Video games are an interactive art form that help engage the audience through the sheer amount of unique elements put into it that no other medium of entertainment is lucky enough to have. With a vast audience on its hand, all from unique walks of life, the gaming industry attempts to cater to as many of their needs and niches to fill in the gaps of an ever-crowding market. Some games require minimal player input, while others require dedicated practice. Some lean on their story elements and use that to pull their weight, while others leave more room for their mechanics to engage the player. That said, the majority of games exist within these extremes without necessarily falling too hard in one direction, enough that you could make a parody of the political alignment chart but for video games; and hey, isn’t variety the spice of life?
In the wake of social media, there’s been a lot more emphasis on accessibility for games, trying to accommodate as many consumers as possible. It sounds reasonable in a business sense for the companies behind these games, as well as a social sense for players who just want to share their love with others. Despite this, you constantly see wide disparities between different parts of the communities, or even between the community, general or otherwise, and game reviewers; people are consistently arguing which entry in a franchise is better or which game series is more challenging; people are commonly presenting their “hot takes” or “spicy lasagnas” that go against the norm of what the overwhelming majority believes; people are very vocal and aggressive over their opinions in a social space where the main goal is to share one another’s experiences and overall have fun in doing so.
So what gives? Surely, people all have their different methods when it comes to playing games, both in terms of efficacy or direction, but could there be a definitive “wrong” way to play a game? If that’s the case, what is the “right” way to play those games? This is a question that’s been on my mind for a while that I’ve sort of been anxious to seriously voice it out loud lest I be misinterpreted as some kind of zealous hardcore elitist who’s all bark but no bite. Moreover, I didn’t have all that many points to go on when it came to attempting to dissuade each side of this argument, so it wasn’t something I couldn’t do on my own. I decided to ask the open community on Twitter and I got a wealth of great responses, enough to write an article like this.
Full disclosure: many aspects of this article do not originate from me; I’ve simply collected the responses folks have sent me in order to organize, elaborate on from my perspective, and sort them out. I will be linking everyone who contributed to this article, as well as the original poll, at the end. Without further ado, here’s these arguments alongside why I think the answer to “is there a wrong way to play video games?” is a definite “yes, but with a catch”.
Player Individuality
As I previously mentioned above, all players come from radically different backgrounds that end up shaping who they are, in terms of where they live, their social status, their hobbies growing up, the communities they participate in, their own individual decisions, and so on. It’s no surprise that all of these elements could easily predispose certain people to different genres. For instance, PlayStation was (and still is) extremely prevalent in the Middle East, raising an entire generation of Sony fans with very few people interested in either Microsoft or Nintendo’s hardware. Money can also contribute heavily to what kind of games people had access to depending on the generation, with less fortunate players either relegating to cheaper handheld titles or older games, and even less fortunate ones being pushed to rely on piracy or emulation on top of being forced into whichever system was the most accessible to them.
Personally, I grew up on licensed trash that were often action games, point ‘n click adventures and platformers, but outside of that sphere I still played other regular action games and platformers, in addition to fighting games, card games, and to a very miniscule extent, Japanese role-playing games. It took me some time to warm up to certain genres like shooters and survival horrors, but new JRPGs and fighting games I tried, years after having not touched any for a while, felt pretty natural. My exposure to certain genres even helped me get accustomed to others, such as how fighting games helped me snuggle into hack ‘n slash, or how card games helped me snuggle into puzzle games. On the other hand, western-style RPGs, strategy and realistic racing simulators never really caught my attention. Everyone has a story of their own, much like mine.
This difference in experiences could easily set up players with unique expectations for specific story elements or mechanics. Some gameplay elements transfer across different genres, effectively opening some up to new players who had experience from other closely-related genres. For example, fighting games lean heavily on combos, frame data, and accurate timing; all of which are elements you can find in hack ‘n slash or Souls-like games, even if slightly different. Most survival horror games rely on both knowing how to make the most out of a gun and of your limited inventory, but another genre you could have previously played, like shooters, could easily cozy you in to the idea that you’re going to be very limited on supplies, as opposed to something like in Call of Duty.
While the social gaming space likes to bring up how important gameplay is over graphics, this is still a bias that exists within a majority of the community in varying degrees. Personally, I have a miniscule bias against anything that predates the fourth generation (SNES), as receptive as I try to be about as many games as possible. On the other hand, janky ugly 3D graphics from the fifth generation are relatively fine in my book, but maybe not much so for even older or younger gamers.
If Person A is playing Dark Souls blind for the first time, but has some experience with games such as Devil May Cry, they’re very likely going to either fare better or pick up how the game works quicker than Person B, who has little experience with action-heavy video games. On the other hand, if Person B has more experience with JRPGs, they’re more likely to pick something up like Final Fantasy X better than Person A. Of course this doesn’t just apply to game mechanics, but even graphics as well depending on the era each individual player has had access to; Person C, who grew up in the 90s, is going to be comfortable with a game like Wild Arms, but Player D, who focused more on games in the seventh gaming generation, might not even consider looking at it.
The amount of games each person played, and how familiar they are with video games in general, could also factor in. If Player E played over 200 games while Player F only played 20, one argument is that Player E is more likely going to be more comfortable with trying out a new genre than Player F, while the other argument suggests that Player E could be more critical of a new genre due to having built their own standards for a video game whereas Player F would be more receptive to new ideas.
Expectation vs. Reality
After multiple video games and having built up our own standards for each of the individual elements that goes into a game, there’s always some expectations people have when going into a new game. Humans rely a lot on comparing things in order to feasibly express their opinions, and likewise there’s going to be that one game that blew the person away, over a certain element that the player now expects other games to either match up to or surpass. Sometimes, this could also lead to games that do deliver that element as well, but never really surpass it and yet are judged more harshly because “X did it first/better”.
Hype is a double-edged tool, and with it you could very easily set folks up for excitement or disappointment. Marketing needs to find a middle ground where it reaches out to people who might be interested in a product, but at the same time never overreach and potentially exaggerate its capabilities, nor should it sell itself short and fail to notify the community that would be interested in it. I remember 2011 being a big year of disappointments, with so many games marketing themselves as being able to do everything and anything, with only a select hand few ever delivering on that promise. It was the year of the rise of single-player shooter with tacked on multiplayer, and although it did start the year before, it was at its peak in 2011.
On the other hand, you have games that never received the marketing they needed, such as Blades of Time, which undersold considerably due to Konami’s poor marketing on top of the game’s niche status. Something like The Banner Saga 2 sold far less than its prequel simply because the original was built on Kickstarter, and the fanbase expected the sequel to also eventually show up on Kickstarter but never did (in fact, many fans weren’t even aware that the sequel came out). This is why The Banner Saga 3 went back to Kickstarter even after the developer had already established itself and was less financially reliant on the crowd-funding platform.
There are games that enjoy underselling themselves in order to keep the element of surprise over what the game really is about: two of those games are Undertale and Spec-Ops: The Line, each with varying degrees of success. Undertale sold itself as a friendly RPG adventure inspired by Earthbound where you could befriend monsters, with a more sinister meta undertone for those who ventured past the game’s intended point of play. Spec-Ops sold itself as a brown gritty military shooter just like all the others during its time, but in actuality it was an overly-critical piece about not just modern military video games, but colonialism and nationalism (a video game adaptation of Heart of Darkness, as some would say). Sadly, the latter didn’t manage to sell all that well due to the abundancy of similar games at its time and instead saw mild success among curious consumers who discovered it through word of mouth years later, while Undertale had very little competition outside of its source of inspiration, which was long overdue by the time it came out. Needless to say, despite their disparity in success, both games did maintain certain surprises that kept its players hooked when they expected less.
Sometimes, games neither oversell nor undersell, but sell different expectations about themselves. This could either be done intentionally, as was the case with Metal Gear Solid 2 and Danganronpa V3 (for reasons I won’t discuss here due to how essential these plot elements should not be spoiled), or it could be done accidentally much like with NieR:Automata. Due to the attachment of Platinum Games to the game as its developer, many folks expected a quirky hack ‘n slash backed with some decent story-telling, on top of some flashy fan-service mostly because of the community and the open honest intentional admission to its inclusion by the game’s director, Yoko Taro, rather than the official marketing material. Some folks were very surprised when they found out about its more free-roaming structure, it being less of an outright hack ‘n slash but more of an action-RPG with rock-solid mechanics, and its impeccable yet downright depressing narrative. A minority of folks were turned off by the game due to its inclusion of fan-service, some assuming that it was being incredibly direct about it (which is far from true), while others were very pleasantly surprised by what it had in store.
It’s due to this layer of insincerity that certain players could miss out on aspects that were never really made apparent, fostering a sort of gamer bias. I personally wasn’t going to touch Undertale past the normal ending, and had to be told that there was more to it. Some players have also played NieR:Automata up to Ending A and assumed Route B was going to be more of the same with very few differences, completely missing out on Route C and the main appeal behind the game. In addition to that, a large sum of customers expected Bayonetta levels of quality from NieR:Automata, despite the game playing by different rules and not sharing the exact same genre as Bayonetta, and are quickly met with disappointment once they realize there’s only three regular combos, while failing to notice other potential means to combat and movement, such as slide-attacking and propelling oneself forward in the air using the pod, without the need to unlock or buy those abilities from the in-game store, on top of the chips that you do need to buy which unlock completely new mechanics altogether. Groups of players felt that Metal Gear Solid 2 and Danganronpa V3 sold out for the sake of a goofy gimmick which they didn’t really see the appeal in.
Psyche and Commitment
Players often go through different moods and can have sudden changes in demands and needs. Playing a slew of games of a certain genre or being engaged with aspects in real life could predispose a need to want to play something else. It’s common for folks to play games that rely on less concentration around stressful school or office hours; games that focus less on important narrative and complicated gameplay elements, but primarily on simple straight-forward gameplay and plot. Some of these games can be shorter contained experiences such as DOOM, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, Owlboy, and so on, whether the reason is for instant gratification or quick relaxation. Other games could offer longer but more derivative experiences, aimed more at giving the player a more relaxing and laid-back experience, such as with Far Cry 5, Stardew Valley, Minecraft, etc.. On the other hand, other people either have more time on their hands or need something they can focus on as a form of escapism from the troubles of real life, which can come in the form of heavily-technical games that demand a lot of player dedication and practice, be it competitive as with fighting games, or more self-challenging experiences, be it shorter (hack ‘n slash and platformers) or longer (Monster Hunter and MMO) games.
Some players are aware of this and manage to sort their games efficiently in a way that matches their current moods while others are not and rather just play whatever is available to them. A mismatch of player mood and the game’s requirements could potentially lead to some players either reaching a conclusion they normally wouldn’t have had they played the game at a different point of time. I personally could never start a new JRPG around the same time when I would have exams coming up very soon, as not only would I potentially be distracted from the game but my studies as well. Something along the lines of Stardew Valley, which take up far less concentration, would be better suited for me to wind down after a long study session. On the other hand, sometimes I’d be too distracted with my responsibilities that I wouldn’t be in the “right mindset” in order to play something challenging like Furi or Dark Souls, effectively reducing my efficacy and lessening my likeability towards these games. If I ever need a quick adrenaline rush, action games like Vanquish, Superhot or DOOM would be far better suited over how straight-forward they are.
Mood aside, games also vary in how much time they ask of the player on a subconscious level. Devil May Cry commonly has 30-minute long levels on average, which is the minimum time you would be expected to invest in this game per session. On the other hand, something like Final Fantasy XV demands a lot more time from the player (say an hour for example) due to how vast the game map is and how far apart the quests are from one another. When you extend play sessions, think of it in terms of building blocks rather than malleable increments of time. If the minimum play session for Devil May Cry is 30 minutes, then you would feel that you need to increase your play session in increments of 30 minutes, and the same applies with Final Fantasy XV which increases in increments of 60 minutes. This is logically because the player is either moving on to the next stage or the next quest. Some games, again like Final Fantasy XV, can often be very demanding and even sport longer loading times, furthering the amount of time you would want to psychologically invest in a game before turning it off and calling it a day, as opposed to something on a handheld which you could easily jump right back into and pause at any point.
A player could easily burn themselves out if they play too much of a game, especially something along the lines of Bayonetta, which demands a great deal of attention from the player, and too little would leave them unsatisfied with their game session. A player who plays a long game like Persona 3 in short sessions could begin to feel that the game has a serious pacing issue, moreso than what most people perceive, as it’s a game that often demands very long sessions from players (minimum 2 hours), but too much would still leave the player tired and bored. There’s no definite value to how much a player should multiply their minimum game time increments as this is a subjective value depending on each individual’s personal stamina, but people should generally be aware of whenever they reach the point where they’re satisfied with what they’ve played and when enough is enough for the day.
Game Design Philosophy
Much like our computers and other tech, video games have gone through different periods of design philosophies. The 5th gaming generation was more about experimentation due to the new 3D graphics; the 6th generation having gotten accustomed to the new hardware and instead focusing on branching out ideas; the 7th generation focusing on the rise of new genres thanks to improved hardware, and funneling an obscene amount of resources into graphical fidelity, cinematography and presentation; and the 8th generation which is now currently testing the waters with new VR technology, with other companies either carrying on what was started in the previous generation or going back to the humble beginnings of the generation prior to that, with an explosion of a whole new market helmed by independent creators.
As time moves on, so do the expectations of both players and developers. In the past, game development was more costly and difficult, and resources couldn’t easily be put into creating fool-proof in-game tutorials, relying more on manuals whether physical ones that came with the box or ones that were included inside the game itself (Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid). In recent times, games can now easily make room for quick in-game prompts without pulling the player out of the game, teaching them how to play as they go on. However, this has also manufactured a generation that does experience difficulty with certain games that don’t take their players by the hand, while more veteran players who are used to being explained less and can naturally feel their way around are often left more disappointed by the inane frequency of pop-ups that might break the flow of the game (they’re usually less tolerant to short breaks as these). The infrequency of tutorials in some games could leave players who aren’t used to exploring mechanics on their own left out, while frequent tutorials could leave other types of players disappointed for having been explained everything with nothing left for that player to discover; because of this, the former games could be referred to as only suitable for hardcore players, while the latter would be referred to as easier games that don’t demand attention, even if reality could be otherwise (Shovel Knight has no tutorials but is very easy to pick up and understand, whereas Furi offers a good amount of tutorials in the form of an entire boss fight, yet is still ruthless in difficulty).
You can also see this in how certain games handle their mechanics to match this new generation. In the original Resident Evil, due to the limitations of the hardware at the time, they never indicated cupboards and shelves the player could examine in order to find an item. This is not the case in Dead Space were items light up whenever the player is nearby. Some puzzles in classic Resident Evil ask of the player to examine certain items, whether to obtain a hidden key item or read the name of the key in order to correctly match it with the correct locked door. Mechanics like these are very rare in horror games nowadays, and instead only utilize rules the game had previously set up and only working within the confines of these rules. To summarize, classic Resident Evil relied on the player using a bit of common sense to figure out certain solutions, whereas more modern survival horrors focus less on puzzle ambiguity and challenged the player over what they expected from inside the box. Fans of either design philosophies are likely going to have conflicting opinions over playing the others’.
Certain game mechanics for older games just simply do not age all that well overtime, whether they were improved in later iterations or were replaced with much newer and overall more convenient ones. Personally, for a game that was considered to be hard for its time, I found the first Devil May Cry to be a little too easy, as I was already used to the much harder Devil May Cry 3 and even Bayonetta that pushed you to the absolute limit. On the other hand, I feel that some who initially started with Devil May Cry would have found the sequel to be much more difficult, even if to an unfair degree. The reason is because the original Devil May Cry played more like a more challenging melee-focused Resident Evil game, whereas the sequels were straight-up hack ‘n slash titles. In Devil May Cry and Bayonetta, each enemy had unique audio and animation queues to indicate when they would strike, but when compared to games like Metal Gear Rising and NieR:Automata, these queues are more universal and thus can feel less natural. Additionally, tank controls weren’t a problem for me at all when playing classic Resident Evil titles, but they can be a hindrance for some players, and even classic Metal Gear Solid games feature a couple uncomfortable mechanics that aren’t ergonomic and may be troublesome for younger players (such as holding the action button to aim, releasing to shoot and slowly releasing to lower the weapon).
Degree of Freedom
Sometimes a game might present itself in one way, but either fail to live up to its promises or overshoot for more, in both positive and negative ways, intentionally or otherwise, or by offering hidden alternatives that rewards clever and insightful players. In fact, some games use this open-ended mindset to sell themselves, with franchises such as Divinity: Original Sin, Metal Gear Solid and Fallout (mostly the classic duology and New Vegas). Sometimes, games can accidentally feature glitches which enhance the experience, something the Super Mash Bros. community would be very much familiar with, or mechanics that weren’t tightened up to only be used in very specific situations, such as Titanfall’s bunny-sliding. In fact, bunny-sliding was such a prominent happy accident that when it was removed in the sequel’s beta, players protested and were ready to boycott the game, so much so that it had to be re-added back into Titanfall 2 (even if heavily nerfed from its predecessor in the prequel).
One of the games that I refer to as a happy accident is Dishonored. While it came off as a game that was intended to exclusively be a stealth game that gave the player the option to either run away or stand their ground for the few times they would get caught, Arkane Studios accidentally created a “first-person hack ‘n slash”. It was possible to burn through mana and manage one’s mana potion inventory (they’re very easy to obtain in the game, rendering them very expendable), with an abundance of tools and abilities the player could alternate between. This open-ended nature to its design also contributed to the stealth aspect of the game too; the time-stopping mechanics was primarily introduced to allow the player to either kill large groups of enemies quickly or escape, but it could also be used to dismantle traps before they would spring and to run into a room and steal treasures from a group of enemies heavily guarding them then run out before they even noticed. Though it wasn’t the best of stealth games, it contributed in ways those same stealth games just weren’t designed to compete against, and because of it, I feel that the game needed to be played twice (either passively and aggressively, or stealthily and loudly).
Some games live and die by single mechanics which open up the game to whole new unique experiences. One such game is the rebooted Shadow Warrior, which had an underappreciated mechanic that improved its experience immensely; most people used the dodge button at first exclusively for its sprint function, but eventually people learned that it’s possible to fling oneself around to quickly dismantle the demon hordes with swift strikes. Another game that had a flagship mechanic was Vanquish, through its boost sliding that allowed you to quickly get around the arena and deliver stylish flips and hailed down bullets in bullet time sequences the player had full control over (for the most part). While the game could still be played as a regular third-person cover-based shooter, it flourished through that one simple mechanic which set it apart from many other games within the same genre. Similarly, I feel that Shadow Warrior cannot be fully appreciated without the abuse of its dodge system.
On the other hand, some games offer loose mechanics that the player can abuse, but never manage to catch up with the player should they find a way to steamroll through everything. Odin Sphere Leifthrasir was never designed with the intention that the player would stock up on an insane amount of magic spells, where the player would be able to throw so many at once and finish boss fights in the blink of an eye. Its younger cousin, Muramasa Rebirth, was a competently challenging game on its own, but should the player decide to start stocking on whetstones to replenish their swords’ spiritual energy, or utilize cooking pots to grant themselves temporary buffs like infinite spiritual energy, it’s very possible to finish difficult fights with such inane ease, effectively breaking the game. It’s fun to find holes in how games work, but if the game fails to raise the stakes for players who do use them or aren’t designed to work in spite of them, then it could potentially lead to disappointment. Not everyone is going to easily come across these mechanics, so it’s possible for players who do not discover them feel bewildered over why other players are disappointed in games that just feel fine to them, or may find difficulty in enjoying a game that has a little jank to it, but is improved significantly through such mechanics (parrying in Metal Gear Rising or Enemy Step and Charge Shot in Devil May Cry). Some competitive games can also suffer from broken mechanics that can easily drive new players away, such as with Marvel vs Capcom 3, with an online community that has mastered infinite combos, leaving very little room for beginners to find easier matches to help them practice.
Social Engagement and Pressure
One of the elements we easily take for granted is the social engagement that arises from certain games, be it in-game or outside the realms of the game. One of the most effective yet underrated means of marketing is positive word of mouth, which is what led to the massive widespread success of games such as Undertale. More often than we’d like to admit, our decisions for purchasing certain games is pushed or retracted by what our friends have to say. Constant engagement with a certain game can also help in driving sales, a strategy game developers have taken note of and have made changes to their development cycles to accommodate for slow releases of additional content to keep the community invested for a long period of time.
Some developers would prefer giving sparse information about their games in order to promote social engagement outside of the game, as is the case with games like Dark Souls, Warframe and Monster Hunter, all of which are series that would have never become as popular as they were if not for players helping one another and offering advice to one another to teach them how to play efficiently, get around some of the confusing hurdles in the way, and how to maximize one’s enjoyment of those games. Isolating oneself from this engagement may have a negative impact on their experiences, leading up to a frustrating time with the game.
Unfortunately, social engagement comes at a cost and often times you will see people feel coerced into playing games they would normally not enjoy but feel a sense of obligation to do so under the immense weight of the fanbase of those games. Should they come out from the experience unsatisfied, they would share their negative reception only to be bombarded by folks who are more dedicated fans, rushing to give the individual more advice from the more benevolent side of the argument, to outing the individual for their lack of expertise from the more selfish side. The reasoning for this behavior is debatable, but part of it is likely due to the fanbase believing that this individual is giving an unfair portrayal of a game they enjoy out of either incompetence or misunderstanding. Time and money are both invaluable assets, thus those fans would prefer that their preferred game would be evaluated “fairly” so that people would spend their limited resources on the game, effectively supporting the developers as well as allowing the community to grow. Even then, there are still in-fights between sectioned-off groups of the fanbase who are constantly fighting for the most “correct” portrayal of the franchise, and what this fighting does is express a toxic attitude that could in of itself turn curious newcomers away.
One of the franchises that I do not have easy access to, because of my inability to afford the necessary hardware, is Fire Emblem. Due to the negative attitude from its fanbase, I normally wouldn’t go out of my way to try and play the games in that series (with all due respect to the franchise itself regardless of the community), as I would for something like Ace Attorney which has a fanbase that I have seen nothing but pleasant things from. Of course, not everyone is going to be subject to the general masses that enjoy a certain game series at all times, and communities subconsciously wall themselves off and therefore individual experiences are more likely to be subjective. While not exactly a video game series, one manga series I got into because of the community was JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure as the people who liked it that surrounded me were generally pleasant people. However, the same cannot be said for everyone, and I have seen others with different stories where they have been actively turned away from JoJo because of its rabid fanbase. We often tell ourselves to ignore the fanbase (and sometimes the author) and instead enjoy works of fiction on their own, and while this is the most optimal way to go at things, the human mind isn’t so fickle; people could be psychologically predisposed to associate franchises with negativity and as a result be subconsciously biased against it.
That said, some members of that fanbase aren’t afraid to point out flaws in games they enjoy. This stems from many points, but the easiest one to point out is out of a dire need to express analytic critical thinking to the general public in order to win favors in being trusted to look at other games objectively, and manage to critique them without being so easily swayed by biases. The downside is that it’s possible for certain players’ opinions to either be swayed by influential figures or large groups of anonymous people in order to appeal to the masses, while others could potentially focus too much on analytical thinking and as a result fail to properly express their enjoyment of a game in favor of appealing to objectivity. Review scores have had a bigger toll on perception than we could imagine, where people still judge games on an arbitrary scale sorted out by words that is not dissimilar from the numeric scoring system, which could hurt games where the player has conflicting opinions on and clearly needs to separate what they believe are objective faults from their own biased experiences that did not mind those faults to a large degree (for example, Gravity Rush and Metal Gear Solid V are games that I enjoyed a great deal of, but at the same time are wrought with a myriad of problems that make them difficult to recommend). Last but not least, some people are invested in far too many series, and as a result feel a need to be critical in order to fully appreciate the differences between all of those games.
Another big aspect in this department are game reviewers who tend to deviate from the overall aggregated average perception of games, and are not exempt from the points I mentioned above. One of those reviewers who are at the helm of the gaming community pitchforks is Jim Sterling, who reviewed Vanquish which he did not enjoy and awarded a 5/10 using Destructoid’s scale. Most of the criticism thrown at Mr. Sterling was due to how little he made use of the game’s boost mechanics, avoiding wall kicks to attain bullet time and refusing to slide up to enemies and kick off of them before stopping time to quickly dispose of surrounding forces before landing on the ground and running out of energy. In addition, Jim Sterling mentioned how the Assault Rifle is the best weapon in the game, and while I can’t speak on behalf of the community on this certain aspect, I found the Assault Rifle to be one of the worst weapons to use and instead favored the Heavy Machinegun, Sniper Rifle and Shotgun. Although Mr. Sterling is completely entitled to his views, the general community could feel that it detracts from the game’s online presence and as a result could undervalue it from this negative reception.
It’s important that we be aware of this when attempting to fight for our favorite games’ reputations, for we could inadvertently lead to the effect we are trying to avoid. It’s perfectly fine to be critical, but one must avoid more vile expressions that would often times push others away rather than get them to listen to us. One of my favorite fanbases that I had the pleasure of interacting with was Cave Story’s. While I didn’t personally enjoy the game in the end (I still respect its legacy), everyone who has interacted with me has been empathetic and supportive. Frankly, I do feel a little guilty because of it and I wish I had instead enjoyed the game as a result. Positive communities are what keep folks around, and I wish more could be like Cave Story’s. Even if you believe that someone didn’t play a game in a certain way that would have allowed them to enjoy it much more, maintaining a supportive and kind attitude is very likely to either predispose them to reconsider or even lessen discussing how much they disliked the game.
Fun Trumps All
At the end of the day, the overall point of entertainment is to have fun (granted, some experiences like Spec-Ops: The Line and This War of Mine are not technically “fun”, but they are still engaging enough to keep players invested). It doesn’t matter if someone is playing a game the “correct” way or not as long as they are enjoying themselves. Game developers have begun understanding this sentiment and as a result try to open up their games to as many people as possible, be it through different paths players could take or through difficulty modes. Games like Dark Souls and Devil May Cry 3 offer different styles of play to both increase the variety of runs, some methods easier than others. This is intentionally designed to help woo players setting foot for the first time into getting accustomed to those games, with the more challenging methods meant for veterans who needed an excuse to replay those games.
More often than not, people who engage with others by offering advice aren’t doing so in favor of a pleasurable jolt of pride for being more knowledgeable, but rather to assist a player in enjoying a game as much as possible. Everything I’ve said in this article about games such as Dishonored, Shadow Warrior, and Vanquish was a thinly-veiled attempt to drive people to play those games. In regards to both Dark Souls and Devil May Cry 3, fans of those games recommend beginners start off with Strength builds and the Trickster style respectively for their first runs, and consider other methods for later runs in order to avoid situations where the game becomes too difficult or complex, and instead leaves a sour taste in their mouths.
Players also derive enjoyment from different aspects from games; some appreciate the additional difficulty, some would rather play the game as intended, while others simply prefer having enough room to faff about and do whatever without the necessity of meticulously managing their resources. In regards to JRPGs, some players enjoy breaking the game even if the game doesn’t respond back as a result, while others are turned off by the concept and instead value a more balanced experience. These needs, on top of many others, are what decide on people’s preferences for certain games and genres. People recommend games to one another based on those needs rather than just an outright expecting friends to play the exact same games one does (for instance, I am less likely to recommend a shooter to a friend who is primarily interested in JRPGs, unless said shooter has elements that could potentially interest them, and in this case that game would be Valkyria Chronicles which is a hybrid between a tactical-RPG and a third-person shooter).
So to wrap this up, is there really a wrong way to play games? Yes, for sure. That said, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it is inherently “wrong” to play games as they weren’t intended, whether it be because people find ways to get more enjoyment out of a game by abusing certain systems, or by simply being content with the way they’re progressing. If someone is experiencing difficulty in enjoying a game, try to help them out whenever applicable, but do maintain a mild attitude and an empathetic understanding of their situation. Unfortunately, I doubt the many “should video games be easier?” articles are going to stop popping up every now and then, and in cases where an individual has the capabilities to echo their opinions through news outlets but seems rather bull-headed about their views and consent to no advice, ignoring them goes a longer way than riling a mob to prove them wrong. The general attitude of a fanbase is more important than just a simple Metacritic score. What brought me over to games like Resident Evil and Skullgirls were my friends who expressed much passion towards them, not the scores those games received. In the end, the real Final Fantasy were the friends we made along the way.
Special thanks to everyone who took the time to read my lengthy ramblings, and to all these lovely people who helped make this article possible:
@Nicolatterino @PlatinumParagon @PlatonicWaffles @Stairfax @alexdnz @pjpollina_ @ImplacableGTR @OXIAClD @Otakyoushi @Gaze_of_Madness @KandyElmo @Shock_and_Roll @Dongsbewoner @Hingeneral @Zevenon_CY @IcecreamGenius @KrispyKrabby @Shinken_Oh @mahokabe @Biggest_Noodle
All images used were captured by myself, and are used under fair use for recreational purposes. All rights reserved for the original authors of the games with screenshots used in this article.
Kimo Force May Or May Not Nitpick About Games 
Whoa! This is impressive. I’m just sitting here pondering everything you said. Really cool.
LikeLike