Just because something is immediately convenient to the player it doesn’t necessarily make for a better game in the long run.
In fact it’s often the opposite. Dealing with the restrictions of the hand you’ve been served is precisely what makes some scenarios engaging.
A classic example would be your first descent to Blight Town/Queelag’s lair in Dark Souls. If the game didn’t prevent you from having a convenient way to warp in and out of the area it wouldn’t become so memorable and daunting. And getting the Lordvessel for the first time hours later wouldn’t feel a moment of triumph.
That’s one thing a lot of the sequels/derivates got wrong when they started giving the equivalent of the Lordvessel to the player from the get go. They failed to realize how that daunting sense of isolation and distress when you were slowly pushed far away from your safe hub was part of what made the adventure worth remembering.
In the same way having unlimited respec or the option to turn your companions in whatever class you want (two features that were praised in DOS 2) gives the player an immediate advantage but in the long run it heavily cheapens the value of the "commitment" you put into your decisions while progressing through a game.
Another example would be having a omniscient minimap/GPS system that know exactly where to lead you at any given time, which kills a lot of value in exploring the environment, interacting with it and so on.
This broad idea that whatever is convenient is good for a game more often than not turns out to be just incompetent design.
Quoting someone I know: "You know what's also convenient? Being immune to damage".
And I bet many would welcome to have that as an option, somehow.
Last edited by Tuco; 05/10/21 12:05 PM.
