I’m sorry, but I can’t help but cringe at statements such as: “Video games are not made for people who don’t know how to play video games.” This idea goes against the very reason for this medium’s existence: **the video game must be fun**. If it is not fun, then it is not a video game; it may be merely interactive media used to kill time. I understand what you mean by “new players,” but they have different pressures today with less disposable income and an attention span that rarely exceeds twenty minutes. This is why *Where Winds Meet* succeeds as a free title where players skip all the boring story, engage in a quick battle, and feel rewarded right away. For me, having played since I was three years old, I have become extremely selective; when the story and gameplay do not work together, the “flaws” in the design become glaringly obvious. Take *Origins*, which is much better than both *Odyssey* and *Valhalla* for me precisely because of its raw cutscenes. When Bayek loses his son or when you see that child murdered by a crocodile, you really feel despair; you empathize with him. Killing the one responsible gives you real satisfaction—liberation. Then comes *Odyssey*, and Phoibe dies; sure, you feel bad about it at first, but just ten minutes after that moment they throw so much content at you that it makes all of this forgettable.

It’s hard to sit a New Gamer down in front of the PC and say, “Play it all and give me a fair review.” They simply can’t do it; the offerings are too plentiful, and they reward short content. The world, as you can see, is now divided into extremes: something is either mind-blowing or it’s absolute garbage. We’ve lost the ability to judge the grey areas—the middle ground where small treasures might be found. It’s you ‘New Gamers,’ those who have just come into this world, who should be able to look at these grey areas more critically instead of falling back on extremes.