Those games exist, and in fact, there is more variety out there today than ever.

There is far more out there to choose from than ever, so you'll need to search more, and take more effort to find what it is that scratches your individual, personal itch. If you can't find a game that satisfies the challenges you say you are looking for, I'd posit that it says more about your diligence in the hunt than it does about the market.

Steam gets a new game published about every 38 minutes, and the catalog has over 73,000 games. The big problem is too many choices and getting buried in those games that aren't a match to your specific desires, not a lack of good games. It is lazy to blame gatekeepers, streamers, and reviewers for not spoon-feeding you exactly what you're wanting.

Ha, another pattern. : )

Challenge is an interesting aspect, which i have not considered. But you're right.

AliAbdulKareem said:
some people get home late and just wanna play a couple of hours, if we don't provide them with an easy route they gonna rage quit our game.”

Selective difficulty should just solve this?
Idk, because i payed little attention on that. Actually i have played all games on easy since i can remember there is selective difficulty.
But in the last year i have changed my habit. I try harder levels. I do this because the games i like become rare, so i want to stretch them.

AliAbdulKareem said:
I can share some of the famous games in early 2000s or so that you might like

No need. I have replayed them all already.
The best game of the last year, beside the Amid Evil underdog, was the Quake 2 remaster. When it came out, i did not even finish it. There were too many other great games around at that time. But now i loved it, and played it two times in a row.

So i ask myself why do prefer old games?

They are simple and casual. No complicated extra skills and abstract mechanics. So i can stop playing when i want and come back two weeks later without a need to relearn stuff which just feels like bloat to me. Your friend at Ubisoft should think about this, imo.

They don't try to be a low brow Disney movie. They are just trashy games. We can't do what Hollywood does, so we should not try to do so. We have our own tools to tell stories, but character centrism does not work. The outcome is embarrassing. But maybe that's just me.

Old games had identity, they defined their own unique experience, inspired but isolated form any other medium. New games try to be more social, more grown up, more established. And well, i'm just too old for this crap.

Technically new games are not bad at all. But they feel hypocritical and bent into some form they are not meant to be. They don't stand to their original identity, i feel. This puts me off and guides my attention to the wrong spot.

frob said:
There is far more out there to choose from than ever, so you'll need to search more, and take more effort to find what it is that scratches your individual, personal itch. If you can't find a game that satisfies the challenges you say you are looking for, I'd posit that it says more about your diligence in the hunt than it does about the market.

Sure, but you can not just make the customer the scapegoat. There must be something wrong on our side.

But i'll join, pointing my finger at media. Actually gaming sites on the internet.
They talk more about Marvel movies than about games, cover only AAA releases, and even mostly announced games which are still a year away. Indie pearls don't get any coverage at all. So yes, it is hard to find them.

I often look for sites covering indie games, and doing actual reviews instead posting headlines about some streamer doing a fart or the next Netflix show. But so far - no luck.
Maybe i should look for gamer forums instead.

@frob There is far more out there to choose from than ever, so you'll need to search more, and take more effort to find what it is that scratches your individual, personal itch. If you can't find a game that satisfies the challenges you say you are looking for, I'd posit that it says more about your diligence in the hunt than it does about the market.

Steam gets a new game published about every 38 minutes, and the catalog has over 73,000 games. The big problem is too many choices and getting buried in those games that aren't a match to your specific desires, not a lack of good games. It is lazy to blame gatekeepers, streamers, and reviewers for not spoon-feeding you exactly what you're wanting.

Again its quantity not quality.

And I found some good games, such as Lies of P and Tales of Arise, but they ruin the games for no reason with impossible bosses so I just quit those games. And I found a multiplayer game that is good, Rogue Company, but it is so buggy it is clear the devs are both inept and do not give a cluck about the community.

Selective difficulty should just solve this?
Idk, because i payed little attention on that. Actually i have played all games on easy since i can remember there is selective difficulty.

selective difficulty wont fix Tales of Arise , the campaign mode is extremely easy except for the bosses.

ReignOnU said:
impossible bosses

I don't like melee combat, so i never played Dark Souls.
But i wanted to have a look at Elden Ring.
Not really understanding or liking RPG mechanics about stats in GUI pages, i've used a trainer from the start.
That way i could enjoy the game for quite some time. I was impressed in many ways. Seems good.

But then i've ruined the fun with leveling all up to the max. I still could not beat some fire dragon though.

Is it challenge or torture? Idk. It's just not the kind of game i could judge at all. But i remember it well.