devtesla wrote on March 1, 2025 at 11:36 PM

Something that kind of ruins my life to think about is that to young people a videogame is like, some random crap they downloaded to their phone covered in ads or sells gatcha rolls or something. Or like Fortnite? The people who buy games that cost between $20-$70 and provide a contained experience is shrinking population, and it's getting older and older. So the games are getting more niche, and people are seeking experiences where they feel challenged because they've played videogames for decades.

Dark Souls specifically pioneered a "tough but fair" feel, where the tension comes from the fact that you're scared to move forward, and the frustration is offset by the fact that you can retreat at any moment and level up. It makes you learn about the world as you move through it, and enemies have extremely well telegraphed moves that you can just roll through. It's a game about learning. It's less hard than it has a reputation for, you just have to slow down and accept failure sometimes, but if you aren't fucking with it than that's not really shameful. I've played enough of them, I think.

So yeah a lot of indie games copy those ideas because it makes players slow down and appreciate things they might blow through otherwise. A lot of them have accessibility options that Souls games don't have, like Tunic has something that makes the bosses easier, but they are meant to be hard. And often these games are not as good as From at realizing what players can take or not.

It used to be where games were going for flow above everything, where a game needed to be neither too hard or too easy, but that comes off as boring to a lot of players these days. Personally I'm less willing to deal with hard action combat because my reactions have gone to shit, but I want to have to think over long term. Love a turn based. And I want a story to think about. So yeah no souls likes for me, but I get the appeal for sure.

twovests OP wrote on March 2, 2025 at 5:28 PM

Fortnite is something I've grown to appreciate (but never play, because I will never make an Epic Games account). The microtransactions are so silly (I feel bad about humanity and society when I think about them) but the game has a lot of technical depth and variety. There's a Guitar Hero in Fortnite. There's a Minecraft in Fortnite. It's really a lot like Ace of Spades was before Jagex killed it.

What I mean to say is "I think you and I think about games similarly and I read your post with that lens." I think the main contention is that "fair" is necessarily subjective, and tricky to define.

If I were to suggest a definition, I'd say a singleplayer game which feels fair is one communicates well, does not have difficulty which demands a huge time commitment, and (counter-intuitively) has generous hitboxes. E.g. Celeste is fair because everything is clearly communicated (you can see the level and know what will kill you), the tricky levels send you back to the start of the screen, and the hitboxes feel sensible by lying to you up and down. (Celeste has three hitboxes, and hazards have tiny and sparse hitboxes.)

And often these games are not as good as From at realizing what players can take or not.

This is something I really liked about Tunic. I could beat any Soulslike I think, but I usually don't want to put up with that. But I had this experience in Tunic, where the first boss was very difficult. I thought I might have sequence broken to an impossible boss. Then, (spoilers; rot-13, you can use DDG to un-rot13 V unq pbyyrpgrq n cntr bs gur phgr va-tnzr znahny, juvpu unq n oyheel fperrafubg bs gung obff ng ebhtuyl zl fxvyy yriry, jvgu na rapbhentvat "LBH PNA QB VG!" zrffntr. Gur tnzr nagvpvcngrq zl pbaprea naq gbyq zr, npghnyyl, lbh pna orng guvf obff.

Then I beat the boss, and I was able to trust that I could beat any of the bosses in Tunic. They were just about the edge of what I was willing to put up with, though. I liked that experience very very much.