I was reading in a print magazine a review of DmC, and the reviewer gave the game some negative points for the jump-and-run part being "too easy". Although I never even played DmC, somehow that review upset me. I mean, I was happy that I learned that the jump-and-run part of the game is relatively easy, and promptly put the game on my Steam wishlist for the next sale. But how can a reviewer say a game is "too" anything?

I believe that for any player there is a certain span of difficulties in which a game is enjoyable. Less than that and the game is trivial for him, although he still might enjoy doing trivial activities (/wave Bhagpuss). More difficult than his personal range, and the game becomes frustrating. But while thus a player could say that a game is "too easy" or "too hard" *for him*, I don't think one can generalize that for everybody. A game is never "too easy" or "too hard" for EVERYBODY.

I think that sequels are to blame for too general reviewer statements. DmC is the fifth game in the Devil may Cry series. Now imagine two very different players trying it: One a veteran who has already spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on the previous games. The other a completely new player who has never played a game of this style. What is "too easy" for the former might well be just the right difficulty for the latter, while what is just right for the former might be "too hard" for the latter.

It always surprises me that not every game has adjustable difficulty levels. The purpose of a game is entertainment, and what use is a game which for some players is either "too easy" or "too hard"? Wouldn't it be best if everybody could adjust the game to fit his personal preference and experience level?