@spartanx169x: Exercising such a talent well is indeed a skill, but simply bringing a reflective attitude to one's experience in order to cultivate that skill is a mindset.
i.e. attaining skill has little to do with wasting hundreds of hours learning how to do some pointless thing in a game like some 'sad basement dweller', and more to do with just being mindful.
I raise this point because many people think people who are good at games are so because they waste their life developing arbitrary skills... when in reality it's simply because they play their games with a proactive mindset.
i.e. the biggest gap to proficiency in a game actually has nothing to do with the games themselves (the common lament against 'difficult' games) but the attitude of the player. Or, more specifically, the mindset/thought process they go through.
If you are a functioning adult in society you clearly have a certain degree of intelligence that allows you to navigate life. So the idea that grown people just can't overcome the intellectual hurdle required for videogame proficiency seems silly. I simply don't believe it, and I think anyone who does is selling themselves short.
The cerebral challenge a tough game asks you to rise does indeed require a skill, but it's a common task solving skill that most adults are somewhat proficient at, not something unique to videogames specifically.
@lavamelon: 'the question is, how MUCH challenge is necessary?'
I think that depends entirely on the game. That doesn't mean every game has to aim for some kind of concessionary middle ground. No. It means that some games would be better if they were just easy, and only easy.
I say that, because people tend to mischaracterise people who champion developer-curated difficulty as elitists after a prize completion, but there's just as many games that benefit from being easy (and only easy) as there are those that benefit from being hard (and only so), and then there are games that can be variable with multiple difficulties, or even a dynamic difficulty etc;
Long story short: it depends on the game, the intended experience, the role of difficulty within the game etc; etc;
As some have pointed out, some games thrive on their difficulty/challenge such that they essentially ARE their challenge. Other games are about social interaction and downtime. Others yet are about narrative driven experiences where the choices you're forced to make tax the player. Others yet still about simply about exploring and experimenting with the world at large etc; etc;
Proponents of difficult games don't fail to see these different kinds of games (Life is Strange or Animal Crossing most certainly would not benefit from being difficult), but they do acknowledge the presence of games that work BECAUSE they are a staunch challenge.
@lavamelon: Games aren't a service (okay... some of them actually are TBF), they are a product. And if there's one lament of many a business guru it's that consumers don't know what they want until it's made for them.
@lavamelon: Not necessarily. A game that is 'hard if you want it to be' doesn't quite have the same marketing ring to it as 'this game is brutal!'. And Cuphead's stellar sales (as well as the entire marketing push behind Dark Souls) show there is demand for that.
Besides, we shouldn't be championing targeting a wide audience as if it is inherently a good thing because if publishers wanted to do that they'd keep making the same mass market oriented, design-by-committee games over and over until they've run them into the ground.
If you want unique experiences, you have to accept that it won't be to everyone's taste. And that's fine. Not every game has to appeal to everyone. Heck, most of them don't.
@lavamelon: When I play a game the true experience is the one where the difficulty level of the game provides a sufficient catalyst for me to interact with all the mechanics at my disposal. Also, I think you are confusing publishers for developers. i.e. it's the point where the mechanics of the game come into their own.
Developers very much care about the experience or they wouldn't build a game around certain mechanics (and depth into those mechanics).
It's not 'difficulty' that people who want a challenge are really looking for, but depth. But difficulty is normally what provides the pressure to incentivise deep mechanical engagement.
@Reuwsaat: Something that is a skill can be transferred to another situation, whereas situation specific muscle memory is only useful for one specific task.
Platforming skills are definitely a transferable skill. If they weren't the difficulty curves many genre standouts enjoy would be impossible without literally rehashing (rather than reiterating on) platforming challenges.
Let me put it like this: is playing snooker or pool muscle memory? Or a skill? At first, as you get a feel for it, it's muscle memory. But as you become more proficient your experience becomes a skill.
@lavamelon: 'The problem with your argument is that you seem to think that all gamers have the exact same skill level.'
I think the biggest dividing factor between whether someone finds a game easy or not has less to do with skill, and more to do with intellect.
Taking Dark Souls as an example: there's very little physical dexterity required as the game is intentionally slow-paced. What separates those who succeed and die is the moment to moment decisions they make, and how they reflect upon loss.
I suspect many people who aren't very good at games are actually 'playing them dumb'; rather than taking a step back to assess what the problem is how they could address it.
It's no surprise that people who are generally good at mechanically deconstructing a game (such as certain Youtube critics who go into great depth in their reviews) are better at games than other people who have just as much experience playing games.
It's not about the about of time you sink into a game, it's about what you do with that time.
Articuno76's comments