Sorry, but this is more that that. It's some pervasive dumb meme which leaves me dumbfounded and get in the way of proper conversation. I wouldn't mind one or two people being like that, but it's way too pervasive. It's dumb and unhealthy.
It's pervasive exactly because/but it's not just a meme. It's a common attitude/idea and one you may disagree with but it doesn't make it any less/more meme or dumb, just less likely to be listened to since in the end it all depends on you, we just provide feedback - including one that may sometimes annoy the hell out of you
Because this is a soft version of "win nao" button.
Not being surrounded/shot at by enemy units before the player does anything during first round is a "win nao" button? Or having player's TU lowered is a "win nao" button? Neither seems to be such decisive thing unless someone claims that either players win every battle at the beginning of the first turn or they somehow win by having TU lowered - neither seems reasonable to me.
Who on Earth has ever said that a game has to be fair?
Most game developers ever, I'd suspect but it depends whether you see risky challenges as part of it being fair. Either way, developers may make the game challenging, offer obstacles and risky situations but most games of any kind either have progression in the boundaries of certain rules player can understand or the few that don't make that the main challenge to overcome. UFO/XCOM is the former, however.
Why would anyone ask that X-Com should be fair? It's been unfair since the very beginning, that's the whole point.
Not at all! Even Julian Gollop, as I recall from his presentation on EGX admitted that he simply is most interested in simulation aspect and that he even added stuff like hush-hush dynamic difficulty in UFO that was slowing down alien progression if the player was having hard time and resuming it once said player was getting better - literally admitting it's because he had hard time and no idea about balancing and it was such stuff that, again,
in his opinion made the game playable.
I dislike autobalancing to be honest, but it does underline that even by the design game being unfair was
never "the whole point". Even XCOM was meant to be hard but balanced, just with some random curve balls to pose a challenge kept in mind. It just, well, as Gollop admits wasn't ideal at it. Now, we can disagree whether changes in this or that direction would negatively affect that balance, make things too hard or too easy, but like every game, some fairness and consistent boundaries are necessary for it to be a game.
Excuse me, but I find this simply confusing. This isn't a sport game.
Probably doesn't have to be. Though I guess the difference here is based on opinion where the fairness is. I don't mean "every situation offers same difficulty to each sides allowing initial equal chance of success" (a trait of most sport games), but I find important to limit situations with player being screwed over by no fault on their own under circumstances they couldn't really prevent or manage (prefering harsh but understandable screw-ups due to tactical/strategic mistakes and taking risks) even if you'd consider it a fair challenge.
