I already posted this here, but it's time for a re-post:

Many. Going through my list of aborted campaigns:

7554 (already in the beginning level)

Age of Empires II (I finished El Cid, but got only halfway with Joan of Arc)

Alan Wake (managed to get until very close to the end, but watched the last half our on YouTube)

Brothers in Arms - Road to Hill 30 (the XYZ mission was too tough)

Call of Juarez (the game is doable, but for the duelling mechanic, I kept losing at the very first duel)

Company of Heroes (though I find CoH 2 very doable)

Deadfall Adventures (a fight with hordes of undead inside an old Maya temple)

Delta Force Black Hawk Down (got quite close to the namesake final mission, but didn't manage to finish the one that unlocks it)

Dogfight 1942 (got quite far in the base campaign, but the expansions proved to be very hard)

Evoland (got quite far, but in a dungeon called Mines of Noria or something like that it did get too hard)

Evoland 2 (got too hard very quick)

Lord of the Rings - War in the North (the game has only one save and it landed me right in the middle of a boss battle, when I should have spent more time preparing for it, but there's no other save to get back to and do those preparations)

Medal of Honor Allied Assault (got quite far, but the town of Schmerzen was painful indeed)

maybe I'll post the second half of the alphabet some other day.

I find "Men Of Valor" pretty difficult. I stopped playing after completing a good chunk of the game. But I did save my game save files. I will re-install the game at some point and give it another go. The game is hard and it seems a bit laggy on my PC despite being an old game from 2004. I would not recommend anybody play this game while tired.

The hardest part in that game is the bugs that prevent you from progressing and then you have to start the level all over again, hoping it doesn't bug this time..

Yeah, those are terrible, in Bound in Blood as well. I think they aren't really hard, just very tedious and annoying, and the games never really explain to you correctly what you're expected to do.

Not sure if the subject means "too difficult even in the easiest difficulty level".

I have mentioned many of these before:

Forsaken: I couldn't finish the first level due to the tight time limit. (playing on the hardest difficulty level)

Rise of Nations Gold: I couldn't finish the first mission due to the tight time limit.

Starcraft 2: I just couldn't accept how it doesn't let you freely change the gamespeed setting in the higher difficulty levels. I gave up on some level in the first campaign where it kept throwing me more and more urgent sub-missions "do this rush there" etc., testing how fast I can scroll the map around and click on things.

Too bad as I love the first Starcraft game. It always let you easily change the gamespeed, making it faster if there was nothing happening but just resource gathering/building/training/researching, and slowing it down if things got hectic with enemy attacking from ten directions at the same time.

All 4x grand strategy whatever games (Civilization, Master of Orion/Magic, Paradox games etc.): I have hard time comprehending what I am supposed to do in the game, too many moving parts, stats, buttons etc. all over the screen, right from the start.

Games where I always cheat to even the odds:

Perma-death roguegames (Nethack, ADOM etc.): I always save-scum on them, if possible. I just feel it is sadistic to strip the gamer from all their achievements of playing a character for days or weeks, quite often due to sheer bad luck, like dying instantly into a trap or some special monster that petrifies you or whatever. I fail to see the fun in having to replay the game from the start repeatedly.

Point'n'click adventure games: I generally just find the puzzles a nuisance, and get bored fast if I get stuck to some obscure puzzle or missing some item I should have taken earlier in the game. Nah, I just use a walkthrough to walk through the game, enjoying the story and such. I got frustrated by this as (apparently) every mission has a round limit in which you must reach the objectives. A bit similar artificial difficulty as a time-limit in RTS games.

I can think of only one game that the difficulty was the primary reason I did not complete it. Generally, difficulty is just a contributing factor to my not completing a game, usually if I'm just exhausted with the game, there are other things I don't like about it, or I'm more interested in playing something else at that moment.

The only game I ever quit simply because of the difficulty was Men of War. I'm not particularly good at strategy games (real time or turn-based), and I have to be in the right mood to play them. I have only ever finished three RTS's: Halo Wars, Company of Heroes, and Dawn of War. Most of the time, I lose interest in the genre part way through the game and give up. However, Men of War hit all the right notes for me: it didn't require base building, it generally focused on controlling a relatively small number of units overall, and it was based in World War II, a period of history I quite enjoy. I knew going in that it was a difficult game, and I adjusted my expectations accordingly. I might have even finished it if it weren't for one thing: defense segments.

I hated them.

I'm not a fan of them in any RTS simply because I'm not smart enough to know where to place my units for optimal defense, but I can usually blunt force my way through them. I managed it several times in Company of Heroes (and probably Dawn of War, though I don't remember that game as much). However, Men of War's difficulty just would not allow this. I remember getting to one level that required me to defend... well, to be honest, I don't even remember what it was. I think there was a bridge or something? I don't know. I just know that it didn't start well and it got even worse. The bad part about defense levels, too, is that it isn't always obvious that you are going to fail until some time in, and you might have to go back quite some time or even restart the mission to get yourself before a point where the mission was too far gone to win.

I don't fault the game for this, though. Again, I knew what I was getting into. I just didn't have the skill to get through that mission, and I quit because of it. I enjoyed everything up to that point, though, so it was worth the purchase in my book.

I'm sure I could come up with a far greater number of instances in which difficulty was a contributing factor, though. I don't mind difficulty if it's fair and the game interests me enough or is enjoyable enough despite of or because of the difficulty. However, sometimes, the more I play a game, the more the things I might not like begin to come to the forefront, and if high difficulty is place on top of that, I'll usually give up the game. If I enjoy a game enough I'll push through a difficult spot, but if there are too many other things that are annoying me, I won't bother to continue.

This happened with the Bright Lord DLC for Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. I enjoyed the game up to a certain point. The combat was pretty fun, the captains and chiefs were challenging in the right ways most of the time, and the game's Nemesis system was fascinating and fun. However, once I passed over the 10 hour mark, little things started getting to me. The sheer number of enemies made traversing the huge, visually-uninteresting world a slog, getting to the captains could be a huge pain in the more densely packed areas, and the stealth was too simple to be much fun after a while. I found myself constantly repeating the same things over and over, and suddenly the little quibbles I had with the combat became more noticeable. By the time I finished the main game, I was a little weary of the formula. However, I was intrigued by the potential story of the Bright Lord DLC, and I was interested to know how the slightly different playstyle required by the different moveset would affect gameplay.

Unfortunately, it was mostly more of the same, except I felt slightly less powerful and much more limited in abilities despite controlling an (supposedly) more powerful character. I finally gave up when I got to one mission that required me to defend two towers or siege weapons or something. The two objects were on opposite sides of a ravine of some sort, and they were under constant attack by Uruks. The key to succeeding was using the power of the One Ring to turn Uruks over to your side and allow them to defend the objects from attacking Uruks. There are only two means to turn the Uruks to your side (that I can remember, anyway): hold a particular button until a meter fills to turn a single Uruk; or use a special AOE attack that can only be performed once a meter has been filled, and that meter is only filled by attack or killing enemies. The problem with the former method is that your character is not immune to attacks while trying to turn an enemy, so if you get interrupted by an enemy attack (which you most likely will) you'll have to restart the process. Even if you can pick up from where you left off, it still takes time, which is a precious resource in this mission because if the defended objects are destroyed, you fail the mission and have to start over. The problem with the second method is that it's hard to find a reliable way to build up the meter without killing all the attacking Uruks, and even once you do get it built up, the AOE has a limited range. If you use it without many Uruks being nearby, it wastes a useful means of getting allies to defend the weapons.

And they are necessary for this because you can't be at two places at once. I just found this unnecessarily difficult, and it highlighted all the things I didn't like about the game's combat. So while the difficulty itself was not the reason I quit the game, it definitely contributed.

I could probably think of more examples, but I fear I've already made this post too long, so I shall refrain.

Zelda Breath of the Wild DLC's

I have not tried much but put off by the difficulty of the master sword trials in early stage at a room filled with water and lizards shooting me from distance, and disgusted with the design of the champions ballad one hit KO idiocy...

If it is any indication, N has to work on their dlc's appeal for all players as their trademark commonly stand for casual players without such silly "challenge", optionnal is Ok but not when paid for, and their business model offering multiple, separate dlc features because that was a huge 20€ "season pass" loss to me for very few worthy outfits in the end.

You didn't miss much. I'm sure you saw where the story was headed.

First off nice idea for a thread. That said:

Headhunter: Redemption(ps2) - This sequel to the first is a fun romp through various underground areas(for the most part) as you play an apprentice of the protagonist from the first.

The gameplay is fun(although the amount of health pickups is scarce), the save points are varied enough at first to make it easy to get into, and the funny blurbs at some vid screens and save points you encounter help to sell the world and make it fun. It is difficult to some extent, but nothing a normal fan of the genre cannot handle....that is UNTIL YOU REACH THE ENDGAME AREAS.

At one point you must navigate a "minefield" of deadly invisible lasers while being shot at by a few enemies, then shoot through some more enemies, and then navigate another round of deadly unseen lasers....all of which takes forever, and by that time you have scant health items and even a few wrong moves leads you to do that entire area again. And the next save is beyond all that, so good luck ever seeing the ending even on the lowest difficulty unless you stockpiled health items like crazy through the levels and didn't use many of them.

Great game until that point, and it's sad i'll likely never see it to the end without watching let's plays.

==================== You forgot Bebe's Kids(IIRC it is also on NES). The levels repeat, you restart the entire game if you fail, one level is a maze with no map and a time limit, etc. I loved that game, and even beat it(though it was a big challenge). The QT events made sense as it showed you trying to keep control of you mind or the world around you to some extent(depending on character). Now what I hated was the damn pitch black maze in one of the later levels, and the time limit for some bits.

==================

People who say those words and look down on those who use built in mechanics to enjoy a game meant to be entertainment & not a chore really speak loads about themselves by using such to insult others.

I'm not against cheating so I've had to cheat to complete some games: Far Cry 1, Apogee platformers, Stargunner, Raptor, Tomb Raiders, probably others

Ugh, and here I was hoping it was only the 1st level. I figured I would probably be able to beat at least the first level today, but thanks for warning me that the subsequent levels all/mostly have time limits as well :) :P
Great game though, just a pity that it is so unstable. At least time limits in RTS games can be done reasonably ok, when instead of destroy enemy in x minutes, it is survive for x minutes. Like those 3 'just-survive' levels in Warcraft 3.
I was about to ask about Warcraft 3 until I got to the part on defense segments :) WC3 has 3 of them, and each is formidable. At least you can slow down the game speed a lot if that helps.

Which Dawn of War did you complete? Dark Crusade imo has the best single player campaign. I don't think it has any defense segment missions. Not that I can remember at least.

Oh no I'm sure that they are powerful enough in HoMMIV. It's just that it didn't bother me in 3 specifically that they weren't on the field among their troops, since given the army compositions an individual hero wouldn't be worth much on their own.
I do find myself a bit wary of heroes being too strong in fantasy TBSs like this. Age of Wonders 1 and 2 both suffers from this in a way that I find completely immersion breaking. Round about the 2nd half of the campaign onwards heroes become army killers all by themselves. You just start a level by sending your hero deep into enemy territory, absolutely wasting anything you come across. To me it's the one failing of two otherwise excellent games.
Master of Magic if memory serves was pretty well balanced in this regard.

I had to look it up, because I couldn't remember the full title (which is also why I didn't include it in my first post). It was Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War. The base game. I had the expansions, too, but I didn't get too far into either of them. I tried Winter Assault first, but I was at that point where, though I thoroughly enjoyed the base game, I was a little exhausted with the genre since it took so much out of me to complete the game, so I didn't have the patience to stick through the difficulty of Winter Assault. I then dipped my toe into Dark Crusade, which was the one expansion that really intrigued me, but again, I was just exhausted with the genre at the time and couldn't bring myself to get very far.

I've always intended to go back and either replay the base game or give Dark Crusade a better try, but I have yet to find myself in that perfect mood to play an RTS for a decent length of time.

As for defense segments, the worst part about them is that I like the idea so much. I love in FPS's and other genres where I'm tasked with defending something. There's something exciting and tense about trying to keep an attacking enemy from obtaining their objective, especially when that objective is something important to my character and his or her allies. But when it comes to RTS's, I just suck soooooo bad at them. I can't wrap my mind around the placement of my units, and the time pressure of knowing that the enemy is approaching and I don't have long to get everything in place just scrambles my brain.

The original System Shock.

This game has the worst controls I've ever seen in a PC game.