I am the kind of player that plays new games on the hardest difficulty the first time I play them. So my own personal philosophy is that I need severe penalties and difficulty to enjoy a game. I understand that many casual players don't really understand the mindset.
I do that too, but punishment=!challenge. What if a friend comes in the room and punches you in the face if you die? Does that make the game more challenging, or just more frustrating? The benefit of the challenge from playing on hard mode is that the GAME IS ACTUALLY HARDER, and not the fact that if you die, you lose time and progress. But if you seriously just want to punish yourself, slam your balls in the door every time you do something wrong. It will make hard mode seem like ultimate ******* ***** mode.
I was talking to a casual gamer friend who was playing Dead Space on easy and kept on dying and instead of trying anything new or different in his strategies, and finding there were no cheats, he decided it was too hard for him and quit.
Naturally, this was a foreign and disturbing concept to me, to the point of irritation.
I confess I don't really understand this mentality either, but this is not the de facto casual player approach to gaming. I would imagine that there were other factors that contributed to his quitting.
But really, there are two types of gamers: People who find pleasure in playing for challenge and the satisfaction that comes from overcoming hardships, and people who play for fun by turning on cheats and using godmode.
The latter I find completely dull, but hey, if people like it, let them do it.
If you're trying to correlate this bifurcation to games with harsh penalties and games without them, then no. But this goes back to your misconception that punishment=! challenge.
Would the Resident Evils or Silent Hills be nearly as atmospheric and nerve wracking if you had tons of ammo instead of punishing you for not conserving and rationing correctly?
That's not a punishment or a penalty. It's a limitation. Yes, they are different in ways that are not merely semantic.
Penalties are meant to instill a need to be careful, deliberate and cautious or there there is no tension in the game. And that destroys the game.
That's a popular theory that is demonstrably wrong in many games where players can continually attempt difficult battles consecutively, and still must determine a winning strategy to be victorious.
The purpose of penalties is to stretch out the game content cheaply and easily.
Kachi, this is simply a philosophical difference.
I really don't think it is. A matter of differing tastes is not a philosophical difference, anymore than it would be a philosophical difference if I liked my *** to be vigorous yet enjoyable, and you liked it to be tantric and painful. Which seems like an apt analogy.
I'm no stranger to this kind of masochism coming from gamers. It seems to go hand and hand with the crowd that has problems with compulsion (which used to include yours truly). I get it, but I don't embrace it.
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...
Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.
Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.