Fair would be a game like monopoly. Or tic tac toe. Or chess, go. Yet its quite possible to lose a game of tic tac toe.
Its comical to think of a 2015 video game implementation of player v computer chess, where you never get checkmated, just have to move yet another piece, and never run out of pieces, until you finally win.
If you lose a game of chess, you can set up the board again and play another game.
If you lose a boss fight in Dark Souls, you reload your save and fight the boss again.
If you lose a game of Counter-Strike, you wait three minutes in freelook and try not to get AWPed next round.
The only area of video gaming I can think of where your complaint applies is mobile, where you win by paying thousands of dollars for energy crystals or some such.
Fair only means that it is possible to win, not that it is guaranteed.
There's been a lot of talk about games nowadays being "too easy", but they have difficulty selectors for a reason. Gamers choosing an easier difficulty because they would prefer to experience the story with minimal frustration are still valid gamers, they are just tuning their entertainment experience to their preferences.
Disparaging gamers with those preferences by calling them a part of "participation trophy" culture is unfair and uncalled for. Their entertainment preferences are just as valid as your movie or book preferences, regardless of how "difficult" it is for you to experience the media.
I honestly apologize, in retrospect I think my analysis of the facts is spot on but I was a overly harsh and judgmental in commenting on those specific observations. For example I was absolutely correct in identifying them as part of "participation trophy culture" but I was absolutely incorrect about making fun of them for it. If they're having fun doing their thing and I'm having fun doing my thing thats OK. I'm generally very libertarian (small L) and that was pretty far out of character for me.
The extremely small number of game creators can result in restricted choices and frustration. I guess I've always got the indies, at least, even if dominant AAA style holds little appeal to me.
I appreciate your opinion and your apology, however I still don't follow or agree with your reasoning about "participation trophy culture". Certainly there are games out there that are hard to fail at, but ultimately it all boils down to the difficulty setting, doesn't it?
It sounds like you're proposing the Game Over screen come back and boot people back to the title screen to start all over, which doesn't suit many gaming formats, especially those formats developed or popularized in the last decade or two like RPGs and adventure games.
> Its comical to think of a 2015 video game implementation of player v computer chess, where you never get checkmated, just have to move yet another piece, and never run out of pieces, until you finally win.
That might actually be interesting. Most chess games are decided by blunders even at Grandmaster level. I'd love to see people try to work on a "perfect" game, with unlimited retries. Maybe we'd finally see whether White has a winning advantage.
Its comical to think of a 2015 video game implementation of player v computer chess, where you never get checkmated, just have to move yet another piece, and never run out of pieces, until you finally win.