Why lock away content that someone purchased just because they aren't talented enough to beat your arbitrary tests? If you wanna play normal mode just do that, I don't see why options are ever a bad thing.
I've heard the Souls/Bourne games described as "tough but fair". For some games, the idea is that the fun comes from beating challenges from the design of the game mechanics.
Similarly, there's fun to be had from Role Playing Games by not having magical foreknowledge about consequences. Saving, and loading to see how each choice plays out means the dynamic is "how can I get the best?" rather than "what would this person do?".
2) The artistic vision of the games is to be difficult. Why should the developers compromise that for people who are explicitly not in their target audience anyway?
3) As the article says, beating one of these games is somewhat of an exclusive club - difficulty gatekeeping is necessary to preserve that.
I haven't yet seen a valid argument for adding easy mode - they all are based around the assumption that easy should be there, and has been taken away.
I don't buy disability as a reason to add it, considering a quadriplegic man has beaten Sekiro, and the other arguments I've seen are things like "I don't have the time anymore to beat games on full difficulty" which I don't find compelling - the market is full of titles which cater for that.
And... You don't think disability is a valid reason to add an easy mode? I hope you see some of the raw shit life has to offer then because that's a message that can only come from a place of very privileged contempt.
From software games are hard and it's not like they cheated someone into buying the game, who is not in the target audience.
Disability options that don't affect the design vision are not a problem. But the developer should have the option to choose their market and audience.
The software companies can do whatever they want. I'm defending From Software's choice not to add an easy mode, despite pressure from individuals and gaming media to do so.
>You don't think disability is a valid reason to add an easy mode?
In this specific case (Sekiro, as per the article), if the game is able to be completed on standard difficulty by someone who is quadriplegic then clearly the difficulty is fine. I have no problem with disability related changes such as colour-blindness accommodations that do not change the difficulty of the game.
I agree this changes the dynamic of a game. On the other hand, is it a bad thing? If someone is more interested in "getting the best" rather than finding out "what would this person do", then why should they be denied such freedom?
That is entirely your subjective opinion. I would likely still have fun playing sudoku where my guesses had instant feedback
If you want a book, then buy a book. If you want a movie, then watch a movie. If you want to overcome a challenge, then accept that failure is a possibility and thus won't be allowed to enjoy the reward. Failure in these games is accepting specifically because the downside doesn't affect us in a meaningful way. We won't get hurt. We won't lose money. The failure itself is part of the game.
The problem is that games journalists don't want to play games. They want to get paid to write, and they were only able to get a job writing about video games. That's literally the only reason this is a topic. That and the fact that journalists as an industry have sussed out ways to increase monetization, and one such way that is particularly effective is the "rage bait" method, whereby you infuriate, or "nerd snipe" a particular demographic that feels invested in defending something to the point of sharing the thing they feel is attacking them.