I do agree. The half of the problem is finding out which games do offer a nice challenge without perceiving you as a minor on easy or think you have a difficult social enviroment for difficulties on normal or above

Most 4x or strategy games seem to offer such an premise too, now this is partially because a.i. rulesets are currently not enhanced enough ( hardware ) or evolved into this direction where most of the general scene seems to be comfortable with ( software ). That scene does provide a series of strategy for newbies titles where one can play to their delight without feeling skittled for whatever reason possible

Most times reading through reviews can grant a perfect sample of what to buy and what not but in the end you need to gain a pro active attitude yourself with reaching out to the community of a game you like to try to see if this will fit you

I guess in current days, with a gazilions of titles available such a attitude is almost mandatory for any casual gamer

It especially annoys me when developers use difficulty levels as an excuse to pad out gameplay: If you play on "Easy", you didn't get the "Real" ending, or you miss out on several important story points.

Certainly the game developer is free to do whatever they want in their game, they could have the entire game consist of a character on the screen constantly berate the player if they want.

But there's no artistic merit in, or artistic integrity being upheld by making a game with a difficulty level where 70% of people would find it frustratingly hard, 28% of people would find it boringly easy, and only 2% of people would enjoy the challenge. There's nothing noble about that decision, nor money-smart- there isn't a niche of players that will dump all the money and praise at your game for finding the exact slot of difficulty that they will enjoy and no one else will.
I'd even go as far as to call it bad game design, and more indicative of the skills of the developer (not in a bad way, maybe they just weren't skillful enough to make a better balanced game).

Excuse me, but there is a difference. It's one thing to simply admit that you are not up to the task of beating certain game - I can understand you in this case, since I myself haven't finished several games (including Super Meat Boy and Divine Divinity) due to high demand on my skills and time. I've also had to watch a detailed walkthrough/guide to beat Dark Souls and used solutions for most adventure games I've played.

But it's totally different thing to DEMAND devs to change something in their game, simply because YOU have problems with it. In fact, I've seen several articles about Sekiro (that I've also haven't finished btw) where "journalists" complained the lack of "easy mode", which looked like a total cringe. Tuning difficulty demands work, you know, the work and resources that can go to improve some other aspects of the game or aren't available to the devs in the first place.

well, Sakuya doesn't respect those not giving it their best.

The really annoying part is either not being told you need to do something for the "real ending", or it being straight-up impossible to get it on your first playthrough. A good example of the first for me was Oddworld New 'n' tasty, where I had no idea the number of prisoners I save actually influences the ending until I reached it and got the bad one. The latter would be something like Oxenfurt, where the "best" (supposedly) ending is only reachable after replaying the whole game over and over and over. Along with what you do through the game, the act of replaying it over and over is necessary itself to get that ending.

With respect to RPGs, there was a period where nearly every single JRPG that came out was way too easy; Final Fantay 7 is one example of a game released during this period that failed to provide a good challenge for veteran RPG players. (Exceptions exist, like SaGa Frontier, but those were the vast minority and didn't have the same influence on later JRPGs.) That is one reason that so many RPGs look down on easy games. (Of course, the solution is to provide difficulty settings, though that doesn't solve the other issues of JRPGs of that era, like excessive unskipable cutscenes, or the difficulty of knowing where you can go on screen in the Final Fantasy and SaGa games of that era.)

Before anyone asks about WRPGs, this happens to be not long after the time they stopped being turn-based, and many of them (Baldur's Gate comes to mind) have their own sets of issues.

The solution is for games to avoid missables entirely. It should be possible to ignore side quests until the very last save point, and then go back and do all the sidequests you missed.

(Related is the missable stats issue, though that is a problem with the game's growth system rather than with the game's structure.)

Like Castlevania 64, right? (Though it's even worse, as you miss a large portion of the game as well, as the game just ends early.)

I could also mention Ecco 2: The Tides of Time, which has some hard mode exclusive levels. Admittedly, those levels are harder than the other levels, and one of them uses the same concept of one of Ecco 1's most infamous levels, so one might argue that it's no big loss for those who don't like their games hard.

I do. Right above I've just said that I don't wish something more easy and I had been downvoted. XD

Understood... but almost completely disagree with your thesis.

If you equate art to commerce, then Hollywood's biggest budget sequels are the pinnacle of art.

No, commerce and commercial success are completely separate to art and artistry. Commercial success does not equal art.

In fact, often art makes no money -- take the career of Van Gogh for example. Yet we'd still consider his work art, yes?

Is it a great commercial move to make a niche game? No, in most cases that is a bad commercial move (although not always -- as Dark Souls or Flower or Journey have proven). But fulfilling a "niche" doesn't often remove the art / artistry... in fact art is born from translating specific perspectives (niches).

As I see it, the need for every game to be instantly, thoroughly, and democratically digestable by every audience is fostered by entitlement. Art almost always asks more of the audience than a product. Art is often confusing and difficult and takes our own energy, reflection, and perspective (and sometimes research) to appreciate. But those who consistently demand commercial, universally-digestable product are in fact refusing artistry and artistic merit.

It could well be argued that any "watered-down" mass consumption product is not art at all.

I am not arguing that every game should be difficult... or that every difficult game is art... but that niche games (like Dark Souls) are in fact art...

... and...

... the fact that a game isn't made for every audience / consumer isn't a negative. For instance... NIOH is a wonderful game. I would consider it a work of art. I respect its artistic merit even though I have never made it more than 3/4's of the way through the game... and may never be able to finish it.

I can respect the artistry... but only because I do not demand that it cater to my level of ability (something many early 90's Nintendo gamers certainly felt many times over!). I do not demand that a mountain become easier to climb just because my ability or interest in climbing is low. If my ability or interest in climbing is low, I don't try to climb the mountain... and certainly don't complain when I fail.

If you were to walk into a medieval cathedral, would you criticize it for not being made to your ability?

Again, gamers should be able to thoroughly enjoy whatever games are "their thing" -- and should never be shamed for their abilities or interests (and this is one thing I detest about gaming culture in general ) -- but IMO demanding universal, "democratic" accessibility even through something like a "difficulty slider" is wrong. If a dev feels a slider works within the context of what they are trying to accomplish, great.... but if not, there shouldn't be a slider just to make a larger part of the "consumer audience" feel an unearned sense of accomplishment.

But my thesis wasn't that commercial success is artistic success. My example was attempting to point out that simply making a game that excludes vasts swathes of the people doesn't make your game artistic, and in this specific example, in today's world, it makes you a bad game designer.

If someone made a game where you needed to press Ctrl+Alt+Tab+Shift+}+L+W+0+/+BKSPC+F12 and then click your left mouse button to fire a gun, in a high-brow attempt to show the mental difficulty involved in actually killing a person, the author might consider it art, but it would also be bad design (which I feel would trump any artistic merit beyond any two-second experimental attempt at playing).

If someone made an interactive fiction game with a foreground/background text colour combination that made it painful to read in a high-brow attempt to convey the pain of the story in a more direct way, it might be art, but it would also be considered bad design.

If someone made a game where the player would have to know the double entendre meaning of a phrase in an obscure South American language to solve a puzzle, it might a high-brow attempt to call attention to obscure groups, but it would be bad design.

Simply making a game a specific difficulty that is too easy and too difficult for the vast majority of its audience to enjoy...I don't see that as either artistic or good design.

If we were going to talk about games that are real "art", I don't think a commercial game such as Dark Souls would be anywhere on the same planet. You'd have way more obscure indie titles like...I dunno...The Marriage or Passage. A "art" game would make use of game design paradigms (or subvert game design paradigms) to convey whatever the author wanted to convey. Limiting accessibility for the sake of only having to deal with a very specific audience doesn't make an art game, it makes you a lazy designer.

No, it wouldn't. The Secret World is a great game in terms of quest design!

That may not have been your intention, but you did in fact make that connection (quoted below).

As you stated:

"But there's no artistic merit in, or artistic integrity being upheld by making a game with a difficulty level where 70% of people would find it frustratingly hard, 28% of people would find it boringly easy, and only 2% of people would enjoy the challenge. There's nothing noble about that decision, nor money-smart- there isn't a niche of players that will dump all the money and praise at your game for finding the exact slot of difficulty that they will enjoy and no one else will."

If a game dev wants to make a game for 2% of gamers sobeit.
You use the terms "high brow attempt" which are often used by critics who see art as undemocratic. It would seem that you see art as elitist and are arguing for games to be a universally democratic product and not "high brow" art.

My point is there is room for both.

I'm sorry but your hypotheticals are so extreme to be outlandish.

Obviously games that are impossible to complete are poorly designed, but no one is talking about impossible games... or inherently broken games. And IMHO easy games like Journey are art as well.

If The Secret World has a quest that ws designed in such a way as to require you to have that knowledge beforehand, and not be able to get to it otherwise (collaboration, AR games, discussion as part of the game's design), then yes, I'd say that quest is badly designed.

I wish you wouldn't take meaning where I haven't explicitly spelled it out- leads to so much space for misinterpretation!

For example, in the bit you bolded, I pointed out that having a limited audience doesn't make your piece of media art. Your piece of media being art MAY limit the audience.
And I used "high brow attempt" instead of "art" to preemptively ward of any condemnations of "But that isn't art!", not to make a dig at art being undemocratic or elitist.

The examples I gave aren't impossible to complete, just badly designed. And you say my hypotheticals are outlandish, but I basically paraphrased them from existing games.
I've seen many games, for example, that attempt to unify the art and aesthetic for a greater thematic punch (by choosing hard to read "medieval" fonts or colour combinations, for example), unfortunately ending up with bad design.

I've seen adventure games that required the player to have culturally specific foreknowledge from outside of the game to solve puzzles.

I've seen games that complicate gunplay and gunhandling in an attempt to be "realistic", instead simply ending up with bad design.

I'm sorry but from your response, I'm uncertain you understand the interpretation of the terminology used in your arguments. I'm not stating that you are stupid... but that your wording may not be accurately reflecting what you are trying to say.

I've stated my claims and will retire from any further argument with you.

Of course, you are able to get all the knowledge through collaboration and google search (in fact, The Secret World have a browser built in the game just for that very purpose). But if you're someone who don't like googling and aren't in the ARG community, this automatically cuts you off as an audience.

And on the other hand, if you ARE into AR games, no other types of puzzle will be interesting and satisfying for you. So, no matter how genious gamedesigner makes the game there is no way to satisfy both type of the audience. Well, maybe there is but it would indeed take a genius level of designer.

If a game is hard because you need reflexes, persistence, training... well, I personally don't see the "art side" of that. It sounds more like sports to me.