>>44940165>Then it's a mistake on the developers' part for allowing the players to "ruin" their own experience by not playing the "intended" way. You're not supposed toI guess you just want games to hold your hand and force you to go from point a to b or some shit.
What's next going to complain about the balance issue in mario kart, gonna cry about how it's not being patched to fit the competitive community?
>No, it isn't, because action isn't an option that the player can take in the first place. Nobody goes into an AC game expecting action, but most do go into a Pokemon game expecting a competent main adventureyou can create you're own action with hide and seek or any other made up things you can do.
>Pic related.great, how does that detract from the point I made? You know what a rhetorical argument right?
>There is a HUGE difference between just playing a game normally and going out of your way to invent a new "game mode" to freshen up your experience. The fact that you even consider this a fair comparison is silly.anon once again you don't address the point being made and instead take the rhetorical argument literally. My point was that expecting the developers to predict every possible way the player will engage with a game, and then satisfy every possible option is asinine
>No, it isn't, because you get the same amount of content either way and the only difference is the approach in which the players took to obtain that content. Sitting on the games for a few days will not suddenly add more content to the game and a non-complaint would be along the lines of "This game was over too quickly" when the player knows full well that they went out of their way to rush it towards the end.You literally don't get the same experience speed running a game compared to taking your time. Of course I never said it added more content, the point is that the game was developed with playing for an hour or 2 at a time every day in mind.
