Jorpho wrote:Something like that. Why would they spend months or years, etc, if they're constantly thinking, "Well, the people who don't like it are just going to skip it entirely anyway, so why bother?" It's not like the release of things that are buggy and play poorly is unknown these days.
Because they're not thinking that, they're thinking "This is a fun battle system, and part of that fun is the challenge we build into it. But no matter what we do, that challenge won't be right for some people. At the very least, some people have disabilities that prevent them from engaging in the fast-paced action we're designing this system around. It's not very cool to tell those people 'Fuck off, this game isn't for you' when this is a story-based RPG - there's lots to enjoy besides the battle system! So we should make sure that those who can appreciate the battle system for what it is get the best damned experience we can give them, and those who can't don't get super-frustrated or have to skip the game entirely.
Surely it would be better if they said, "This system was meticulously designed to compliment the story and enhance the game. If you turned it off, it just wouldn't be the same; we're too proud of what we've done to let people have such a diminished experience." Or maybe something slightly less pretentious.
There has never been a game for which that is true, unless it's a fighting game where the fighting is literally the entire game
. And even then, if you've got interesting ending cinematics or something, most people will "earn" a few, and then watch the rest on YouTube if they really care.
But for RPGs? Hell no, fights are designed to be somewhat interesting to play, with a small number of well-designed boss fights and tons of scrub fights that need to meet a minimum level of entertainment while fulfilling their primary goal of padding out gameplay and feeding the hedonic treadmill of watching numbers go up.