It's a little bit more complicate than that, I wouldn't agree considering video games as art by definition. Also Dark Souls has made its own shares of compromises too in name of wider market appeal, expecially with later entires. But I generally agree with you, and watering down difficulty in order to make a game more accessibile - expecially if that means rendering many of tha game's main mechanics irrilevant - goes against any kind of artisitc integrity.

I know it's a little bit more complicated than that ... that's why I wrote an extremely long response to vivister. 

In every instance I can think of where Dark Souls compromised itself, I've been against it. That might be a little bit unfair though, because the word compromised is associated with bad, whereas making something more mainstream is not always bad. So I'm not saying dark souls is perfect or hasn't been compromised, in fact I have a pretty big problem with the Souls sequels as a whole. 

Whether you use "art" or "game" doesn't really matter too much to be honest....that's kind of just semantics. I said art because people generally don't care about the intent of devs unless you pull out the "art" argument. If you want to say that the devs artistic integrity is compromised by lessening the difficulty, but then go on to say you don't agree that video games are by definition art.....then that creates a scenario where whether or not you consider video games art doesn't matter, since we're talking about the artistic integrity in relation to the product. I would ask why you don't think video games are art but think they have artistic integrity ... but again you could remove art from the entire sentence and nothing would change - using art is just an easier way to describe it.

Just to be clear, i'm not commenting on Horizon. 

Okay. Well that is a completely fine way of thinking about it. Like I said, i don't really care if someone considers games art or not, or if they think x is art and y is not. It's really just a word, and can be replaced with other ones. If that's your definition it is perfectly fine! 

This does make me curious about one small thing though... your distinction between whats art and whats not has nothing to do with video games really ... just the intention of the creator.  You could say the same about Transformers not being art but Eraserhead being art. So would it be accurate to say it's not so much that video games are contextual, rather you think that whether something is art or not is contextual?

Yeah, exactly because of that. Add an easy mode and a lot of people will play and say that the game sucks. Because if you strip the challenge, there is not much left.

I don't really understand the demands. There are thousands of games, play one that is easy and draws it quality from other game aspects than challenge.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what do you mean with that question. What do you mean by being contextual?

Just to be clear i'm not arguing just wondering. You said that you consider something art based on the intent of the creator. Like if the creator is communicating something about themselves or their feelings it's art, whereas if they just make something to please an audience it isn't art. Can't you just say that about everything though, not just video games?

Wow. Where to start?

"Videogames are more than art. They're not just to look at but to interact with so you can't apply the same rules as with movies or paintings. There cannot be a single state of a game thanks to interactivity. If there is no fixed state, there is nothing to compromise as every possible state the game is in is a separate entity in its own right."

The word "art" is not exclusive to paintings, movies or film in general. By using this restrictive nonsensical definition of the word art, you are also excluding music products like albums as art - even though that too is not interactive. I consider any medium, whether it be video games, movies, or music to  be art. So when I say video games are art I'm not saying they're an equivalent to paintings...or that they're non-interactive. As for there not being anything to compromise ... there is. Sure, using a PC over a controller  for instance can make a RTS game easier, but you're still playing the same experience that the artist intended.  An update for a game can make less enemies spawn. Either way, if you're playing a game like Dark Souls and saying "I hate this game's difficulty! There should be an easy mode!" then you are ignoring the intent of the artist, and saying that the artist should bend to your liking. Now for Horizon Zero Dawn, I am not necessarily against it. It's up to the developer. But if a Souls developer implemented an easy mode in a next iteration, I would instantly question it and probably suspect that it was implemented due to backlash from people like yourself, especially since members of the development team have consistently backed that the point of the difficulty isn't to be hard but rather to immerse the player with difficulty.

"Giving people options enhances the experience and makes it more approachable. Difficulty modes are just one part of it. There are so many ways in which a game can be customized. Subtitles on or off, motion blur, resolution, framerate, audio settings, gameplay tips, camera options, gamma, brightness, keyboard or controller etc. There are so many ways for people to tweak their games so they have a better time playing it. How is that not compromising "the art" but just one more difficulty mode is? Options are there to make games more approachable."

You know, I don't know if you know this ... but using one argument for every single thing that can be in a game does NOT make your point automatically valid. In fact it's quite ridiculous. Those options are put in the game by the developer because they don't compromise the vision of the developer. If they did, they wouldn't be in the game. Simple as that. Giving players features to choose from that the developer specifically wants in the game is not compromising anything. Even if it did ... the stuff you mentioned is so incredibly small in terms of impact compared to a game's difficulty. Now I know your counter argument is going to be "but if the developers put difficutly modes in the game, then they are giving players the A-OK to choose from different difficulties". But again, we're talking about a scenario in which you believe that a difficulty mode should be added into Dark Souls not because the developers want it, but because you want it. 

"I haven't seen museums banning sunglasses because it changes the color pallette of the paintings and compromises the artist's work. Art is for everyone to experience as they want. That is even more true with video games as through interactivity players create content, they create art. Now you tell me how I compromise my own art I'm creating with a video game and what business that is to you."

No it's not. Racing games are not for fighting fans, fighting games aren't for shooter fans, and shooter games are not for platforming fans. Don't kid yourself, these games ARE made for specific audiences and not for everyone. They are available to everyone, but they are not for everyone to experience as they want. You can't steal a painting from a museum and experience it at home. 

"I'm glad you're not a person in power or you probably would've already banned all mods in your "artist protection act".

Ok now this is just getting ridiculous. If you're going to make gross assumptions over this simply because I have a different stance than you, then there is no point in talking. Mods are their own art. It's that simple. Do mods not directly correlate with the original artists intent? No, they don't always correlate. But with a mod you are specifically allowing yourself to experience someone elses work as opposed to the work of the original artist. It's like a cover. If you're favorite band makes a song that you like, and you go and listen to a cover that you prefer, you don't make the original band perform the cover right? The cover is a seperate entity. At the point where you are literally installing mods just to make Dark Souls easier for yourself - I would argue you wouldn't even care about the point of the game, which is a completely legitimate way to experience it. But that doesn't mean that the developer should add a difficulty select in the game arbitrarily to please people, because ultimately the controlled environment of the artist is a very different experience and the experience that's being offered at retail price - not the mod you want. 

I would like to add that being against a developer's ideas is perfectly fine. It's not uncommon for fans to clash with the artist. If a developer makes a shitty mechanic for a video game for instance, then I would argue that should be removed whether or not it's against the artist intent. Ultimately what makes a game worse or better is just an opinion, and in this case you obviously think that having no difficulty select ruins the game. I, and many other souls fans disagree however, and so I obviously would have to agree with the artistic intent in this scenario. I'm not going to act like every dev team is my person fuhrer to defend, because developers ultimately do make decisions that i've disagreed with no matter the intent. So really ... this is all just opinion in the end of the day, because if I feel a dev makes a bad decision I will criticize it. But I do think that this is a case where I support the artist's intent. So if you want to petition for a difficulty select in DS4(which probably won't happen soon), then that's fine. I just think Dark Souls is one of those games where the developers stance on difficulty has actively increased the accomplishments of the dev team.

It's a little bit more complicate than that, I wouldn't agree considering video games as art by definition. Also Dark Souls has made its own shares of compromises too in name of wider market appeal, expecially with later entires. But I generally agree with you, and watering down difficulty in order to make a game more accessibile - expecially if that means rendering many of tha game's main mechanics irrilevant - goes against any kind of artisitc integrity.

As for the OP, I find it contradictive that people pays 300$+ for a game machine and 60$+ for a game only to water down game play mechanics and design since they spoil the enjoyment of narrative. All of this while there so much more cost and time efficient mediums to convey narrative.