you're a soldier, they're a soldier. You have abilities, they have the SAME abilities. And both sides have permadeath! Just... The computer has a lot more party members than you. So it's "fair", but by the makeup of the game it is highly unfair and requires great skill to overcome. Difficulty isn't just in one branch, in one direction. There are hundreds of facets to "difficulty".
And if a single one of them isn't "auto-win", game journos will complain because they're too unpopular to even be movie reviewers.
Look at you and your jokes. They may have the same "stats" in base numbers, but most of them are given 1+ additional skills that are worth far more than any stat, combined with not being limited just by roster but also durability of weapons (which means they can use the most broken weapons constantly, while you will be screwing yourself hard if you do). Heck often a mega powerful enemy who is by design way stronger than you is given a bonus that makes what was once a semi-fair challenge into completely unfair (Iago in Conquest, Dark Knight in TH).
Lunatic in FE is an example of a mode that would be fair with 1 or 2 of its changes, but instead has 4-5 changes and together they literally break the game by forcing singular exploitative strategies as the only option. Hector Hard Mode had already figured out most of these problems 4 games before Awakening.
A better example of hard but fair, but a little unfair IMO is LTC playing. Where you still need to master the game and apply a lot of the same strategies as the Lunatic modes, but there is still room for wiggling and fun to be had.
They dont like games but they cant be news journalists so they take any kind of authority they can. That is what they like: the authority in telling other people their opinions and influencing them on what to think. They dont like games, just like how car reviewers swoon over Teslas with obvious quality control and build problems because of the tech. They know nothing about cars and would be better off riding public transportation with an iPad.
The same with news journalists. They dont like news, or scoops. They like sidling up to power and the authority to dictated to the unwashed masses.
If there was one thing you should have taken away from GamerGate is game journalists are scum, dont like games, and dont like you their audience.
You know, this actually explains why they sing such praise on glorified movies like Detroit: become human, but can't stand any game that requires even the most rudimentary of challenges (someone refresh my memory; wasn't it Kotaku who got mocked mercilessly, because they livestreamed themselves playing cuphead, and couldn't even get passed the tutorial?)
"beat the game" implies overcoming a challenge, facing down a seemingly insurmountable foe and coming out the victor.
The fact that they can't tell the difference between beating a game and sitting through some second rate philisophical wank-fest tells me they don't play the same games as their core audience.
The media industry refuses to stop beating me.
Neither do I, but I couldn't pass up the joke.
I know I’m preaching to the choir, but difficulty is a very important part of evaluating a game.
Because while there are games that are hard but fair (e.g. Cuphead), there are actually shit games that are hard but completely unfair (e.g. Jupiter Strike for the PS1) in how difficult they are and/or artificially difficult.
It’s very useful to know which.
There are even games which are hard, fair, but also unfair. In example Lunatic Mode Fire Emblem games, the enemies have the same stats as you! They're not like one tenth your power, you're a soldier, they're a soldier. You have abilities, they have the SAME abilities. And both sides have permadeath! Just... The computer has a lot more party members than you. So it's "fair", but by the makeup of the game it is highly unfair and requires great skill to overcome. Difficulty isn't just in one branch, in one direction. There are hundreds of facets to "difficulty".
And if a single one of them isn't "auto-win", game journos will complain because they're too unpopular to even be movie reviewers.
Look at you and your jokes. They may have the same "stats" in base numbers, but most of them are given 1+ additional skills that are worth far more than any stat, combined with not being limited just by roster but also durability of weapons (which means they can use the most broken weapons constantly, while you will be screwing yourself hard if you do). Heck often a mega powerful enemy who is by design way stronger than you is given a bonus that makes what was once a semi-fair challenge into completely unfair (Iago in Conquest, Dark Knight in TH).
Lunatic in FE is an example of a mode that would be fair with 1 or 2 of its changes, but instead has 4-5 changes and together they literally break the game by forcing singular exploitative strategies as the only option. Hector Hard Mode had already figured out most of these problems 4 games before Awakening.
A better example of hard but fair, but a little unfair IMO is LTC playing. Where you still need to master the game and apply a lot of the same strategies as the Lunatic modes, but there is still room for wiggling and fun to be had.
Why . are . they . even. writing. about. games. They are worse than a grandmother at it and less motivation too
They dont like games but they cant be news journalists so they take any kind of authority they can. That is what they like: the authority in telling other people their opinions and influencing them on what to think. They dont like games, just like how car reviewers swoon over Teslas with obvious quality control and build problems because of the tech. They know nothing about cars and would be better off riding public transportation with an iPad.
The same with news journalists. They dont like news, or scoops. They like sidling up to power and the authority to dictated to the unwashed masses.
If there was one thing you should have taken away from GamerGate is game journalists are scum, dont like games, and dont like you their audience.
You know, this actually explains why they sing such praise on glorified movies like Detroit: become human, but can't stand any game that requires even the most rudimentary of challenges (someone refresh my memory; wasn't it Kotaku who got mocked mercilessly, because they livestreamed themselves playing cuphead, and couldn't even get passed the tutorial?)
"beat the game" implies overcoming a challenge, facing down a seemingly insurmountable foe and coming out the victor.
The fact that they can't tell the difference between beating a game and sitting through some second rate philisophical wank-fest tells me they don't play the same games as their core audience.
I nearly covered this on one of my videos today based on what PCGamer said which is almost...almost kotaku retarded.
https://archive.ph/ukqeP