Your video game hot take(s) thread

[Specter Von Baren]

Yesterday's Slightly Something Else was about poorly paced games, inspired by the lackluster-to-negative response that most of the Escapist crew have to Ragnarok.
So my hot take is that not only is Ragnarok paced just fine, but this is purely a symptom of games critics being "forced" to play everything that comes out very quickly.

The complaints came down to "why am I being forced to do this mission." Well if one actually likes the game, one does the mission because that's the game, lol.
Like they were talking about how in one section you "have" to ride around on a yak with an NPC as a secondary character, or in another section you have chase false leads. And yes of course it's game-y, it's largely excuses to go to the next place and do combat or whatever. But... this is how games work.

Meanwhile Yakuze and Persona games are praised to the high heavens and those dialogue scenes go on FOREVER and that's ok I guess, I dunno.

Elden Ring is GOTY and it's the same damn caves and bosses and all you do is ride around and get lost and fight the same crap over and over and everyone knows the last third is garbage but, sure, GOTY. Only when Sony releases cinematic single player games (that aren't actually broken!) do we complain about basic video game characteristics like "the game keeps giving me quests without also giving me a meaningful existential value for my life wah wah wah."

That's interesting. A lot of people thought critics were praising it unfairly for being linear and having a lot of easy walking.

As for why Persona and such are praised for long talking. It's about what you're signing up for. People that know about or like Persona games know that talking is a big aspect of them and expect it. I imagine the criticism of GoW is that people expect more doing and less talking.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Yesterday's Slightly Something Else was about poorly paced games, inspired by the lackluster-to-negative response that most of the Escapist crew have to Ragnarok.
So my hot take is that not only is Ragnarok paced just fine, but this is purely a symptom of games critics being "forced" to play everything that comes out very quickly.

The complaints came down to "why am I being forced to do this mission." Well if one actually likes the game, one does the mission because that's the game, lol.
Like they were talking about how in one section you "have" to ride around on a yak with an NPC as a secondary character, or in another section you have chase false leads. And yes of course it's game-y, it's largely excuses to go to the next place and do combat or whatever. But... this is how games work.

Meanwhile Yakuze and Persona games are praised to the high heavens and those dialogue scenes go on FOREVER and that's ok I guess, I dunno.

Elden Ring is GOTY and it's the same damn caves and bosses and all you do is ride around and get lost and fight the same crap over and over and everyone knows the last third is garbage but, sure, GOTY. Only when Sony releases cinematic single player games (that aren't actually broken!) do we complain about basic video game characteristics like "the game keeps giving me quests without also giving me a meaningful existential value for my life wah wah wah."

Also grinding is like one of the main ancient foundations of videogame time wasting/pacing annoyances since the scripture were carved in 1 bit stone. Which ER has in beaches, not spades. Whereas at the very least in Ragnarok you're always moving forward in the various tangents of the story. Some critics I think including yahtzee seem to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder when it comes to certain AAA hyped/acclaimed studios.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yesterday's Slightly Something Else was about poorly paced games, inspired by the lackluster-to-negative response that most of the Escapist crew have to Ragnarok.
So my hot take is that not only is Ragnarok paced just fine, but this is purely a symptom of games critics being "forced" to play everything that comes out very quickly.

The complaints came down to "why am I being forced to do this mission." Well if one actually likes the game, one does the mission because that's the game, lol.
Like they were talking about how in one section you "have" to ride around on a yak with an NPC as a secondary character, or in another section you have chase false leads. And yes of course it's game-y, it's largely excuses to go to the next place and do combat or whatever. But... this is how games work.

Meanwhile Yakuze and Persona games are praised to the high heavens and those dialogue scenes go on FOREVER and that's ok I guess, I dunno.

Elden Ring is GOTY and it's the same damn caves and bosses and all you do is ride around and get lost and fight the same crap over and over and everyone knows the last third is garbage but, sure, GOTY. Only when Sony releases cinematic single player games (that aren't actually broken!) do we complain about basic video game characteristics like "the game keeps giving me quests without also giving me a meaningful existential value for my life wah wah wah."

There is definitely a certain sneering from the typical "high-brow" game critics toward the Sony AAA game. This goes back to Uncharted 2 and its "ludonarrative dissonance" and The Last of Us for not having story through game mechanics so how could the story be good, as if it was the first game to have cutscenes. That era of criticism seems to have fallen off though; people like Yahtzee and Errant Signal.

Not that Sony AAA games don't deserve critism, they surely do, but it'd be nice if Fromsoft games weren't left out on that. Those games have fucking problems that for some reason never get addressed whenever a new one's released.

 

[BrawlMan]

Yesterday's Slightly Something Else was about poorly paced games, inspired by the lackluster-to-negative response that most of the Escapist crew have to Ragnarok.
So my hot take is that not only is Ragnarok paced just fine, but this is purely a symptom of games critics being "forced" to play everything that comes out very quickly.

The complaints came down to "why am I being forced to do this mission." Well if one actually likes the game, one does the mission because that's the game, lol.
Like they were talking about how in one section you "have" to ride around on a yak with an NPC as a secondary character, or in another section you have chase false leads. And yes of course it's game-y, it's largely excuses to go to the next place and do combat or whatever. But... this is how games work.

Meanwhile Yakuza and Persona games are praised to the high heavens and those dialogue scenes go on FOREVER and that's ok I guess, I dunno.

Elden Ring is GOTY and it's the same damn caves and bosses and all you do is ride around and get lost and fight the same crap over and over and everyone knows the last third is garbage but, sure, GOTY. Only when Sony releases cinematic single player games (that aren't actually broken!) do we complain about basic video game characteristics like "the game keeps giving me quests without also giving me a meaningful existential value for my life wah wah wah."

That's always been a major flaw with Yahtzee. He's a contrarian that at some times have good points, but it gets drowned out by either his own negativity and hype, or making mountains out of mole hills. I'm glad I decided not to watch the video, cuz I already saw it coming. Seriously game reviewers, if you don't want to play the game, then don't play the game. I don't care about your traffic and ad revenue. If you're not going to enjoy it, then play something that really makes you happy. I know this can't be the case all the time, but there are plenty of moments where either Yahtzee or somebody else skipped out on a big title, because they were sick and tired of the game or franchise. Or the title was just that bad and would rather focus on something better.

There is nothing wrong with a Sonic game having a story. I know a few have had a couple of lackluster stories, but that's because of Sega being afraid and listening to you dumbasses too much. If every new Sonic game played like the old Sega Genesis games again, then there would be way more people on the other side complaining. I'm glad Sonic has a story and it's written by someone that cares this time for the most recent game. I'm glad there are fans, young and old, that like to see these characters grow or to see them in new perspectives. When I last checked, non-fans, Sonic haters, nor jaded (ex)-Sega/Sonic have the final say and what constitutes a good Sonic game, or why all the modern 3D Sonic games "suck". Not all of them suck, they just don't meet your impossible and high expectations. Yet you'll give Mario or other platformers a pass (some of the time) depending on what it is.

By the way Yahtzee, Sonic Frontiers has a consistent tone, you just don't bother to care and pay attention, then complain about something no one was asking for. You never have consistent opinions on these games, and you constantly change them for the sake of convenience. Hoping nobody else bothers to check on your past opinions or assume they'll make excuses for you.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Scanning some gaming news and headlines yesterday really highlighted to me how release dates and review schedules are messing up game reviews for me.

The best example is Kotaku's headline Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Leak Makes Early 2023 Look Like Mayem

Look I don't mean to pick on Kotaku, I like the site that's why I read them everyday, I seen the same kind of language in many outlets including Escapist. But look at this part:
" March 16 would put it at the tail end of a Winter stuffed with big releases. Fire Emblem Engage, Forspoken, and the Dead Space remake arrive in January, while Hogwarts Legacy, Octopath Traveler II, and Destiny 2: Lightfall come out in February, just to name a few. Then March is bookended by Ubisoft’s pirate adventure Skull and Bones and Capcom’s Resident Evil 4 remake. "

So, yeah, if you HAVE to play all these games in a month, that sounds g-dm miserable.
But what regular person is doing this? Personally only two games really interest me: Jedi and Forspoken. Even just casually throwing a Destiny thing in there is nuts- that is a dedicated sub-hobby of gamers who are going to play Destiny instead of the other ones, or folks like me who couldn't care less about it.

My sister got her partner into Harry Potter and they are eagerly looking forward to playing the Hogwart game together. Personally I couldn't be arsed but good for them, we each get [POTENTIALLY] cool new games and then we can talk about it when get together on Easter/Passover break. This is, you know... a good thing.

What if Skull & Bones is actually good- yeah yeah, I know, chances are slim, but can we even trust reviewers who are forced to do a Ubi after grinding Destiny and all this other stuff?

So I'll be on a break from everything from Xmas to mid-Jan and when I come back, I may seriously curtail my games media intake. I'm looking forward to the Jedi sequel and who needs these buzzkills? An honest review of the game including negatives will be welcome but if the complaint "it's too long because I have other games to play" is invalid.

 

[BrawlMan]

Escapist. But look at this part:
" March 16 would put it at the tail end of a Winter stuffed with big releases. Fire Emblem Engage, Forspoken, and the Dead Space remake arrive in January, while Hogwarts Legacy, Octopath Traveler II, and Destiny 2: Lightfall come out in February, just to name a few. Then March is bookended by Ubisoft’s pirate adventure Skull and Bones and Capcom’s Resident Evil 4 remake. "

So, yeah, if you HAVE to play all these games in a month, that sounds g-dm miserable.
But what regular person is doing this? Personally only two games really interest me: Jedi and Forspoken. Even just casually throwing a Destiny thing in there is nuts- that is a dedicated sub-hobby of gamers who are going to play Destiny instead of the other ones, or folks like me who couldn't care less about it.

All I care about is RE4 Remake and Street Fighter VI. All of the other games I don't care for, or don't have a PS5/Series X.

An honest review of the game including negatives will be welcome but if the complaint "it's too long because I have other games to play" is invalid.

Which is weird as that problem can be solved by either having a large review staff on rotation, or just hiring more people to cover other games.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

My second thought for today is more a personal musing than a hard take: playing "older" games is much more of a chore for me than reckoning with other older media.

The tl;dr version of this observation is that because games are both interactive and generally longer than other media, the physical toll and time commitment necessary to get past an older game's mechanical and graphical limitations is prohibitive.
But this is where personal preferences come in strong.

Like for movies, some folks can't get into black & white or silent movies because it's so out of date. But I find that stuff interesting- well done B&W cinematography is practically its own art. The antiquated language and references of good old books makes me want to look stuff up and learn. And of course I listen to so much jazz from the early 20th century that it's not "quaint" or old-timey to me, it's vibrant and fun.

I guess for some gamers, the old mechanics are interesting, and I can see that? Watching for example Nick push through the old Star Wars and Lord of the Rings games is fun and he's embracing it, but it seems like torture for me.

This sentiment is coming from trying again to play Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen, a game from 2012, and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night from like, I dunno, the 1990s? And, man, I just feel like I missed my window to get into that stuff.

Dragon's Dogma in particular is one I quit before because I didn't understand what it was trying to do with its combat, where you can climb bosses and such. But there is a huge fanbase who like similar RPGs I also like. And after loving Shadow of the Colossus remake I was intrigued by what DD has to offer.

But actually playing it reminded me of the negative parts of the brown RPGs of the era that I enjoyed but in despite of pushing through its frustrating parts. This is the era of the last two non-multiplayer Elder Scrolls, Witcher 2, and Dragon Age, where trudging through brown caves with personality-less protagonists was the penance I suffered for interesting systems, story choices and world-building.
Games have gotten too pretty and good and I've gotten too old to deal with that crap any more. It was just really hard to continue getting stuck on roads by bandits with old clugey combat systems after playing the smooth as butter combat of Ragnarok, Bayo3, and yes even Elden Ring which despite my many criticism still feels great to swing a sword.

At this point I think 2015 is my cut-off for what constitutes and "old" game because that is when Witcher 3 and Bloodborne came out. They still feel like "modern" games and are, of course, my benchmark for gaming excellence.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Which is weird as that problem can be solved by either having a large review staff on rotation, or just hiring more people to cover other games.

Good point and I was gonna mention that. For outlets like Kotaku, they have multiple reviewers so what are they complaining about? I understand SkillUp complaining because he's a solo content creator (still shouldn't factor in his review but at least it's understandable and I accept that... like my god does he hate AC: Valhalla because it's such a time-suck but I like it).

 

[BrawlMan]

SkillUp complaining because he's a solo content creator (still shouldn't factor in his review but at least it's understandable and I accept that

Even for solo creators and reviewers, you all don't have to review every game under the sun, nor forced to play something you know is unenjoyable. Civit and certain others got that figured out a long time ago. If you don't like it, nor have interest then don't gripe about having to review it.

he hate AC: Valhalla because it's such a time-suck but I like it).

I don't blame him on that. I've been hating Assassin's Creed after Brotherhood. Since you like the game, enjoy it for what it is and just let others have their opinion. Unless he is griping about it in every single new video like Gaming Brit did back between 2018 and half of 2019 about God of War 4, then I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Dalisclock]

Good point and I was gonna mention that. For outlets like Kotaku, they have multiple reviewers so what are they complaining about? I understand SkillUp complaining because he's a solo content creator (still shouldn't factor in his review but at least it's understandable and I accept that... like my god does he hate AC: Valhalla because it's such a time-suck but I like it).

As someone who used to like AC(a lot) and no longer does, the solution is to quit playing them. If the thought of playing a game fills you with dread, just don't. Instead of a review just say "I don't like where these games are going. I haven't liked the last few. This one seems to be more of the stuff I don't like and not enough of the stuff I did like. I'm not gonna waste any more of our time going on about it. Play them if you want but I'm no longer doing so". I don't begrudge the fact Yathzee doesn't review RTSs or CoD because he clearly doesn't enjoy them.

To be fair, like what you want and damn what others think. But if you don't like something, don't feel like you have to do it. There are PLENTY of things to play out there and nobody can cover them all. I wouldn't presume to go out to review Rougelikes(I've played a few Rogue-lites and I'm okay with them) or sports games because they don't appeal to me at all but I'm fine with other people enjoying them.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I don't begrudge the fact Yathzee doesn't review RTSs because he clearly doesn't enjoy them.

To be fair, Yahtzee enjoys an amazing amount of leeway that few other reviewers get, because his fanbase is more here for him and his personality than his reviews. Jobber #325 at ReviewSiteDotCom doesn't get to say "Ugh, I don't want to review that, get #782 to do it".

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Yesterday's Slightly Something Else was about poorly paced games, inspired by the lackluster-to-negative response that most of the Escapist crew have to Ragnarok.
So my hot take is that not only is Ragnarok paced just fine, but this is purely a symptom of games critics being "forced" to play everything that comes out very quickly.

The complaints came down to "why am I being forced to do this mission." Well if one actually likes the game, one does the mission because that's the game, lol.
Like they were talking about how in one section you "have" to ride around on a yak with an NPC as a secondary character, or in another section you have chase false leads. And yes of course it's game-y, it's largely excuses to go to the next place and do combat or whatever. But... this is how games work.

Meanwhile Yakuze and Persona games are praised to the high heavens and those dialogue scenes go on FOREVER and that's ok I guess, I dunno.

Elden Ring is GOTY and it's the same damn caves and bosses and all you do is ride around and get lost and fight the same crap over and over and everyone knows the last third is garbage but, sure, GOTY. Only when Sony releases cinematic single player games (that aren't actually broken!) do we complain about basic video game characteristics like "the game keeps giving me quests without also giving me a meaningful existential value for my life wah wah wah."

True, with deadlines and pressure to report accurately on several different elements of a big "AAA" game especially it's not surprising

It is the game, but there are also several areas where things involving gameplay grind to a snail's pace to serve the story/narrative. I wouldn't have minded if some of these sequences like the Yak were just cinematics vs *keep pressing up*.

In the case of Elden Ring, there is very little the player is "forced" to do, other than well, progress in the game somehow. I mean sure, you have to get a key to open a path to Haligtree, and you have to kill three Shardbearers or whatever to get to Leyndell, but even in these cases the player has options with how to do so. Yeah it goes on forever but since so much of it is designed from the creator's mouths themselves as optional, it kinda leaves some of the onus on the player for how much to engage with. There's no way in hell anyone constructs pre-release reviews off of anything close to 100%-ing games anyways, and that's no different here. It's primarily a character build game with a "story" attached mostly in the background to flesh things out. Practically everything is gameplay-driven, which is probably the biggest reason why it resonated with so many people.

No idea on Yakuza and Persona; no interest but they are proven popular with those who like all that. Can't comment on how much of that stuff is forced though either.

Pretty sure TGA will give it to Ragnarok

 

[twistedmic]

Jobber #325 at ReviewSiteDotCom doesn't get to say "Ugh, I don't want to review that, get #782 to do it".

Technically they can.But doing so is a good way to go from Jobber #325 to Unemployed Schmuck.

 

[BrawlMan]

Why are Sony and other publishers so scared of Elden Ring? - Reader’s Feature

A reader celebrates the success of Elden Ring and berates publishers for not following its lead in creating games that challenge their audience.

metro.co.uk

Yeah no. Other publishers aren't afraid of Elden Ring, you just want a whole bunch of clones to satisfy your gaming lust and nothing else without thinking about the consequences. We already got enough Dark Souls clones as it is, and there will be more anyway. Having a bunch of ER clones would be redundant. We have another Ragnarök hater/downplayer too. I would not call a game like that "shallow".

Sonic Frontiers has some of the best open world in a 3D action platformer. It's not perfect, but it is fun exploring areas, traversing, and unlocking shortcuts. Certainly, better than a majority of the open world crap for the past 3 generations. People and critics like to mock/diss/bring up that Sonic Frontiers is "copying" Breath of the Wild, but what a lot of people forget was that Sonic 06 tried to do a similar open-world and hub-world combination (this was really notable in footage of early builds in 2004-05), but failed due to Sega rushing the game unnecessarily to meet Christmas demand and deadline. I find Frontiers more interesting than whatever BotW is doing, art style aside.

Another Sonic hot take: Sonic Forces is just average. Despite all the wasted potential and its flaws, the game is average overall. I never hated the game, but once I did everything I wanted, I didn't feel much to need to replay again. I still have my save file just in case, but I sold my copy years ago. I know it's not hard to find, but I rather just play Generations again.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Why are Sony and other publishers so scared of Elden Ring? - Reader’s Feature

A reader celebrates the success of Elden Ring and berates publishers for not following its lead in creating games that challenge their audience.

metro.co.uk

Apparently the only thing more difficult than Soulslike games is spellchecking.

I generally don't play Soulslikes. Why? Because I play games for fun. Real life has all the frustration I could ever want. The only Soulslike I've ever enjoyed was Remnant: From the Ashes, because it gave me guns and ways to retreat and re-engage on difficult fights. That's anathema to the "purist" mentality, which demands perfection or starting over.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

] Yeah no. Other publishers aren't afraid of Elden Ring, you just want a whole bunch of clones to satisfy your gaming and nothing else without thinking about the consequences. We already got enough Dark Souls clones as it is, and there will be more anyway. Having a bunch of ER clones would be redundant. We have another Ragnarök hater/down player too. I would not call a game like that "shallow".

Yep, classic opinion piece where the writer acts like everybody else thinks like them. This whole "players don't want to be hand-held" thing is so broad and vague as to be meaningless, and ignores the fundamental reality that there is no such thing as "gamers." How can you talk about folks that both want to dedicate years to World of Warcraft or match bubble colors on their phones on the way to work and everything in between? And like movie goers, you got people like me for whom it's not either/or, there is room for both and all kinds (as in, yes, I actually like in Ragnarok when they give me puzzle hints, and I am obsessed with FromSoftware games).

It's like political writing, at least here in the US- "voters want..." blah blah. Newsflash: different voters want different things, and many voters don't even really want the things they say they want.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Why are Sony and other publishers so scared of Elden Ring? - Reader’s Feature

A reader celebrates the success of Elden Ring and berates publishers for not following its lead in creating games that challenge their audience.

metro.co.uk

Yeah no. Other publishers aren't afraid of Elden Ring, you just want a whole bunch of clones to satisfy your gaming and nothing else without thinking about the consequences. We already got enough Dark Souls clones as it is, and there will be more anyway. Having a bunch of ER clones would be redundant. We have another Ragnarök hater/down player too. I would not call a game like that "shallow".

I really wish we could just take away the internet from these people. The elitist bs is past expiration date.

 

[BrawlMan]

My second thought for today is more a personal musing than a hard take: playing "older" games is much more of a chore for me than reckoning with other older media.

The tl;dr version of this observation is that because games are both interactive and generally longer than other media, the physical toll and time commitment necessary to get past an older game's mechanical and graphical limitations is prohibitive.
But this is where personal preferences come in strong.

Like for movies, some folks can't get into black & white or silent movies because it's so out of date. But I find that stuff interesting- well done B&W cinematography is practically its own art. The antiquated language and references of good old books makes me want to look stuff up and learn. And of course I listen to so much jazz from the early 20th century that it's not "quaint" or old-timey to me, it's vibrant and fun.

I guess for some gamers, the old mechanics are interesting, and I can see that? Watching for example Nick push through the old Star Wars and Lord of the Rings games is fun and he's embracing it, but it seems like torture for me.

This sentiment is coming from trying again to play Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen, a game from 2012, and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night from like, I dunno, the 1990s? And, man, I just feel like I missed my window to get into that stuff.

Dragon's Dogma in particular is one I quit before because I didn't understand what it was trying to do with its combat, where you can climb bosses and such. But there is a huge fanbase who like similar RPGs I also like. And after loving Shadow of the Colossus remake I was intrigued by what DD has to offer.

But actually playing it reminded me of the negative parts of the brown RPGs of the era that I enjoyed but in despite of pushing through its frustrating parts. This is the era of the last two non-multiplayer Elder Scrolls, Witcher 2, and Dragon Age, where trudging through brown caves with personality-less protagonists was the penance I suffered for interesting systems, story choices and world-building.
Games have gotten too pretty and good and I've gotten too old to deal with that crap any more. It was just really hard to continue getting stuck on roads by bandits with old clugey combat systems after playing the smooth as butter combat of Ragnarok, Bayo3, and yes even Elden Ring which despite my many criticism still feels great to swing a sword.

At this point I think 2015 is my cut-off for what constitutes and "old" game because that is when Witcher 3 and Bloodborne came out. They still feel like "modern" games and are, of course, my benchmark for gaming excellence.

I will say that my patience has worn thin for super old difficult or obtuse games in general. There are some old games that age better than others and are timeless, then there are others that are not. It's why I don't bother with a lot of old N64 and certain PS1 games. That even applies to a good amount of PS2 games. At the same time, there are plenty of 360 and PS3 games I don't want to go back to, cuz they look ugly as crap. Depends on what I consider good or have the patience for.

Yep, classic opinion piece where the writer acts like everybody else thinks like them. This whole "players don't want to be hand-held" thing is so broad and vague as to be meaningless, and ignores the fundamental reality that there is no such thing as "gamers." How can you talk about folks that both want to dedicate years to World of Warcraft or match bubble colors on their phones on the way to work and everything in between? And like movie goers, you got people like me for whom it's not either/or, there is room for both and all kinds (as in, yes, I actually like in Ragnarok when they give me puzzle hints, and I am obsessed with FromSoftware games).

The whole "hand-held" argument has been a problem ever since the Wii era and how many publishers and developers or streamlining things. Something that started with the "hardcore GAMRZ", because not every game was stabbing them in the dick unnecessarily. I don't mind easier games, but I certainly can't stand every game to be absurdly difficult either. They're always has to be a right balance between these things. That is why I always pick normal difficulty for the games I play, unless stated otherwise. There are certain gamers that say normal mode is "too easy", but I don't care. If the optional hard difficulty is there from the start, then you have no complaints. Play on the harder mode and let others play how they want to play. I know some games have hard mode locked and you have to beat normal first, but deal with it.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

The only game I ever play on harder then default difficulty is The Witcher 3, because that is my favorite game and the combat is pretty easy once you get used to it, and of course for the achievements/trophies. I honestly can't think of any other game I ever raised the difficulty for. Why would I want to do that, lol.

The feeling of progression for me I think is just more important than most gamers. It's why I have mostly sworn off rogueli*es and don't touch multiplayer. I need things to... go... somewhere.

For this reason, I am extremely disappointed that Super Giant's next game is Hades 2.

 

[Worgen]

The only game I ever play on harder then default difficulty is The Witcher 3, because that is my favorite game and the combat is pretty easy once you get used to it, and of course for the achievements/trophies. I honestly can't think of any other game I ever raised the difficulty for. Why would I want to do that, lol.

I get bored of games quickly if I find them too easy, unless they have something else going for them that propels me forwards, really good story, good characters, etc. If I feel like I have a weapon that's too powerful or find a strategy that is then I tend to try and avoid those. Like in Elden Ring, I got the Icerind Hatchet and stopped using it cause it felt like it was too strong, only found out later it was considered pretty damn powerful by the community at the time.