What about games that provide standard difficulty options (easy/normal/hard), and allow you to play a "super hard" difficulty only when you already finished the game once?
Do you tend to play them on hard then replay them in the even harder diffculty, or would you tend to drop them because the harder difficulty level is not available from the first run?

This definitely is "unpopular opinion" territory. I consider Battle on the Big Bridge to be one of the highlights of Final Fantasy V, already a terrific and underrated Final Fantasy. In fact, I think Big Bridge would be even better suited in a more fast-paced setting or game (probably Dissidia?)...speaking of underrated, I think Final Fantasy V is better than VI. V had a more concentrated plot focusing on five party members and no more (unlike VI's 14 members which are a bit scattered in development).

Another one is that I like what Final Fantasy IV to VI do with their worlds compared to what VII and VIII does. Closest is VIII's end-game, but that doesn't feel the same. The worlds were given a lot more depth with what IV to VI did in different ways, not to mention the music changing with the worlds as well, and it's better than VII's overworld music post-Meteor-in-the-sky.

Final Fantasy II is one guilty pleasure of mine. It's tough, it's unfair, but it has a charm to it that later Final Fantasy games simply don't have. Is it the setting? Is it how it plays? I don't know. But it's still something I enjoy that many others probably hate.

Funny that you mention that, as I just started a playthrough of Dark Shadow over Palakia (the unreleased English prototype of the NES version). It's interesting to see what an unpolished translation looks like. (For example, Guy appears to be intended to speak in broken English, but with there being a lot of grammatical errors elsewhere in the dialog, Guy's broken English doesn't really stand out, so the effect is lost.)

One rather odd gameplay difference: MingWu (I think that's how his name is translated in this version) starts with the Exit/Teleport spell (called "Warp" in this translation; in case you're wondering, the spell normally translated as "Warp" is "Zap!") at level 6, 98% of the way to level 7. (In other versions, his Teleport spell starts at level 1; seeing as how this is an instant death (albeit the least accurate pre-GBA), one can see how this makes the game easier to break, especially since it works on those Captains in Fin.)

Incidentally, Final Fantasy 2, to me, feels a lot like the original SaGa; being designed by the same person (I believe) might have something to do with it. (One notable difference: In FF2, your actions affect your stat growth, but in SaGa 1, stat growth is unaffected by your actions; Esper/Mutant stat growth is purely (bad) RNG.)

Reminds me of FF3's music change when you first reach the second world. Too bad the music changes back after the next dungeon.

I usually look for a way to unlock those difficulties from the get go (like editing a config file). Typical example would be Max Payne. I am not going to play the game 3 times in quick succession so let me play on the hardest difficulty please.

Yeah, you keep stressing that. Me, I'd hardly ever play any games if that's how they all would be. (Same for idbeholdME's high difficulty "requirement".) Sometimes it works, if the combat is done very well, but even then more an exception than the rule, something to break out of what I'd normally play. Maybe works for one of the 4-5 games I try to finish per year. Possibly compensated by another one, though definitely no more than that, being combat-less, just story and atmosphere, which in this case may well be some "walking simulator" or something of that sort, since it's been a while since I played pure adventures and even longer since I liked one (though I find myself lately considering giving a go to a few of those given as freebies on here).
Give me an immersive atmosphere; a good story, preferably interactive, letting me choose (and knowing what I'm choosing, not choices with potentially unintended consequences revealed later, with no way to even take it back and change the outcome when that time comes), though a set story can also work if it's a good one and I don't particularly disagree with it; characters to care for, preferably with interesting interactions between them; good writing and dialogues; and something to do so I, the player, has the crucial role in getting it all to the desired outcome. The combat falls under this last aspect. Often necessary, but as an enhancement, not usually enough on its own.

In general, if a game has combat, the combat *is* the game, and the rest of the game should be there to support that. Story does not support combat.

If a game developer wants to tell a story, it should either be told through gameplay (a non-trivial task), or the game shouldn't bother with combat and other gameplay aspects. I do not like having to wade through story just to get to the actual game.

This is particuarly annoying in games with RPG-like stats (including, but not limited to, actual RPGs); if I boost my stats or learn a new ability, I want to be able to actually *use* it rather than just watch events play out. (Related: Mini games don't belong outside of games that are basically collections of mini games (this includes things like Mario Party), and if they are included, they should be optional and not important to the core gameplay; there's also accessibility issues here.)

What if the hardest difficulty is not meant to be reasonable?

(Example: In I Wanna Be the Guy, the hardest difficulty, Impossible, removes all checkpoints. As a result, if you die, it's game over and you have to restart from the beginning (or stop playing). Given that you die in one hit, and the game is filled with traps that can kill you without warning, playing the game on this difficulty just isn't reasonable; even if you want to challenge this difficulty, it is not reasonable to attempt it on a first playthrough.)

Breath of the Wild is missing Zelda's trademark and the dlc pass was terrible fort the price.

Also a dirty middle finger to Wii U owners.

Resident Evil 2 Remake is great but damn short of content for the price.

Also, speedrunning is not fun replayability, at all.

Said a person, who never played C&C, Dune, StarCraft, X-com and other strategy games whose combat mechanics and combat scenarios are derived from game's story.

It is not a rule and depends on what the difficulty does. If it does something stupid or introduces and unnecessary "gimmick" then I play on the hardest "normal" difficulty if it can be said that way.

If we ignore the fact that I have 0 interest in I wanna Be the Guy (hours of repetitive trial and error from what I can tell), if I was forced to play it, no, I would not pick Impossible.

Hell, I play Doom 1 and 2 on Ultra-Violence with fast mode on because the last difficulty is a just a speedrunner's wet dream and completely guts the way the game is meant to be played (respawning enemies)
I also didn't play Doom 3 on the difficulty that allows you to have only 25 max health and Soul Cube from the start because it completely changes how the game is played.

There are also some exceptions like Mental difficulty in Serious Sam games which is marketed as the hardest difficulty but is actually a lot easier than the one before: Serious. So I am playing the game on the hardest difficulty but the game thinks otherwise (and rewards more score for the easier Mental difficulty).

But if the difficulty increases the ability of the AI (Starcraft II is a great example of that) or increases number/quality of enemies, reduces the amount of available pickups etc., then I always pick the hardest one (as long as the AI doesn't outright cheat). Definitely in FPS games, RTS games, Turn Based games, RPG games.

The gameplay of StarCraft was not derived from the story, it was meant to cash in on success of WarCraft II with "orcs in space".

Yep, really wouldn't be playing games if they'd be like dt wants. Not just in the aspects mentioned here, mind you :))

Of course, AI cheating is actually quite common. For example, in Civilization games, the AI cheats. In some RPGs, enemies get to choose their actions when their turn comes up, even if you have to choose your actions at the beginning of the combat round. (Interesting example: In Dragon Quest games, starting with Dragon Quest 4, the party AI clearly cheats in this way; this is most evident when it comes to healing magic (I've seen the AI successfully revive a character who was alive at the start of the round, for example).)

Incidentally, when it comes to difficulty, I may very well play the game on multiple difficulties. The one difficulty modifier I never accept is permadeath; if any setting turns on permadeath, I will always play with permadeath off. I also don't like it when death is punished harshly. (Some SHMUPs suffer from this issue where if you die, you basically have no chance to finish the game with your remaining lives as you no longer have your power-ups.)

1) Skyrim is horrible.
2) Oblivion is better than Morrowind.
3) Modern games are dumbed down. Everything is handed to you on a platter.
4) Old games still seem objectively superior (HoI 3 vs HoI 4, Civ Iv vs Civ V).
5) Most modern games are interactive movies (RDR2)
6) Cutscenes in modern games are forever irritating, old games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein get it right.

A rare one that I don't see many people talk about:

Auto-Cartography in games is horrible. Oblivion is guilty of this, I walk around in the dungeon and my character automatically maps it as he travels, I don't need to memorize routes, don't need to take into account object surroundings around me to navigate, just simply pull out the portable game equivalent of google maps.

Holding both of these opinions at once definitely puts you in a minority. So, kudos for a really unpopular opinion.
I love this thread, and dtgreene has made it even better than I dared hope.

Saga games > FF games - this is the kind of opinion this thread was made for!

Now that's an unpopular opinion. I doubt anyone will beat that.