How games should be designed is where we, all of us, differ. In other words, there is no law of nature governing how they should be designed. There are some principles drawing from behavioral psychology perhaps but at the end there is no clear and simple recipe for how to make let's say a piece of interactive art appealing to the target audience.
Let's assume we all have our opinions, priorities, dis/likes, tastes and there is indeed no truth to be found about how a game should be designed, especially with regards to balance. How to reach a compromise, how to satisfy as many of the target audience as possible? From where I sit, give them tools and mechanics so they can tailor their own experiences with such piece of art. Because how else?
Why would anyone roll for hours to get a bonus or why would anyone use "an axe which one-shots everything" could be an interesting psychological question, but it's not an argument for certain game design. The developers, and perhaps they've done it, should know what kind of audience they target but should not, at least in my opinion, try to let's say moralize and normalize such audience through the game design.
I realize developers have very difficult calls to make in this regard and their ideas how something should work are always confronted with an economic point of view. I could even understand if the developers were stubborn and wanted to make a piece of art according to their, not their audience, liking. What I cannot understand is why some in the audience make demands on the game design which will restrict others. If something in-game is OP, broken, cheese, but it's not mandatory and it's not a bug, well .. live and let live.
Edited by knownastherat, 15 June 2018 - 09:44 AM.