Executor Akamia

Don't trust him, he used to be a Starcraft II player until he literally betrayed his Protoss kind for the sake of Stellaris lol.

I played Soul Calibur 2 in Very Hard and didn't have this issue... But since we want to talk about fighting games, I'll tell you a very good example within Dragon Ball FighterZ. That game's Arcade mode gets progressively harder and harder depending on your ranking. However, at one point, the CPU starts to get some unfair assistance. For example, the damage output is 3X what you do. Not only that, but the CPU also tends to gain meter faster and also cancel moves in a way that is simply not possible with human players (AKA they do combos characters are not meant to even do at this point). Ghosts N' Goblins... MAN, that game has evoked so much rage in me when I got to it. The game is lenient in the whole "you only get 2 hits (Losing your armor and then dying like a wimp). Not only that, but you do stay the same while enemies get stronger. Not only that, but the final level in this piece of trash DEMANDS you have the shield weapon in order to get to the final boss of the game. Otherwise, it tells you to "FUCK OFF GET THE SHIELD"  
I honestly think that games can be made difficult but peoplesometimes just think that difficulty is added by stacking everything against the player. That's not really how it's done.

I'd say Stellaris, which is a grand strategy game I've been playing for the last few weeks, but honestly, the difficulty is mostly artificial in that game. AI empires are dumb as rocks, but fast as Sonic the Hedgehog on a good day, and difficulty settings don't really improve their intelligence at all; they just give them bonuses that more easily compensate for their stupidity. Human players are the real threats, though for obvious reasons, they aren't a factor in single-player mode.
Honestly, I think in general terms, the Halo series has done a good job about this. I mean, I never noticed the AI getting smarter there either, but in the FPS genre, this matters less. The higher difficulty you play, the more you get punished for being out of position. This doesn't fully translate to the multiplayer, as human players are less predictable than AI under most circumstances and most multiplayer maps aren't structured in the same way campaign maps are, but you will definitely learn to appreciate cover after it has kept you from getting your face blown off by a deadeye Jackal sniper or three.

You’re goddamned right.

Damn this post was all fired up 😂 I didn't even notice.

I will just leave my opinion:
The appeal of soul games is to be difficult, thats what makes them popular, yes they target a specific audience because they know casual gamers (like myself) will not purchase this game. When you are selling something regardless of what it is you have to know your market and these games where made for gamers who enjoy a challenge since this is where the developers and publishers will get their profits. They didnt exclude anybody from playing the game, anyone can walk up to a game store and purchase these games and play them, is not like they where made for 3 arm people. (but it damn looks like 😆). Anyway going back to the topic: Should all games have an "easy" mode? for me the answer is No, most games do have a difficulty selection since they want to target as many gamers as possible but for Soul games being difficult is what makes them to stand out in a very competitive gaming market.

You're still a massive SC nerd though,.

I'd say Stellaris, which is a grand strategy game I've been playing for the last few weeks, but honestly, the difficulty is mostly artificial in that game. AI empires are dumb as rocks, but fast as Sonic the Hedgehog on a good day, and difficulty settings don't really improve their intelligence at all; they just give them bonuses that more easily compensate for their stupidity. Human players are the real threats, though for obvious reasons, they aren't a factor in single-player mode.
Honestly, I think in general terms, the Halo series has done a good job about this. I mean, I never noticed the AI getting smarter there either, but in the FPS genre, this matters less. The higher difficulty you play, the more you get punished for being out of position. This doesn't fully translate to the multiplayer, as human players are less predictable than AI under most circumstances and most multiplayer maps aren't structured in the same way campaign maps are, but you will definitely learn to appreciate cover after it has kept you from getting your face blown off by a deadeye Jackal sniper or three.

I don't think all, or even most, games really need an easy mode. Accessibility is one thing, but difficulty is another matter entirely. Some games – particularly those that are played for their competitive multiplayer – can, in fact, be negatively impacted by both.
To illustrate, I want to talk about a game series that I greatly enjoy: StarCraft
For those who don't know, StarCraft is a series of sci-fi RTS games created and published by Blizzard. There are presently 2 games in this series: StarCraft, released in 1998, with an expansion (StarCraft: Brood War) being released later that year. Its full sequel, StarCraft II, was released in 2010 with the title StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, with 2 expansions releasing in 2013 (StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm) and 2015. (StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void)
StarCraft is one of the earliest examples of esports in gaming history, predating the first MOBAs by several years. Fighting games like Street Fighter might be even earlier. StarCraft, however, is on a different level entirely; it's particularly popular in Korea, where it may as well be considered the national sport.
I myself am a StarCraft player, particularly a StarCraft II player. I'm not particularly good at it; on the ranked ladder, my highest finish was top Silver League, which is really, really low. Part of the problem is my computer having mouselag with the game, which hinders my accuracy and speed significantly, but in all honesty, the lion's share of my problems are that I'm just bad. Period. I can improve, and will if I keep at it enough; perhaps even overcoming that particular limitation, but I don't have that kind of patience. I prefer to lose on my own terms, not because of bad hardware. Or maybe it's my OS that's the problem... The mouselag wasn't a thing before I upgraded to macOS Sierra a couple of years ago...
Anyway. There is a faction within the playerbase – a few, actually – who believe StarCraft II overall was watered down from what the StarCraft: Brood War experience was. Not just in the campaign, but in the gameplay itself. After having some lengthy discussions with some of these people in my spare time, I can see where they're coming from for certain. I don't like Brood War myself, and a lot of the reasons I like StarCraft II are a few of the reasons these people hate it, because these are things they believe lowered the skill ceiling for the game compared to what it was in Brood War.
First, let's talk about the campaign. In StarCraft: Brood War, the campaign was more or less designed to teach you how to play the game. How each unit works, and when you need to use them. Except for hero units, every unit you play with in the campaign can be used in the multiplayer, and they work pretty much the exact same way in both modes. That said, the campaign is very difficult for those not used to the (in my experience) very restrictive UI, and in some cases, very difficult even for those who are. More on that later.
In StarCraft II's campaign, this is a whole different ballgame. While the game does teach you the very basics of how to play, it doesn't teach you how the units work the same way Brood War did, and in fact, the units in the multiplayer can end up playing completely different roles than they did in the campaign due to balance changes completely overturning the metagame. Sure, you'll learn how units work in that campaign, but those units don't necessarily work the same way in the multiplayer, and some of those campaign units – Terran Goliaths, Protoss Dark Archons, Zerg Guardians, for example – don't even exist in that mode. Conversely, some multiplayer units don't exist in the campaign. Blizzard even added a completely different mode at some point that was intended to aid in the transition from campaign play to multiplayer play because the disconnect was so big. This mode was called "Training". In addition, multiplayer is played at a faster speed than most campaign difficulties, the exception being Brutal difficulty, which is played at multiplayer speed. I didn't spend enough time with Brood War to notice a speed difference between the modes; I doubt there is one. Speed is an important factor to consider here, because it affects timings. But that's getting into gameplay...
... which is the next thing I want to talk about. In StarCraft: Brood War, you're only allowed to select either 1 building at a time, or up to 16 units at a time. While commonly attributed to hardware or software limitations of the time, I'm... having a hard time buying that excuse, as it's the only RTS game I've ever played that had that limitation. Granted, I haven't played any other RTS games from the 90s or earlier, so for all I know, this could be completely true. I'll have to ask some fans of early Age of Empires or Command & Conquer games later. Anyway, regardless of the technical reasons for this being the case, the effect was that players had to be smarter about unit management. It was excruciatingly difficult to send what are called "death balls" over to the enemy base and roll over them because of a combination of this and less-than-stellar unit pathing algorithms, the latter of which affected the Terran Goliath and the Protoss Dragoon the most of any other unit in the game, or so I'm told. In addition to this, worker units had to be specifically ordered to gather resources, even when rallied to them from the primary base structure, or they would do nothing at all.
StarCraft II? You can select as many units at one time as you want, and even have more than one building in your selection. This streamlined several things, but it also made it painfully easy to build those death balls I talked about in the previous paragraph. In the Protoss arsenal in particular, there's a unit that rather annoyingly enables and borderline encourages death ball play: The Mothership. As a Protoss player myself, I personally avoid building this thing on principle, though it does usually fall off in the upper echelons of play as death balls do anyway, at least in current versions of the game. Early on in the game's lifetime, though? Death balls were everywhere. This has frustrated quite a handful of series veterans enough to write the game off entirely.
All of this because of an effort to make the game more accessible. It worked, but it came at a price. I'm not gonna deny there's some elitism at play; there totally is. However, it doesn't change the fact that these seemingly innocuous quality-of-life changes have altered the game in such a way that it very nearly took the "strategy" out of the real-time strategy game. I'm sure there might have been a better way to make the game more accessible to new players without alienating the old ones, but in the end, as much as I like StarCraft II over StarCraft: Brood War, I don't think this was it.

I'd say Stellaris, which is a grand strategy game I've been playing for the last few weeks, but honestly, the difficulty is mostly artificial in that game. AI empires are dumb as rocks, but fast as Sonic the Hedgehog on a good day, and difficulty settings don't really improve their intelligence at all; they just give them bonuses that more easily compensate for their stupidity. Human players are the real threats, though for obvious reasons, they aren't a factor in single-player mode.
Honestly, I think in general terms, the Halo series has done a good job about this. I mean, I never noticed the AI getting smarter there either, but in the FPS genre, this matters less. The higher difficulty you play, the more you get punished for being out of position. This doesn't fully translate to the multiplayer, as human players are less predictable than AI under most circumstances and most multiplayer maps aren't structured in the same way campaign maps are, but you will definitely learn to appreciate cover after it has kept you from getting your face blown off by a deadeye Jackal sniper or three.

At this point I picture someone's face being hit by three sniper shots at the same time.

I don't think all, or even most, games really need an easy mode. Accessibility is one thing, but difficulty is another matter entirely. Some games – particularly those that are played for their competitive multiplayer – can, in fact, be negatively impacted by both.
To illustrate, I want to talk about a game series that I greatly enjoy: StarCraft
For those who don't know, StarCraft is a series of sci-fi RTS games created and published by Blizzard. There are presently 2 games in this series: StarCraft, released in 1998, with an expansion (StarCraft: Brood War) being released later that year. Its full sequel, StarCraft II, was released in 2010 with the title StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, with 2 expansions releasing in 2013 (StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm) and 2015. (StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void)
StarCraft is one of the earliest examples of esports in gaming history, predating the first MOBAs by several years. Fighting games like Street Fighter might be even earlier. StarCraft, however, is on a different level entirely; it's particularly popular in Korea, where it may as well be considered the national sport.
I myself am a StarCraft player, particularly a StarCraft II player. I'm not particularly good at it; on the ranked ladder, my highest finish was top Silver League, which is really, really low. Part of the problem is my computer having mouselag with the game, which hinders my accuracy and speed significantly, but in all honesty, the lion's share of my problems are that I'm just bad. Period. I can improve, and will if I keep at it enough; perhaps even overcoming that particular limitation, but I don't have that kind of patience. I prefer to lose on my own terms, not because of bad hardware. Or maybe it's my OS that's the problem... The mouselag wasn't a thing before I upgraded to macOS Sierra a couple of years ago...
Anyway. There is a faction within the playerbase – a few, actually – who believe StarCraft II overall was watered down from what the StarCraft: Brood War experience was. Not just in the campaign, but in the gameplay itself. After having some lengthy discussions with some of these people in my spare time, I can see where they're coming from for certain. I don't like Brood War myself, and a lot of the reasons I like StarCraft II are a few of the reasons these people hate it, because these are things they believe lowered the skill ceiling for the game compared to what it was in Brood War.
First, let's talk about the campaign. In StarCraft: Brood War, the campaign was more or less designed to teach you how to play the game. How each unit works, and when you need to use them. Except for hero units, every unit you play with in the campaign can be used in the multiplayer, and they work pretty much the exact same way in both modes. That said, the campaign is very difficult for those not used to the (in my experience) very restrictive UI, and in some cases, very difficult even for those who are. More on that later.
In StarCraft II's campaign, this is a whole different ballgame. While the game does teach you the very basics of how to play, it doesn't teach you how the units work the same way Brood War did, and in fact, the units in the multiplayer can end up playing completely different roles than they did in the campaign due to balance changes completely overturning the metagame. Sure, you'll learn how units work in that campaign, but those units don't necessarily work the same way in the multiplayer, and some of those campaign units – Terran Goliaths, Protoss Dark Archons, Zerg Guardians, for example – don't even exist in that mode. Conversely, some multiplayer units don't exist in the campaign. Blizzard even added a completely different mode at some point that was intended to aid in the transition from campaign play to multiplayer play because the disconnect was so big. This mode was called "Training". In addition, multiplayer is played at a faster speed than most campaign difficulties, the exception being Brutal difficulty, which is played at multiplayer speed. I didn't spend enough time with Brood War to notice a speed difference between the modes; I doubt there is one. Speed is an important factor to consider here, because it affects timings. But that's getting into gameplay...
... which is the next thing I want to talk about. In StarCraft: Brood War, you're only allowed to select either 1 building at a time, or up to 16 units at a time. While commonly attributed to hardware or software limitations of the time, I'm... having a hard time buying that excuse, as it's the only RTS game I've ever played that had that limitation. Granted, I haven't played any other RTS games from the 90s or earlier, so for all I know, this could be completely true. I'll have to ask some fans of early Age of Empires or Command & Conquer games later. Anyway, regardless of the technical reasons for this being the case, the effect was that players had to be smarter about unit management. It was excruciatingly difficult to send what are called "death balls" over to the enemy base and roll over them because of a combination of this and less-than-stellar unit pathing algorithms, the latter of which affected the Terran Goliath and the Protoss Dragoon the most of any other unit in the game, or so I'm told. In addition to this, worker units had to be specifically ordered to gather resources, even when rallied to them from the primary base structure, or they would do nothing at all.
StarCraft II? You can select as many units at one time as you want, and even have more than one building in your selection. This streamlined several things, but it also made it painfully easy to build those death balls I talked about in the previous paragraph. In the Protoss arsenal in particular, there's a unit that rather annoyingly enables and borderline encourages death ball play: The Mothership. As a Protoss player myself, I personally avoid building this thing on principle, though it does usually fall off in the upper echelons of play as death balls do anyway, at least in current versions of the game. Early on in the game's lifetime, though? Death balls were everywhere. This has frustrated quite a handful of series veterans enough to write the game off entirely.
All of this because of an effort to make the game more accessible. It worked, but it came at a price. I'm not gonna deny there's some elitism at play; there totally is. However, it doesn't change the fact that these seemingly innocuous quality-of-life changes have altered the game in such a way that it very nearly took the "strategy" out of the real-time strategy game. I'm sure there might have been a better way to make the game more accessible to new players without alienating the old ones, but in the end, as much as I like StarCraft II over StarCraft: Brood War, I don't think this was it.

I don't think all, or even most, games really need an easy mode. Accessibility is one thing, but difficulty is another matter entirely. Some games – particularly those that are played for their competitive multiplayer – can, in fact, be negatively impacted by both.
To illustrate, I want to talk about a game series that I greatly enjoy: StarCraft
For those who don't know, StarCraft is a series of sci-fi RTS games created and published by Blizzard. There are presently 2 games in this series: StarCraft, released in 1998, with an expansion (StarCraft: Brood War) being released later that year. Its full sequel, StarCraft II, was released in 2010 with the title StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, with 2 expansions releasing in 2013 (StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm) and 2015. (StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void)
StarCraft is one of the earliest examples of esports in gaming history, predating the first MOBAs by several years. Fighting games like Street Fighter might be even earlier. StarCraft, however, is on a different level entirely; it's particularly popular in Korea, where it may as well be considered the national sport.
I myself am a StarCraft player, particularly a StarCraft II player. I'm not particularly good at it; on the ranked ladder, my highest finish was top Silver League, which is really, really low. Part of the problem is my computer having mouselag with the game, which hinders my accuracy and speed significantly, but in all honesty, the lion's share of my problems are that I'm just bad. Period. I can improve, and will if I keep at it enough; perhaps even overcoming that particular limitation, but I don't have that kind of patience. I prefer to lose on my own terms, not because of bad hardware. Or maybe it's my OS that's the problem... The mouselag wasn't a thing before I upgraded to macOS Sierra a couple of years ago...
Anyway. There is a faction within the playerbase – a few, actually – who believe StarCraft II overall was watered down from what the StarCraft: Brood War experience was. Not just in the campaign, but in the gameplay itself. After having some lengthy discussions with some of these people in my spare time, I can see where they're coming from for certain. I don't like Brood War myself, and a lot of the reasons I like StarCraft II are a few of the reasons these people hate it, because these are things they believe lowered the skill ceiling for the game compared to what it was in Brood War.
First, let's talk about the campaign. In StarCraft: Brood War, the campaign was more or less designed to teach you how to play the game. How each unit works, and when you need to use them. Except for hero units, every unit you play with in the campaign can be used in the multiplayer, and they work pretty much the exact same way in both modes. That said, the campaign is very difficult for those not used to the (in my experience) very restrictive UI, and in some cases, very difficult even for those who are. More on that later.
In StarCraft II's campaign, this is a whole different ballgame. While the game does teach you the very basics of how to play, it doesn't teach you how the units work the same way Brood War did, and in fact, the units in the multiplayer can end up playing completely different roles than they did in the campaign due to balance changes completely overturning the metagame. Sure, you'll learn how units work in that campaign, but those units don't necessarily work the same way in the multiplayer, and some of those campaign units – Terran Goliaths, Protoss Dark Archons, Zerg Guardians, for example – don't even exist in that mode. Conversely, some multiplayer units don't exist in the campaign. Blizzard even added a completely different mode at some point that was intended to aid in the transition from campaign play to multiplayer play because the disconnect was so big. This mode was called "Training". In addition, multiplayer is played at a faster speed than most campaign difficulties, the exception being Brutal difficulty, which is played at multiplayer speed. I didn't spend enough time with Brood War to notice a speed difference between the modes; I doubt there is one. Speed is an important factor to consider here, because it affects timings. But that's getting into gameplay...
... which is the next thing I want to talk about. In StarCraft: Brood War, you're only allowed to select either 1 building at a time, or up to 16 units at a time. While commonly attributed to hardware or software limitations of the time, I'm... having a hard time buying that excuse, as it's the only RTS game I've ever played that had that limitation. Granted, I haven't played any other RTS games from the 90s or earlier, so for all I know, this could be completely true. I'll have to ask some fans of early Age of Empires or Command & Conquer games later. Anyway, regardless of the technical reasons for this being the case, the effect was that players had to be smarter about unit management. It was excruciatingly difficult to send what are called "death balls" over to the enemy base and roll over them because of a combination of this and less-than-stellar unit pathing algorithms, the latter of which affected the Terran Goliath and the Protoss Dragoon the most of any other unit in the game, or so I'm told. In addition to this, worker units had to be specifically ordered to gather resources, even when rallied to them from the primary base structure, or they would do nothing at all.
StarCraft II? You can select as many units at one time as you want, and even have more than one building in your selection. This streamlined several things, but it also made it painfully easy to build those death balls I talked about in the previous paragraph. In the Protoss arsenal in particular, there's a unit that rather annoyingly enables and borderline encourages death ball play: The Mothership. As a Protoss player myself, I personally avoid building this thing on principle, though it does usually fall off in the upper echelons of play as death balls do anyway, at least in current versions of the game. Early on in the game's lifetime, though? Death balls were everywhere. This has frustrated quite a handful of series veterans enough to write the game off entirely.
All of this because of an effort to make the game more accessible. It worked, but it came at a price. I'm not gonna deny there's some elitism at play; there totally is. However, it doesn't change the fact that these seemingly innocuous quality-of-life changes have altered the game in such a way that it very nearly took the "strategy" out of the real-time strategy game. I'm sure there might have been a better way to make the game more accessible to new players without alienating the old ones, but in the end, as much as I like StarCraft II over StarCraft: Brood War, I don't think this was it.

I think this is a worthwhile point to consider. It reminds me of people who play buster-only runs of Mega Man games, or Nuzlockes in Pokémon. The achievements of people who succeed these are not undermined by the presence of Special Weapons or the ability to keep your mons even if they faint, respectively. These self-imposed challenges are not denied, discouraged, or encouraged by the game itself. People just... do them.
However, most of these games don't have an "easy" mode. Or any other mode beyond the default, for that matter. Mega Man 2 had a "Normal" mode that was only put into the international release, but the only difficulty in the original Rockman 2 was the Hard one. To the best of my knowledge, mainstream Pokémon games have never had difficulty settings.

Eeyup-yup. I'mma be there.

My next stream will start in a few minutes. It's going to be for the Ace Attorney Trilogy! Me and my co-host @Executor Akamia will go on and play this game for as long as our sanity allows. So yeah! Let's all have some good ol' fashioned Ace Attorney fun.
 

That's the stupidest connection I have ever heard in my entire life.
How the hell is that supposed to be any form of supremacy? Just how?!
Look dude, the fact is that no matter where you go, you won't be able to please everyone in any way. You are going to find players that are certainly not going to enjoy the game you're making for them. Catering to them at the expense of the player base that's already loyal to you will not only never really turn the heads of those who didn't want to play the game iun the first place, but it will also turn those who already enjoyed the game for what it was away.
And seriously, I am known for saying that things are linked to politics and such.. But this was the most vague and stupid connection I have ever heard. To the point where I am not even comparing you to the left, I just think you're entirely delusional.

A forum is a place for discussion and you'll meet people who do not agree with you.
Also.. Yeah.. I mean, there are games that I simply cannot play for the life of me like the Tohou games (or any bullet hell game for that matter) because they cause motion sickness to me. You know what I do? I turn back and play the games I can actually enjoy and play. I don't know why that's a hard concept to grasp.

Final Fantasy is a series that's quite beloved among gamers of all demographics and console generations. It's a franchise that has stood the test of time and has only brought innovation to the RPG genre...
And I HATE Every Single One of Them
The very reason why I always hated Final Fantasy was rather shallow for many. I hated the series because I saw them as constant grind-fests plagued with the annoying and primitive Turn-Based RPG mechanic. I didn't really have another reason to hate them and I always thought it was enough. However, people often said that my criticisms were empty and that "your opinion would change if you gave the games a shot!" or whatever.
So I did.
Let me just say that, after playing all of the main line Final Fantasy games (Not including side-games or spinoffs like Crisis Core - FFVII or FF Tactics), not only has my opinion on FF stayed the same. It also has made me realize that all of the Final Fantasy games have huge flaws that hold them back from being decent games on their own right. While I will definitely elaborate more on that view with future "Ule's View" installments; I will be talking about my thoughts in a general sense.
I started playing Final Fantasy games after Dissidia 012 brought my interest with one character in particular: Lightning. After I played through 012's story mode and enjoying the game as a whole. i joined the Dissidia server and started playing Final Fantasy games in the appropriate order and on their original release forms or PC ports. Right now I am finishing FFXII to gather my thoughts on it, but I fully played I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, X-2, XIII, XIII-2, LR, and XV. I didn't touch XI or XIV because those games are MMORPG's and.,. Well, if my opinion on FF didn't change, I don't think my opinion on MMO's will either.
Anyways, while I hate the FF games. I can't say I hate everything related to FF. I do think that there are some aspects in the series that held up quite well on their own regard. The Job System that was introduced in FFIII was a very prominent example of a mechanic that went through a very incredible evolution process. The music of the games also has various high points and it would be a huge disservice to the series to talk about the game's soudtracks. Songs like Eternal Wind (III), Saber's Edge (XIII), Aerith's Theme (VII), Esper Battle (XII), Dancing Mad (VI), Theme of Love (IV), Via Purifico (X), and The Man With The Machine Gun (VIII) are excellent examples of the timeless nature of the Final Fantasy music.
However, FF games were never really that good. FF is not a series I deem worth playing because either the stories are copypaste (I, V, III) awfully written (IV, VIII, II) poorly characterized (XIII, VII, IX) or, even if they actually cover these issues well they have other aspects that hold them back. III has this issue where a giant mountain is materialized right in front of your face in the form of a level grindwall with a boss that does nothing special (Cloud of Darkness), VI and II are held back by the same design flaw.  X is innovative but it also has an extremely painful grind which only gets worse the more characters you bring to the party, The FNC series often brings attempts at innovation and fails miserably at them (And no, I'm not talking about the Hallways, that's the least of the XIII series problems). Finally, XV is .... Well, it's the reason why Turn based RPG players hate Action RPGs. I could go on and talk about which game has what issue but I think the point is clear.
I played them all and I ... Definitely regret doing so with the exception of the Fabula Nova Crystalis series (Again, will be further elaborated in future "Ule's View"). Before someone brings mention to it, yes, there are bosses that break the problems I talked about. Rubicante (IV), Diablos (VIII), Ultros (VI) and such... But those are just a single moment before going back to overpowering everything and everyone.
I will admit, I didn't have to play these games. However, I wanted to show people the compromise I had with being a gaming journalist by not making any sort of biased judgement. This crusade to play every Final Fantasy game started over 2 years ago. Thankfully, the community in the Dissidia discord was quite welcoming to my criticisms of the game. I definitely enjoyed discussing the various problems Final Fantasy games had with them and I also feel like they know how to critically look at their games. It was the best Final Fantasy discussion I've ever had with people and I am grateful to at least make new friendships thanks to this series.
However, my opinion on Final Fantasy as a whole definitely hasn't changed. With upcoming games like the FFVII remake, I definitely will start to skip some games and favor other RPGs instead. I find it sad that I'm writing this text wall while listening to Lightning Returns's version of "Eternal Wind". But I learned a lot about Final Fantasy and the characters and I actually know why people hold this game series in high regard. Why is that? Well, you'll have to stay tuned for future Ule's Views to find out.
So yeah... Sucks to be me I gu ess.

Putting a rough translation of a twitter thread I made on the issue with a few more additions and revisions
I think the latest Game Overthinker is a bit shortsighted. "Loss of Connection/Community/Access" Is not an issue as games are encouraged to be played in a local setting almost all the time. Heck, that's what Competitive Gaming centers around. Yes, I agree that this sort of community is not as big as the general gaming space or being in line for the latest release of a game. However, eSports is basically becoming mainstream as we speak,. with people training to become better at competing and learning, that tells me the community there is growing and attracting more people.
As for Physical Vs. Digital? I agree, we're literally seeing the worst Digital Stores have to offer with Steam Vs. Epic Games Store majorly making the PC platform uncomfortable to game into. Nobody can tell me otherwise, especially not after the Metro Exodus controversy. Hey guys, did you love the Wii Store and how it's basically GONE now and now you can't get jackshit in terms of the games you had to begin with? Boy, wouldn't it be fun when we get the WiiU shop closing or god forbid any platform we currently use like STEAM?
Something that the Overthinker may have not considered is the fact that Mexico basically is unaffected by this. There are plenty of especialized game stores down here and NONE of them are called Gamestop. Not only that, but they are indie and often have games as far as the NES. This is often seen in places like Veracruz, Mexico CIty, Jalisco, Guerrero, and so on. The reason for  this is because game stores love preserving gaming history. (Yes, as much as people like to see Mexico as the piracy place, it's not.)
However, I still don't think that Physical media has to go. Yes, that's rich coming from a guy who literally buys everything in Digital form now; However, I am aware that I am essentially renting games at full price like bob said. Again, if you really think otherwise, you should go and check the blatant misuse of the term "Individual Game License" to make it seem like you're being sold an item when in reality they can take it off your hands if they feel like it.
On Gaming Merch. You're fucking serious right now gaming community? I remember people condemning Jason Schrier to hell and back for the fact that he "Didn't have any sort of gaming apparel/merch." back when he was debating with Yongyea.  So that means people KNOW that gaming merch is important and apparently it's part of our identity. So why would people be against it? Or is it because Gamestop did it? I mean, the person who was mostly adamant against Gamestop was Cleanprincegaming. And he basically spends time ripping people off like The Quartering.
So yeah, Physical Media leaving the gaming space is definitely the worst thing that could happen to us. Even if Gamestop is as hellish as you want it to be or whatever; I think people should be concerned.