More often than not, the "difficulty" of most games boils down to obstacles which are designed to be inherently unfair, such as enemies that sponge damage, or solutions to puzzles that are hidden in counter-intuitive locations. Not all difficulty is equal. True difficulty should be based on reflexes and your ability to plan an effective strategy, such as that found in a game like Quake. A game that relies on the purposeful implementation of frustrating systems that simply tests your ability to put up with them is not difficulty, it's bad design. Pic related is a great example of this. Your success, especially in boss fights, is only about 25% actual strategy, the rest is dumb luck. The only point at which the game becomes 100% strategy is when you have spent ludicrous amounts of time memorizing the most minor details just to progress past a single obstacle, only to do it all over again for the next. This begs the question, why do you force yourself to play through these kind of games?
because it's fun
>>385001531
>because it's fun
See, that's why I used to think. As a kid, I would put up with poorly designed games that forced me to replay levels over and over just to beat them, but as I got older I realized that I was spending the majority of the time not having fun just so I could enjoy a single fleeting moment where I felt a sense of achievement and reward. I just can't do that anymore.
>>385001447
>More often than not, the "difficulty" of most games boils down to obstacles which are designed to be inherently unfair, such as enemies
Huh?
>>385001659
>>More often than not, the "difficulty" of most games boils down to obstacles which are designed to be inherently unfair, such as enemies
What exactly are you having trouble understanding? Did you not read the rest of the sentence? Deliberately designing a game around enemies that simply absorb ludicrous amounts of damage instead of requiring skill to kill them is just bad design.