Easiness

That's a good question. The Kirby image is especially relevant too me. I would say it is, but not in the sense of it being a flaw of design or execution. Rather that's something where if you find more challenging games more enjoyable the developer's goal when making that game doesn't line up with your taste.

I say Kirby is relevant to me, because I grew up on first party Nintendo. I still enjoy those games I grew up on, but a combination of sticking to a formula and the general difficulty caused me to start losing interest as my tastes changed. The games are still good and I didn't grow out of them. I just like different kinds of games than I did twelve to fourteen years ago. Because, that difficulty is an intentional part of the experience.

I also don't think they would be better if they were harder on the other hand. The difficulty of Kirby gels with just about everything else about it. If it was really hard it might feel weird playing as this cute pink blob in fairly non-threatening world. It's the same reason why the Souls series would be worse if they were easier. It's part of the design that creates the experience the developer is trying to get across.

So, I guess my answer is no. I wouldn't say being too easy is necessarily a flaw. I would say that on a personal taste level I am less likely to like a game that is too easy on the other hand. Not that I can't enjoy a game like that, but in a general sense I prefer more challenging game play. It's not really an objectively good or bad thing as long as the execution is good.

A fail condition helps motivate people to get better though. Not everyone is going to be a number autist who wants to increase their score for the sake of it. Your idea might work if a certain minimum score is needed to progress, but not every game needs that shit.

Yes, depending on the game. Tropico 3 and 4 are too easy as is Prison Architect. In both you'll only experience issues if you willingly play to a certain theme instead of each playstyle having its own pros and cons.

Yes. A perfect example would be very single Musou game after (and including) Dynasty Warriors 8. You just mash buttons and you win, regardless of difficulty. It's brainless, it's insultingly easy, and worst of all it's boring. The only "challenge" is to actually move yourself behind the enemy officers since they can't block backwards, and blocking is all they do 95% of the time. If that's somehow too stimulating for you, you can just slap Cyclone on a weapon and one-shot any enemy that's guarding. Yes, that means you one-shot all enemy officiers nearly 100% of the time.

0^2 is a shitty boss battle but the presentation is fucking great. Easiness isn't a problem if what you're playing is otherwise pleasant to experience. If I ever have a problem with a Kirby game it isn't because it's too easy, it's because it's too tedious.

Kirby games are easy but theyre still quite fun because they manage to be engaging

Kirby's flaw isn't being easy as fuck, it's having shorter story modes than a CoD game. I emulated the wii kirby game and beat it in one sitting. Hardly remember it.

As I get older, it's not enough for a game just to be fun. I need there to be a challenge otherwise I start questioning why I'm spending any time on it. If there was a graph of how many times I've died in video games, it would definitely start tanking as the time axis goes on, this is why I love going back to older games, they weren't afraid to let you fuck up.

Yes, it is a flaw. Games have selectable difficulty levels for a reason.

"Too easy" can be a flaw as much as "Too hard". It's just another thing a game can get wrong in the vast spectrum of things that can go wrong.

This.

Can't challenge also mean fun?
Like
So you're having fun, but at the same time, the game is challenging.
If that even makes sense.

I played an enjoyed Rayman Legends even though it was incredibly easy. I'de say it lies in with the context of what the player wants.

I'de be damned if the game didn't give its all in trying to entertain you. It's like it was trying to make you happy and have fun. While it wasn't the most solid experience in terms of game design it made up with it in charm and and good nature. Insane to think Ubisoft had any part in it. But the scratch card feature reveals where they had their Jew hands on it.

Basically easy games aren't bad if they're designed well. They just should pander to the normalfag tradition of shit that makes money versus shit that actually entertains.

Yes but it depends on the person.
I find Kirby boring because it's so short and easy I'm feeling like I'm dragging by board ass across the game till it's over.

"Too easy" is too vague. An RPG might have action that's very easy, but still is compelling due to art, storytelling, etc. An action game might be too easy but be engaging because the core gameplay is fun and rewarding. And so on.

Funny, seeing as how Epic Yarn is a favorite of mine. Easiness is fine as long as the game is designed around it. If you design the game with easiness in mind, you shouldn't make the game about challenge, moreso about something else. Take Epic Yarn for example, the game is designed more around loftily exploring the level, and interacting with the background in a comfy manner, sorta like the vidya equivalent of a pop up book. Adding a lose condition would actually just take away from the game's tone, seeing how exploration is valued much more than survival. Beads were just added as a bonus collect-a-thon, and an added incentive to keep on exploring.

if it's not as hard as donkey kong, then what's the point?

unless it's churayzee in depth

depends on the game i guess but its also up to opinion.
what does the game have to offer besides challenge? is there fun to be had elsewhere? can you create a challenge for yourself?

Exactly my point. As I kid I could enjoy games that were fun but not challenging, but now that I'm older I need them to be both.

there's a thing called "flow" that exists in games.
It's essentially the balance between being so easy it's boring, and so hard it's frustrating. games like kirby (and platinum games, actually)
are incredibly good at this, because they have a lot of depth that isn't necessary to "complete" the game, but is necessary to get ALL the challenges, achievements, etc.
a game like dwarf fortress or hearts of iron 3 has vastly more complexity, at the cost of accessibility, while games that Holla Forums loathes like gone home, skyrim, or fallout 4 have incredible accessibility at the cost of complexity/depth
this is because Holla Forums is (believe it or not) made up of more experienced/skilled gamers who can handle being plunged into difficult situations with little-to-no instructions, whereas casual gamers would immediately be frustrated and stop playing.
granted, I am of the opinion that the highly complex-yet-difficult games have more worth, simply because there is more depth beyond the high difficulty curve. it simply takes more effort to get to it.

Ribbon is CUTE!

What unholy abomination from hell thought and drew this , while we're on that note WHY THE FUCK DID YOU POST IT!?!?!?!

MY FUCKING EYES
oppai loli is okay but come on now leave Ribbon alone

No offense to those who do like to hunt for high scores and perfect runs, to each his own, but this goes for me. I couldn't care less about endless high score chases, I like my game challenges of the pass-or-fail variety or I'm not interested. Just give me a set, objective win condition, - your basic "beat the game" setup - and ideally the game shouldn't even count anything else like time, accuracy, etc for grading purposes. Just get to the end and beat the boss and save the world, time and retries and so on make no difference. It's fine if the game keeps track of those things but they have absolutely no in-game significance whatsoever, though. Some people do like to try for ever faster runs and higher scores and having that option is no skin off my nose. Just make sure speed and accuracy and so on have no tangible in-game significance and everybody's happy.

Most of my favorite games operate like that, for example Zelda games. And even among my favorites that do have a significant in-game grading system, Such as the Devil May Cry series, I wish they didn't. Like, a combo system is fine to exist at all, if all better combos did is just give you more experience or whatever that'd be fine. But I never find it fun to worry about having to keep up a good combo in order to get an S rank at the end in order to unlock something. As long as I beat the monsters at all, why does it even matter how quickly and flawlessly I did it?

Devs can make where the minimum required to complete a level makes a level easy, but full completion would take more effort.
Games built with speedrunning and scoring in mind tend to do this, where mastering a level can always be improved.

UNF

on the subject of being rewarded with power in some form for higher ranks i always found that odd. youre clearly going for a challenge, but here they are throwing you something that will make it easier.

kirby does it right

the true arena is challenging (or relatively with the rest of the game) and only available to those who almost 100% or 100% their games, knowing that those who reach that point are no longer, or wish to no longer be, casuals. The True Arena on their kirby games is a love letter to those seeking challenges in Kirby games. Robobot had a really good true arena.

holy shit the devs are such trolls.

While it is true that there are some great games that are relatively easy, I do think that most games would be improved by having a decent amount of difficulty. There are some games whose appeal is different enough for difficulty to not matter, such as VNs or games like journey.