You misunderstand me yet again
I did see your point the first time; But it is based on an overly broad and general principle. One unaffected by secondary factors such as the extra elements mentioned above, as they do not affect said principle. Which is why this was not a resume contest, but rather my honestly enquiring as to your experience with such factors. Judging prior to having any empirical experience can only take you thus far.
Even theory, no matter how general or broad, needs anxioms to be based upon. TLDR, was looking to establish a common ground. Which unsurprisingly, i see is lacking.
No one talked about overly long, tedious or "boring" elements. No one endorses logistics and the accounting thereof within games and most of all, one at least in particular proposed a bit of 'salt & pepper' if you will, and that
optionally. On what i suppose you'd feel comfortable labeling as 'insane difficulty'. One most would eschew in any case, and as such by unaffected by it, yes?
As for the "we".. my fault i suppose. I do tend to neglect that despite a history of
over thirty five years of computer role playing games, our criteria must by default be formed on the latest titles, and those latest titles alone.
