It can't be forced. That flat out does not work.
Of course it works. There are loads of games which have gotten complex gameplay systems across without scaring off players, passed on attributes and enemy types without forcing a person to read an FAQ, or hinted at rhythms and pacing throught game design, increasingly raising the difficulty of similar task as a game progresses.
Why do you think many modern games do the "start off with a max level character, only to weaken them, for regaining abilities" trend? Or have info-tickers right on the title screens, and helpful info on load screens? It's all part of attempts to ease people into complexity.
Maybe it can't be "forced" (which is debatable), but it can surely be suggested, and the road to getting there can surely be made easier. And yes, there ARE many people who end up liking things they wouldn't, because of better accessibility. I've seen it plenty of times.
There is incentive in the D&D games to not die you know.
Of course, but less than it was before. Most of this thread conversation almost makes it sound like ALMOST none (which I do think is a bit exaggerated), and that's mostly what we're speaking on.
Also in the arcade I'd generally start out with a game and $5 worth of tokens. That was plenty to get through anything in the room. I never really spent a lot of time worrying about the credits remaining.
And that's fine, but we're not really talking about just your case, of course. Arcades machines were not made "just so everyone could throw a few dollars into the machine, and be done with it", they were made to gather fans, to attract people moreso to one machine to the other, and to compete for a majority of ones money.
This is an integral part as to why they thrived back when they were new and exciting. And also why they started to die, when people "could get the same game at home, for cheaper, that looked almost just as good".
Despite that, I could still one eventually shot Final Fight, Double Dragon 2, TMNT, HotD (well not really since I liked to use both guns more of a two shot) etc. I simply got better at the games. It wasn't a goal I had. I wasn't worried about cash. Just a natural progression from wanting to play the games a lot. I certainly wasn't thinking "Hu hu hu. I'm finally playing THE REAL GAME!"
I get the feeling this "Real game!" thing means different extremitiesto each person, but I also don't think it deserves too much hate, overall.
Every creator has a vision of how their games will look and play. Playing videogames in order to recreate that vision it's origin, to see where all those cancel-times, intentional stuns, jump arch ranges, and such were planned for, is great! It's very satisfying to play a game in a way that understands the purpose of all assets and elements.
At the same time, a person who plays for pure fun can also mess around in any way they see fit. Some will make this beautiful, some will make this funny, and some will just... do it to get a cheap laugh. It can lead to the same endpoint (we beat the game!) and (the devs got paid!) but the appreciation is totally different.
But creators, ultimately, want people to experience what they intended to make. Just like movie makers or book writers want to make you think, and see their characters as people, rather than just saying "that was another cheap action flick! LOL!" and forgetting about it.
It's just another level of appreciation, and I don't think it's too bold to say that those who lean closer to the creators intended vision are playing the "REAL" version of something. That's just.. the way it is.
Guess what? That's always been the case. This isn't new or unique to right now.
You... read the rest of the paragraph, right? Having 1 kid in an arcade shun a game, when 3 or 4 kids around him could help him, VS a lone person in their room, making a decision with no other human interaction, is a different thing.
We didn't have review aggregates like Meta-critic back then; reviews didn't have as much sway on sales, and trying to hit high score numbers wasn't as big a deal to the employees, where companies would withhold bonuses due to poor ratings. The industry has gotten a LOT bigger, and things have had to change, to accommodate the wider audience.
None of this is new, or unique to now, but it sure has a different level of effect now, than it did in the past.
------
Anyway, back to Dungeons & Dragons... so, now I've beat ToD twice, and SoM once. I now miss Mystara's mobility even more in To'Doom.
Having played through King of Dragons recently (On Vita, with CCC2), it's clear how much this game owes to it's concepts. With a solid amount of King Arthur as well. All topped off with a side of Magic Sword, for good measure!
With all those earned vault points, I enjoyed looking through the "Capcom Secret Files" art and advertisements. Like looking at 90s gaming magazines. Old Capcom art is so great. I would have loved to have been able to unlock views of the spritework as well.
The "Concept Art" however... Hmm, somehow, I don't think a Wizard of the Coast 2007 work was REALLY Con-Art for this game, haha. It's nice to have such a collection of stuffs, but it clashes so much with Capcom's in-game artwork, that it feels kinda out of place for me.
So many treasures left to find...
