>>3969532
Absolutely not!

Where did this autism come from?

>>3969588
>he doesn't know

>>3969532
yes i too play games without reading the manual to avoid being a readdit.

>>3969613
>tripfag
>too retarded to tell the difference between looking up a guide and reading a manual

checks out

>>3969532
that tranny forgot to mention back in the 90's games came with 200+page manuals explaining everything

>>3969532
>they just consume video games!!
t. autistic ass loser who was consumed BY video games

Consumer chads know there's more to life

>>3969658
true. some even told you to go read the fantasy novel it was based on , instead of designing a game that actually had worldbuilding and explained the main plot!

>>3971055
>true. some even told you to go read the fantasy novel it was based on
Name three.

>>3969532
>games are just products to be consumed
yes?

>>3969532
wait, "absolutely!" died? that's how I answer my boss when he tells me to do stuff
I hope he doesn't think I'm a redditor

>>3969532
That guy sounds like a tool who gets his opinions from 4fag

>>3971057
Betrayal at Krondor/Return to Krondor
Menzoberanzan
Conan: The Cimmerian

>>3969532
He/she/xe is right about the "games are to be beaten" attitude, howsoeverbeit.

>>3971220
Games are to be beaten - aka, engaged with meaningfully, mastered to a certain degree and be overcome through persistence - that part is true. This was not what the OP's Picrel was talking about - the word "beat" was pit into quotation marks, and in the context it's used implies "rushing through as fast as possible using methods discovered by others, to get bragging rights and not enjoyed".

>>3969620
rpgs are often buggy messes and have extremely unintuitive implementation of concepts. there's nothing wrong with learning a little about game systems before you make a character.

>>3969532
This falls apart when you get shit games like Age of Decadence that immediately troll you when you don't do the specific game-affirmed things that you have no way of knowing ahead of time.

>>3969532
enjoy remaking your shit 3 hours into underrail.

>>3971697
Normal doesn't punish your bad decisions that hard and it's still possible to beat the game with horrendously bad builds.
Don't project your Restartitis (likely developed by reading online guides instead of playing) on others.

>>3971623
The guy who made it says that's the intended way to play. You make a build, you hit a brickwall, then you restart with a new build.

>>3971836
But we dont have TIME for that!!!!
I have so many more important things to do!

>>3971852
This but unironically

>>3969532
I take the best of both worlds approach--go in blind, use a guide as little as possible except for stupid puzzles, but also throw on god mode if I'm stuck at a point where the process of getting past the hurdle isn't intrinsically fun.
I don't think I've ever been unable to beat a game because of a "bad build," but I'm also don't play every game on the hardest mode possible.

>>3969532
If your game can become unplayable or at least unenjoyable if the player does something he was not warned against, like choosing a poor build, it's a poor game. Sadly, there are many poor games out there.

>>3972178
At least the degree of enjoyability can vary wildly depending on how one builds their character, and especially in older RPGs those choices are made before even getting in to the game. You can make it, but how fun it is is another matter.

Other thing is how easy it is for experienced players to forget how a new player might is bombarded with things to consider.

>>3971728
Remaking your character once is not restartitis. Don't misuse terms you don't understand, you just make yourself look retarded.

This modern approach to games may sound cringe, but it's generally the direction modern gamers naturally develop as a result of several things.

For one, the sheer amount of games available to people today. It's one thing when you're a kid in the 90s and your parents bought you only like 1-3 consoles and 20-40 games for each tops. Sometimes your selection could be expanded by things like rental stores and friends you could borrow from, but not all had those, and they came with inconveniences like a limited amount of time to play before being asked to return the game. So you generally played the shit out of what you had. If you play the shit out of a single game today, you will not have time to play other games. Today, you can afford to live off the "cream" of every game without ever squeezing even 1/4 of the playtime it can offer. Is that a bad thing? You could say that this approach is shallow or "consoom"-y. But does that really matter? Games are just entertainment.

Another is that this interaction isn't one-sided. Developers adapt to consumers as well. A lot of games are designed around people following guides. Some games are even continuously updated to specifically counter player "meta". A person playing such a game blind wouldn't just be lost, the game would be borderline unplayable in practice. Sure, one could concievably discover everything on their own because even if say roguelikes give you one life, you have infinite runs available. But again, this isn't a job, bashing your head against a wall is masochism, and that's no fun.

And lastly there's the social aspect. Whether cancer or not, the fact is that gaming is a social thing for many people. It could be one-sided: you just want to "stay in the loop" for the hobby and not engage with other gamers. So you need to play a lot of games. Or you could actively aim to be active in gaming communities, so again you need to play many different games.

>>3969588
Morrowind's n°1 enjoyer.

>>3972178
Some would say it's a poor game if all builds feel the same or the game is so easy that it's impossible to lose with any build.