Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Jan. 5, 2022

Created

Tue Oct 19 20:38:59 +0000 2021

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

@KelsyPolnik What this means (as I also explained in RETRO's "The Definitive Top 100: Worst NES Games") is that experts try to avoid calling a game "bad" simply because it is hard, but they are also cautious about ignoring a game as "underrated" just because it's hard. https://t.co/qBuheYCfMV — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 19, 2021 Hibernated

Preceded By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

@KelsyPolnik So it wasn't my goal to say, "This is how you *should* think about the question," but rather to say, "This is how experts *do* think about the question, in the main." That said, as the essay preceding the ranking explains, *most* experts try to *exclude* the difficulty question. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 19, 2021 Hibernated

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

@KelsyPolnik So if a game has a great game-development "skeleton" but just takes a lot of practice and memorization, and since many don't want to put in that time they under-rate it, experts will still value it as under-rated. But if the difficulty is *poor game design*, the game gets dinged. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 19, 2021 Hibernated