Is the "high risk high rewards" a valid truth of just a simply defense for superiority?

[Steorra]

Was just seen someone say "Wendy and Maxwell were high risk high rewards designed".

I mean, you know that for those skilled enough players, there's almost no risk for them to gaining the "high rewards" right?

Or, just to imagine a scenario, if there's a chance which is unavoidable for everyone, to get some punishment when play Maxwell, how many of you would still continue to enjoy the game experience of him?

Speaking of how the "high risk" work in the true way, it's more like there's a belief / faith as "we thought we could achieve an skill level which could to avoid the risk every times", and this faith encourage us to improve our skill for the final stage. We would enjoying the success of reaching the veteran level.

There's a point is, we are believing that we could finally avoiding almost all "risk" for these characters, we believe that we could enjoying the "high rewards" part without any risk in the end.

So if all risk is manageable with high leveled skills, where's the true "high risk" lies here?

Are we truly believe that some design of Wendy and Maxwell is aimed to "high risk high rewards" but we are not just simply give a defense for gatekeeping and superiority?

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

up

[Lardee]

If you want to get technical, it's not "high risk, high reward". Instead it's "higher risk, higher reward".

Taking on a more difficult challenge should yield higher rewards. That's game design 101. It makes the game fun and inspires you to get more invested in  and develop your skills.

 

Developing your skills to the point that you don't consider the risk high is irrelevant. What's relevant is the risk of the task relative to the risk of the other task. If one task is riskier, then it should be more rewarding.