This reminds me or a problem but not with a game I like. Still, I'm the OP, so:
Tales of Maj'Eyeal appears to have balanced itself around the insane playerbase who decided the meta was the highest difficulty level.
This feedback loop also affects other areas, such as the game's already uncommunicative UX and "gotcha!" designs. Already being a variant of the already unforgiving Angband, this doesn't help new players break in. Especially since many of the better classes and options are locked behind completely asinine requirements.

Such as a random encounter dungeon you can't redo that doesn't leave a map marker where you have to escort some tissue paper though a hostile area.

The last stage of the campaign of Dungeons 2 was like this. I had to cheat to beat it after a few failed attempts. Reading on it, it apparently used to be possible until changes to the game later.

I've encountered other games that have done that, but I can't recall any right now.

Oh heavens yes. I don't understand why so many developers focus on maximizing difficulty and always cater to the vocal minority of das-ubergamer meta-player. I've had many games hurt by that (in tabletop gaming too!)

Drakengard: The gameplay
Urban Chaos: Riot Response: Is too short

How do you feel about Yakuza/LIke a Dragon?

I think Morrowind might have too many edges. Consider that, early on, the game gives you 3 copies of a scroll that temporarily raises a certain skill by 1,000 (when the normal cap is 100). Also, consider that the game has a lot of exploitable mechanics, and is basically devoid of anti-exploit mechanics to prevent you from exploiting them.

Oblivion, on the other hand, ha a lot of anti-exploit mechanics, some of which may go too far. (For example, the Fortify Alchemy effect doesn't actually do anything except change the number displayed by "Alchemy" in your list of skills.)

Skyrim has different mechanics, so the anti-exploit rules feel less arbitrary, and even then, there's an exploit with Fortify Restoration potions that's still capable of triggering integer overflow.

I think it's reasonable for the developer to maximize difficulty, call it hard mode, and then make some easier modes.

I can mention Knights of the Chalice, which can be quite difficult because the developers took the time to write some advanced AI. Thing is, that game could have used an easy mode that differs from the normal/hard mode in that the AI isn't as smart, and that would feel more interesting than simply changing the numbers on different difficulties. I feel like a great opportunity was missed here.

(Puzzle Quest changes the AI on each difficulty. The problem is that the difference between Normal (chooses from top 10% of possible moves) and hard (always chooses the best possible move) is too small. I'm thinking that, instead of Easy/Normal/Hard being 50/10/0, it should have been more like 50/25/10, so that normal feels like a happy medium between easy and hard, rather than basically feeling like hard.

Another game to mention: Metroid: Zero Mission. The problem is that Normal difficulty is too easy, yet Hard difficulty is too hard. The game really should have had an intermediate setting.

Oooh. Metroid Zero Mission is a great game that just manages to overstay it's welcome. Even ignoring the cringeworthy thing it introduced to the franchise which has taken multiple decades to recover from, the original ending point of Metroid was a great ending point. They didn't need to build on from that. Much like any Ghouls & Ghosts games, I'm not going to discredit anyone who calls the Escape as the end.

One game that sticks out to me that I really like, but is dragged down by one thing is FTL, and that thing is the flagship at the end.

Firstly, it undermines the concept of the game being a roguelike, to have this fixed end boss at the end of the game that is always the same. The very high difficulty of the fight is also a problem, imo. The flagship is so crazy difficult that the only way you are going to have a chance of beating it is if you play the game with the intention of min-maxing your craft to have what it needs to beat it.

This completely changes the premise of the game. What starts out as a nice, freeform, roguelike journey - once you are aware of the flagship and it's capabilities - morphs into a pure metagame where you are racing against time to collect the things that you know you will need to beat the flagship before you get there.

In addition, it seems that only certain tactics/weaponry are really effective against it, which ties the players' hands in terms of choice of strategy. This apparent freedom that you have to design your ship and customize your battle tactics is really just an illusion, because only a subset of those will work against the fixed flagship challenge.

It's a great game that I really like, but imo dragged down by the poor design of the flagship. The flagship is unnecessary - the game would have been better with a less difficult and more randomized final boss to better fit the spirit of a roguelike, or none at all.

First time I played Jedi Knight, I didn't pay enough attention to civilians in that city level, at some point the game decides if the player is good or bad ... I had to finish my first runthrough as dark Jedi.


Generally speaking: The bad 2D scrolling in most early VGA games.
Later games did much much better. So I still play the Amiga versions, even if with SB8 or SB16 support the sound could be equal and visuals ca be superior on PC (check out Turrican 2 on PC, it's ace), but the scrolling of early games hurts.

Ah, the vagueness of Karma systems. Makes me wonder gamedevs keep trying when after 20+ years of failing, nobody was able to top Ultima IV's system.

As for the scrolling of early VGA games, it really was an uphill battle since the PC was supposed to be a "SERIOUS MACHINE".

Hard disagree. That the final boss is a known static significantly increases the enjoyment of the game. If the final boss were a random choice, you'd run into issues like Slay the Spire and get there to find it's just randomly the one that your otherwise great build is going to not be able to do anything against.

Also, do you play FTL on easy? Though I can win on normal, I find easy a more enjoyable experience (though my winrate is probably a little too high on easy).

Tobal No. 1 is one of my favorite fighting games, but unlocking characters requires the player to go through Quest Mode, where the player explores dungeons that feel tacked-on. The controls for dungeon navigation are awkward, similar to the old Tomb Raider games, but somehow feel worse. Each new dungeon becomes more difficult and longer than the last. The fact you can't save your progress doesn't help either.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion on it. I don't find that the static big bad increases my enjoyment of the game - more the opposite. To me, it mostly undermines the aspects that I like about the game.

I haven't tried Slay the Spire, but it looks very good and to me, what you say sounds much better. In a roguelike, it's up to the player to tailor their build to be able to handle whatever gets thrown at them (or take a risk in specializing more deeply). If you get dealt something that you can't handle, that's too bad. Try again!

I've played a bit of Yakuza 3 on PS3 and Zero, and those are good examples of creating a lived in world, my main complaint there is a gameplay one where I don't love having to load into a battle setting for every fight.