Read on Twitter
I think you will always find people who aren't creative to take tools and do interesting things with them saying that ultra-prescriptive design is 'smart' because otherwise they'd just optimize and only play exactly how the game tells them to.
Some people NEED enforced creativity, and I don't know how to show how much more fun games are when you can start synthesizing interesting moments from the mechanics as you understand them.
idk if anyone here remembers komrade kayce from kotaku back in the day, but as I recall, he once told me that Gears of War was bad "because I can use the lancer for every encounter."
and my response then was the same as it is now: "but why would you want to?"
and my response then was the same as it is now: "but why would you want to?"
his response was "it's the optimal weapon," which meant that it was reliable in every encounter. I found that so strange. The longshot is good in some encounters, the mulcher in others, the gnasher in others still. The lancer will never let you DOWN... but that's vanilla play.
to me, the differentiation between a good game and a bad game is ~wanting~ to try different things vs ~needing~ to try new things. One reason I'm struggling with Plague Tale right now is because it has clear ways to solve every problem. You just do what the game wants you to do.
And to me, sussing out what the designer wants me to do, like, I feel like I'm just following steps. The fun, for me, is in solving problems in my own way. Coming up with things based on the tools I have. Leading a zombie horde through a bounty target to thin both in Days Gone.
maybe devil may cry's "use different attacks in order to get your rank up" system (I know @CameronCeschini and I talked about using it for G1 during a conversation or two) is the right answer here; play how you want, but repeating the same tactic won't raise your score much
