Yeah, I get that it's necessary because of the online stuff so in that sense it's preferable. Would be pretty damn annoying if someone could pause the game during co-op or an invasion. As for the rest of your post, some decent points but I'd always take having the option to pause over not having it (provided it doesn't break something as it would in this case) because at the end of the day you can always ignore it if you wanted.
It is a waste of time to think like that and not very helpful at all. It is not a question of what you choose to ignore or not, it is what is in the game. If this all came down to not pushing the select button or something, I would never even bother to mention the points I did. What would be the point? I wouldn't even be talking about Dark Souls, at least not accurately. I would be talking about a Dark Souls mod that existed in my head - where I had to go out of my way to be a
dumber player to be a
smarter designer (as a player first and foremost who is trying to pursue feelings of power and triumph, this does not feel good). Same is true if I decided to pretend a button that did an attack which killed enemies in one hit didn't exist. Or a route in a platformer which negated the rest of the level design.
I don't even mean to condemn the entire process of ignoring rules in the game (for example ignoring quick-saves or even obscure glitches), it is just an issue onto itself. I rather focus on something else: The mindset which lead to these comments. The kind that leads player into thinking "Why are they taking this away from me? Wouldn't everyone be happy if I had everything and people who wanted less,
who are totally crazy for wanting pain, could just pretend they have less?"
Generally players just love becoming more comfortable (this fits nicely with the mainstreaming of games and focus on accessibility in western game design) and fucking hate it if that is taken away from them. It is no big surprise difficulty (frustration) is the enemy of such a state of mind. So I can only come to the conclusion that high difficulty is an acquired taste, maybe one forged by some sort of discipline which leads to a better understanding of frustration. However all players still want to be challenged, just comfortably so (very relative to their "level"). That means not being truly challenged, but just enough so they are not immediately bored. What works best here is the perception (or illusion) of difficulty. This is mainly achieved through convincing the player the game is hard ("I'm dying like crazy!"), but then have a sort of softening effect which pretty much reverses the difficulty of at least that convincing symbol ("I'm dying like crazy!" And it doesn't matter because of 30 second stages or constant checkpoints and infinite lives.)
You got the minor things that lead to minor difficulty which are harder to "justify" (in other words: less accepted, easier to blame) in a sense because they are so loosely tied to the game. Stuff like a lack of pausing or maybe a UI which obscures some basic information. You know what? On some level they are understandable complaints, really. Like I said, some people just don't want to test their bladder and so on. But does it stop there? Of course not. Not having checkpoints, having "bad" checkpoints, not letting you quick-save, not letting you save anywhere, restoring health/resources freely, "punishing" deaths, etc. So they want to get rid of testing their ability of playing well for any significant duration of time! Common enough, but can't they see tha- punishable animations, slow attacks, less mobile jumps, projectile spam, cross-ups, grenades, failing stealth penalties, new control schemes, a hells worth of bullets, complex weight mechanics, in-depth steering, camping, turtling, etc. I've even heard "Why do we have to fail games at all?" At this point the intention becomes clear, they want to get rid of tests which frustrate them. It doesn't sound good when you just honestly say "I don't like it because it is too hard for me/I'm too stupid/too weak", so that's where the words I was talking about before come in. Difficulty becomes unfair difficulty, which needs to be disqualified and dismissed. Arbitrary, cheap, fake, etc. Janky, wonky, honky, etc. Frustration goes from meaning feeling powerlessness to being imbued with powerlessness (in other words: it's the game's fault). This self-serving nature (which is mostly unconscious) to the argument means you have to be very vigilant in discussions of difficulty and what is
fair.
Here's another thing: The whole defiance in prideful weakness, e.g. the "anti-hardcore" sentiments comes off as rather petty defense mechanisms. In fact that's usually exactly what they are in the context that two players are playing the same game and posting on a message board about it (and more so if we are talking direct competitors here). I mean what is worse than being talked down to by someone can easily prove their superiority in a subject? Thankfully we have decades of videogame stigma to work with here (athletes and chess players have no such luck). Put down the idea of being superior ("I'm having fun" and you are not), put down the subject ("It is just a game, loser"), or both. There is nothing necessarily wrong with thinking less of videogames, but this resentment and dishonesty is blatant and ugly. (And for clarity, though it should already be clear, I'm not talking about the dudes who want to make it seem the
hardcores are out to make their favorite series, like a Zelda or a iOs game, irrelevant or more mainstream or brown or whatever. That's just a bunch of misdirection.)
Most RTS games have about as much strategy to them as tic-tacs have calories. This includes Starcraft 2.
I'd be curious to see this idea elaborated on in detail, also. More so if you are not being hyperbolic lol.
(Hope this doesn't have too many typos, since I'm too busy right now to edit it right now)