Part 2 of the previous article.
Imagine you have this friend who's renowned for throwing really great parties. No one can stop talking about their last party - it was just incredible, amazing, the party of the century, how about that music? - and everyone's looking forward to the next one. So they finally announce their next party, it's gonna be great, everyone's invited, they've got the same DJ, there's this big build-up, and then at the last minute, they announce that: oh, by the way, this is a BDSM party where every guest has to have their genitals stomped.
Now, some people are into this. Some people are! But most people are kinda hesitant. Genital stomping hurts, after all. It's not pleasant! And genital stomping wasn't part of the last party, after all. Do we have to have genital stomping? Can't we just have a great party like the last one?
Finally, your friend announces: OK, you don't have to have your genitals stomped, but if you don't have your genitals stomped, you can't have drinks. Furthermore, if you don't want your genitals stomped, you have to fill out this 200-item inventory of your preferences when it comes to sexual practices.
Responses are mixed. Some object: You're the host; aren't you supposed to be putting together the party? Why do we have to fill out a questionnaire to have a good time? Some leap to the host's defense: If you insist on not having your genitals stomped, you can get just what you want, you big babies, and who cares about drinks, anyway? Some are confused: What is "sounding" anyhow, and how do I respond if I don't have a dick? And some are just wondering: Why does CBT have to be a central part of this experience?
OK, so the popular response to those reluctant to play Mina the Hollower because of its difficulty is, "Well, there are tons of cheats built-in; why are you complaining?" And yes, it has purportedly has over 200 cheats built in, but a) players signed up for a Zelda-like, not Pinball Construction Kit, and b) by disabling achievements when those cheats are triggered, the game's indicating that it doesn't really want you to use the cheats. I mean, obviously. They're cheats. You're cheating.
And going back to a): if I were a writer and gave you 200 dropdowns to customize the protagonist, antagonist, plot, plot twists, etc., at some point, I'm going from "choose your own adventure" to "well, you fuckin' do it, then." I'm abdicating the design job I was hired to do.
Games that ask you to tailor your own gameplay environment are very different from games where you play through a designed experience - Mario Maker vs. Mario, let's say. They call for different skill sets and offer very different types of entertainment - with many not finding the former entertaining at all.If you don't like the tasteful and accessible metaphor I employed above, consider this one instead: say your friend gets everyone together for a game of baseball, but they announce at the last second that instead of standard rules, everyone has to round nine bases instead of four, and the home run wall's gonna be moved back to double the distance, and the ball's gonna be made of lead. Yeah, they say, it'll be tougher, but you'll understand once you finally break through and get that feeling of accomplishment.
When there's pushback, they announce that, OK, instead, every player can choose how many bases there are and what ball they use and how far back the wall is, but their runs won't count. When people ask hey, can't we just play standard baseball?, the response is NO, WHY ARE YOU BEIng so uNREASONAbLE ABOUT THis.
Look: when the pendulum has swung back the other way and the cognoscenti are debating whether Soulslikes should exist at all, as their high level of difficulty is exclusionary, I'm actually on the side of the Soulslikes: I don't think they should be forced to scale down the challenge, because the challenge is integral to the genre's identity. At the same time: These games are deliberately made to be miserable! It should be the least surprising thing in the world that they aren't for everyone.
(NETA: I have my problems with Jeff Gerstmann nowadays, but he gets it in one: "What if instead of solving that problem by saying if you don't like it, you can just remove a big chunk of the game, what if you made it good? I don't know.")
