Firstly, you can’t play the game without looking at the screen. Just because some dipshit mashes a few buttons for a video to prove a specious point about modern gaming doesn’t mean the game can be played without actually paying attention and it certainly doesn’t denote the combat as automated or simplistic. (Do we even know what the difficulty setting of the game is in that video?)
Secondly, the inability or unwillingness by some to mine the deeper nuances of something does nothing to negate the fact that the challenge is there for the people who want it. Not only does the difficulty ramp up as you progress but the higher difficulty settings remove the counter prompt entirely so that this game can become something entirely different in the hands of skilled players. You seem to think that the inclusion of a difficulty slide denotes it as shallow and easy but clearly, most titles can be played as such.
For example, I could just as easily play Tekken Tag 2 on the “Very Easy” setting and probably blow through the entirety of the arcade mode blindfolded as a character like Eddy Gordo. By your metric, that would denote the combat as shallow and easy but clearly, that would be an asinine conclusion to reach based on such flimsy evidence.
And that intersects with your question: why somebody would bother to learn the nuances of the combat when they are not required for success?
As a core enthusiast I would think that question beneath you given that we tend to play games for more than the superficial and immediate thrill and rather probe those depths for advanced techniques that test our respective gaming acumen.
You can play AC (and many other games) in such a shallow manner but clearly, that is not how they were intended to be experienced, save for the casual consumer.
Log in to comment