@Articuno76: Agree 100%, but apparently this is a 'toxic' suggestion, and constitutes 'shaming'.

I for one don't really care if somebody wants to engage in the facade you mentioned. If that's all they need in order to be entertained, then fantastic, great for them. But to suggest that they are owed the opportunity to participate in that facade by the artists that created the work is ludicrous.

Developers don't owe players anything other than the product that was purchased, as is. If the product fails to live up to the player's expectations, then maybe they could chalk it up as a learning experience, and do some extra research before making their next purchase.

But hey, maybe this is the cry of the next generation, telling developers that their challenging games are no longer wanted. Maybe easy mode is the future of gaming?

@Renunciation: Dating/waifu simulator? It doesn't look like my kind of game, but...those warnings! Is this game a special kind of eff'd up or something?

Hey, if we're going to view mechanical difficulty as an unfair gateway, why stop there?

What about emotional difficulty? What if a game deals with issues that some players just can't tolerate, and they are unfairly blocked from seeing all the game's content? Do we need an 'insert happier story' button, or a 'make it less scary' button?

What about intellectual difficulty? What if a game requires reading skills to fully enjoy, excluding illiterate players from all of it's content? Should we 'shame' them into learning to read, essentially telling them to 'git gud'? What about subtext and deeper meaning that less sophisticated players may miss, hidden in the game's dialogue and scenario? Should there be a 'make it more obvious' button, so players don't miss that content?

Should all games be all things to all people? Should each one ship with a set of digital surgical tools, allowing players to slice out anything they don't like, leaving an individual experience tailored to perfection?

I say sure, why not, but only so long as it's what the developer wants to include in their creation, and certainly not because they somehow owe it to you. If a developer makes a mechanically difficult game, and you happen to do poorly with mechanically difficult games...perhaps your money is better spent on any one of the thousands of titles out there which are better suited to your tastes and abilities?

Why buy a game you probably won't be able to finish, and then complain when you actually can't?

That looks like one expensive turd, right there.

@seriousdave: I recall the exact same thing with the Little Big Planet community levels. The high concept / low gameplay levels were king, those plus the levels that just gave you lots of stuff for free without any effort. Apparently, the popular opinion is "we don't need gameplay in our games". :(

GW3 looks like a fun twist, Galaxies was great. I'll be looking for that one.

@sabretooth2066 I see a lot more than 16 colors.

@Darkhol0w @skunknuts For the most part yes, they are, but that's not my point. They are still unique when compared to the majority of newer games. That makes them diverse, and that (among other things) makes them important.

Nintendo is an awesome developer, and we need their lighthearted diversity in a sea of gray corridor shooters and "I wanna be a movie" games.

Mighty No 9 looks like it has a good feel to it, controls seem spot on.