[aordano]

I think it's debatable; where the «experience» or delivery a game tries to reach, end? Where do we draw the line between considering it a modification of the "soul" of the game?

This is an important distinction because a game is much more rich and complex than a book, and has many more axes where things can change. I fathom that for some people the level of punishment is just too much, and maybe that flies in the face of how do they enjoy the game.

This is not to detract from the artistic vision of the creators, given art has a meaning imbued by its maker, and a meaning bestowed by its consumer, i think that having the /option/ to change something that a player can't enjoy is always a plus.

Not all ability or disability is on the body, as some may lie on the mind, whether it is because of a persistent problem, a bad time in your life, or just constraints.

Gatekeeping things like this is, IMO, a bad pick (assuming that they would be properly implemented and tucked away under several menus, not shoved down your throat or made default).

[aixi]

> Where do we draw the line between considering it a modification of the "soul" of the game?

At this point it is clear difficulty is a staple of the series and the ambiance of all the Souls games. Every time a new game comes out, this complaint is raised by people who don't play the games and Miyazaki has decided not to add these explicit difficulty changing settings, so I think it's evident that its part of the soul of the games.

> Not all ability or disability is on the body, as some may lie on the mind, whether it is because of a persistent problem, a bad time in your life, or just constraints.

You can't expect authors to adjust to every single person on Earth circumstances on their works. This is not accessibility, and I think it's an argument in bad faith to claim it is.

This is not gatekeeping; If you want a challenge with fantastic ambience, you play a Souls game --- If you don't, you don't want to play Dark Souls, and that's perfectly fine, there's million other games where difficulty is not core to the experience. Not every piece of art or entertainment has to be palatable to everyone.

[mrtranscendence]

> If you want a challenge with fantastic ambience, you play a Souls game --- If you don't, you don't want to play Dark Souls

What you seem to be missing is that what counts as "a challenge" will vary from individual to individual. When I argue that soulslikes should have better accessibility options (including difficulty settings) I'm not saying that I want the game to not be challenging -- I'm saying that the difficulty should adapt to meet the players where they are to maintain a challenge for them.

You could say, well, there IS an easy mode; just spend days grinding out levels. That kind of sucks, though.

Also ...

> This is not gatekeeping

[goes on to write a paragraph that could be used as the definition of gatekeeping]

[aixi]

>I'm saying that the difficulty should adapt to meet the players where they are to maintain a challenge for them. (...) You could say, well, there IS an easy mode; just spend days grinding out levels. That kind of sucks, though.

That is not the only option. Summon other players. But you understand the contradiction of what you're saying, correct?

>[goes on to write a paragraph that could be used as the definition of gatekeeping]

I think you should rethink what gatekeeping actually is, because I'm not sure you know it. I'm not gatekeeping you out of Grave of the Fireflies if you tell me you don't want to watch a sad movie and I suggest against it. It would be gatekeeping if I said 'if you beat the game with summons you didn't actually beat Dark Souls', and it's not something I would say.

[mrtranscendence]

> But you understand the contradiction of what you're saying, correct?

I do not. What is the contradiction in what I'm saying? Giving the opportunity to grind levels isn't at all the best way to meet players where they are. If the game let you beat any boss by poking yourself in the eye with a stick that wouldn't be a good method of addressing difficulty either. Unless you're saying that Dark Souls is somehow about having to grind.

[didibus]

> Every time a new game comes out, this complaint is raised by people who don't play the games

I've played the games and still have that criticism. I consider them less good because of it. Ever since I played Celeste and saw the way they handled accessibility options, when I see a game that doesn't, I'm like, ya, that's just a negative of this game, it just gives you less than Celeste does, and mind you I didn't use them in Celeste, but I tried them out, really well done, really commendable, and I did have to use them for the DLC, that damn Chapter 9, holy cow, Souls games are a stroll in the park in comparison, I don't know how anyone finished Chapter 9 of Celeste without help, but I disgress haha.

That said, maybe this is a good example, if Chapter 9 of Celeste didn't have accessibility options, I'd have not been able to experience all of it, to close out on the story, or to get around some of the hardest rooms in it and in doing so being able to then enjoy beating some of the ones after without the cheats. I'd just have gotten less enjoyment out of it. On top of that, beating something with the cheats feels like training, I still have the thought of going back one day and trying it with less of them, or without them at all, and getting further. So I imagine for some people Souls games are like Chapter 9 of Celeste is to me, and I really see only positives in that case to have such options.