Your most conflicting game design choices

[Frogger]

SvennoJ said:

And there you have it. You do think difficulty is there as a skill test.

Why is it so difficult to understand that someone can be very much interested in playing a game, explore the world, enjoy the characters and their back stories, yet isn't interested in min maxing their armor and weapons or getting the timing exactly right when to use what attack, block, or effect. Unless you think gameplay is nothing more than fighting?

In GTA5 I skipped the drawn out fire fights, I was very glad for the option. Just jump of a building 3 times, skip and do the fun parts. Car chases, flying challenges etc. It was even better that it only skipped parts and you can still do the fun stuff before and after the shooting crap.
Games have become a mix of all kinds of different gameplay elements. Not everyone likes them all.

And while Dark souls is one of my favorite games, I dio wish you could skip certain boss battles. I had way more fun sparring with a random high level tower knigh for an hour, than overcoming a boss battle roadblock. One is optional of my choosing, the other simply stands in the way of what I want to do.
The same in witcher 3. I played on normal I think, story battles were easy anyway. Then I had plenty of time to take on optional quests 10 levels above me to play with the game's systems. No roadblocks in the story, can still experience all those 'nuances' on my own terms.

No it's not a skill test. It's a barrier to entry.

Not every game is meant to be played and enjoyed by everyone. You aren't entitled to be able to finish or enjoy a game that sits above your skill level. If you're not at a level where you can play through a game, you don't deserve to experience why that game is good. Same with anything. Shakespeare shouldn't have the language simplified just because the majority of people aren't good enough readers to understand it. Beethoven shouldn't have to simplify his music because the masses aren't learned enough to appreciate it. If you don't "like" the games elements so much that it will block you from being able to finish it, there is no obligation from the developer to make a concession for your skill level. You're not the target audience. You're not meant to enjoy it. It's not a game design flaw that a game is too difficult for you. If you are unwilling to put in the work necessary to be able to play more games, you absolutely 100% shouldn't have to. You can absolutely enjoy playing games meant for your appropriate skill level as you should, but Devs are under obligation to dilute their game so that you able to play and experience a diluted, simplified, and inferior version of all that a game has to offer. You are not the target audience. Play something else where you are.

Now this is obviously only reference to games without difficulty options, which is what you were talking about. This is not saying that every game should be Shakespeare or Beethoven or Edgar Allan Poe or whatever, but that games that are meant to be Shakespeare or Beethoven or Allan Poe should stay games that are Shakespeare or Beethoven or Edgar Allan Poe, regardless of how many people are skilled enough to get through it. Read Harry Potter or listen to Queen or watch Star Wars instead. There are still plenty of pheoniminal works accessible to a wider demographic.