Your most conflicting game design choices

[SvennoJ]

spemanig said:

SvennoJ said:

I play games to experience the world, not to take a skill test.
It's not comparable to fast forwarding a movie, it's watching the movie without constantly rewinding.

It depends on the game though. Racing games are my skill test. lvl 120 +49 in DC, #720 on the world leaderboard and still climbing.

The nuances of the gameplay is part of that experience. It has nothing to do with testing skill. It's about becoming intimate with a set of rules and parameters. Like I said, you don't read Shakespeare to "test your reading."

It's exactly like fast forwarding. You're skimming over the details and missing out on a lot of the experience.

If 80 hours of witcher 3 and 200 hours of fallout 4 is skimming over the details, then sure!
It depends on the game, with those I'm not invested in the actual fighting mechanics. Dark souls was good enough to do ng+++ Guacemelee was rewarding too with its difficulty. Most rpgs are not however, I play them to enjoy the world.

Anyway I tend to e apprehensive of games with fixed difficulty. You can ignore side quests if they're not fun. You can skip story if you're not interested. You can skip exploring if you just want to fight. Imo you should be able to skip boss fights too if you're more interested in all the other stuff.