"If you think this game is shit, well it's all your fault player and you should've played harder." What retarded take. Maybe games aren't fun because they're bad games. But if people really fall for such a line, I'm going to use it against my employees when they say they don't like working for me.
That's not his take. He's pointing out that a player must be willing to interact with the provided gameplay systems. It's an anti-consumer, call-of-duty, message. You know, what Bioware has been trying to chase explicitly with Dragon Age since DA2.
Examples (in addition to his):
- Considering reading as too much effort, refusing to give a story even a chance unless it's fully voiced with 'AAA' tier cinematics.
- Considering older games to have bad gameplay because you refuse to learn its UI, despite some games being really worth the pain.
- Considering a game to have poor quest design because quests aren't marked with a huge exclamation mark visible from 10 miles away.
- Considering older games that expect you to take notes outside of the game as bad because you expect everything to be logged automatically for you in a journal.
It's not a bad take at all, it's an obvious one. We'll all tolerate different things to various degrees, but it's unfair to not judge a game on its merits. That's why takes like "Shit game, ugly UI. Cba playing it." and "BG2 is a bad game because you can't race on the Francorchamps race track" are retarded and useless.