SJ Longthorne

Of course, but like I said some games are meant to be a certain level of difficulty that the devs chose, it may be easy to you or hard to me.

And why can’t that level of difficulty be relative? Furthermore, what do you imagine the devs gain from making the game inaccessible to many players as opposed to what they’d gain by opening it up to them?

The thing is that adding difficulty options can and will and have ruined game balancing, not only that but gaming is an art form not just a play toy. It's always good to have difficulty options but not every game necessarily needs it or should have it.

And yet multitudes of other games manage to pull it off. Why does games being an art form mean they have to exclude people?https://twitter.com/docsquiddy/status/1112080134071308291?s=21 …

I feel like you’re just going around in circles. You seem unable to give a satisfactory rebuttal to the idea that difficulty can be relative; easy to you is hard to others, and therefore it remains a challenging game, but we trust the player to discern the level they need.

I already agreed with you that difficulty is relative in a previous post.

Then your argument is?

Well I've clearly stated it in prior posts. I feel like you're getting mad at an opinion I don't even have. My argument is that some games are designed with a certain difficulty in mind that is, yes, relative to the player, but is still the difficulty the devs wanted it to be.