>>723230498
Pretty much any single player action game can be boiled down to "press X to not die", something like DMC was literally designed with button mashing in mind since the very first game with things like Million Stab, or E&I torturing your fingers to obnoxious degrees just to do what they're designed to do, NG is notorious for its UT spam to win problem and so on.
The fundamental core design philosophy of all action games is simply "don't get hit" and you can see this all the way back on NES games when action games started to be a bit more varied than just arcade SHMUPs, you can't play around this because the genre in itself has been built upon the idea that getting hit is a bad thing and it's not gonna change.
Even the action games that sorta try to go against the grain by not using orthodox health systems and making it almost impossible for you to not get hit at some point, like Malicious, are fundamentally rooted in the idea that you REALLY shouldn't let them hit you.
What makes a system and a game engaging on the other hand is not really that but just how much leeway and pros and cons they give you to use different tools, something like ER tries (and largely fails) to persuade players to learn how to trade with favorable attack hitbox positioning rather than using i-frames or parries, NG tries (and largely fails) to keep players as mobile and aggressive as possible by using jumps and combo string movements as positioning tools while forcing the player to deal with multiple enemies and explosive shuriken spam, DMC tries (and largely fails) to turn the game into Tony Hawks with guns and swords and make you care about your style scoring rather than just being pragmatic and so on.
tl:dr; all action games are fundamentally flawed if you approach them with pure "hardcore survival of the fittest muh difficulty" style pragmatism, all of them have "easy way outs" by necessity, play fighting games if you want a challenge.
