Exactly this. This is completely fine. I skip also a lot of games other people are in love with. Well, I probably would play Mario if it was an round-based strategy game instead of a Jump&Run... Enter Mario&Rabbbids Kingdom Battle, a game I'm hyped for.

I find it terribly funny of how people are over defensive of Dark Soul and similar games "difficult modes". No one is mandated to play on the easier modes and in several games the developer say what is the version that better show their vision.
Having a dumb mode for less capable people won't impair your own fun.
Unless as you guys pointed out the game is so bland and boring on it's own that if striped of its hard mode it would be a pile of **** and you don't want people that don't appreciate the hard part.
You guys are sounding just like old players elitists that love to say "game nowadays are too easy". And say that back in the time if you died you had to start again or any other harsh penalty. Guess what? You can do that by yourself in any game... let's say you choose to play Uncharted 2 on Brutal, make it even more challenging by if you die even once you start over again or even better, if you take any bullet you start again.
Don't take out other people enjoyment just to satisfy your ego, you can do that by challenging yourself instead of fucking other people.

Why not? Mortal Kombat had the option to remove blood for a long time. Also a lot of games (UC included) allow you to skip cutscenes. So I have no issue with they having an option to remove all cutscenes if anyone want to use it, what would be the issue if someone wants to spoil their own experience?

Depending on the game. For Souls games it does cut content.

Games are different. Different games create enjoyment out of different feelings they incite in the player. Would you say a horror game gets better by addition of cute kittens? Or a cute game by adding a horrible monster? The games are ley on different feelings they create in the player, and additions that strengthen that are a good thing, additions that weakens that are bad.

Souls games rely on challenge. And yes, they actually do not have much besides it. But challenge in itself creates good feelings of accomplishment. Easy mode would water it down, while it would actually no fun for the players crying for it: without challenge Souls has really not much left. But many other games are one trick ponies too: funny or sad or fearsome. Watering down the one main feeling the game tries to create is basically destroying the enjoyment. But if you like it: yes, without challenge the game is too bland and boring. As Uncharted without cut-scenes.

Dark Souls does not have a difficulty mode. That was the point of the discussion. I have a hard time chalking up people who defend Dark Souls stance on difficulty as .. "elitists" when the arguments are never get gud, but rather points of substance (unlike your comment). If you are going to grossly misrepresent a community , and not even make a valid point against a stance .. rather you just trash it, then don't say anything at all tbh.  

I do understand that it's silly to have poneis in TLOU or zombies in my little poney. But having a mode that turns all seekers of TLOU in teddy bears wouldn't damage the base game as you don't need to use it.

So yes the point of Dark Souls is the challenge, the point is what is challenging for some people isn't for another. I can get gold on almost all tracks and challenges on Gran Turismo, while some people already find it fucking challenging to get bronze, and both can enjoy the challenge of overcoming what is their perceived limit while not reaching the next challenge (as in case I can't beat gold on RBR challenge of GT5).

So having easier modes on Dark Soul would mean to a less skillfull person a similar challenge that is for you the current way, or putting an ever higher difficult would make someone really skillfull on it to feel the same challenge as you.

Do you swear it doesn't have a difficult selection? I know that. I'm talking about games that possess similar challenge (be it as sole difficult or special difficults, if doesn't really matter).

So give me your points of substance on why it is unacceptable that people of less skill get a lower difficult where they can fell challenged but not "forbidden" to play.

Because the way you put would be quite similar to GT only allowing you to play and win if you are capable of running the lap times of world champion, or SF only allowing pro players to fell rewarding challenges.

"Every single game" can get modes of less and higher difficult without damaging the core gameplay and allowing the fans of it to appreciate the game.

You yourself were complaining about changes they made to please to a higher audience. So why would you be against they having a mode that preserved everything you loved on DS and another that have the changes you didn't like but made it more acessible?

TLOU got the Grounded difficult that is probably how it really should be played and is challenging as fuck. Anyone is wellcomed to try it, but you can keep playing the regular game on other difficults that present the challenge that you find satisfying.

We as gamers don't need to impose on others to enjoy the game the same way.

The problem, from where I know, is that Souls (paraphrasing Hidetaka Miyazaki himself here) aren't "difficult for the sake of difficultness", but rather, the director envisioned a game on which the player would find satisfaction in overcoming hard obstacles. That's the whole point.

Every screen and enemy position has been carefully planned (at least on the original Demon's Souls and Dark Souls), it's path meticulously branched and generally giving the player a lost sense of direction so that they can feel and explore at their own pace. It's up to the player to realize that there are several areas they're not supposed to go in yet, largely because of the difficult spike. Nothing forbids the player to explore the cemetery right at the start of Dark Souls, next to Firelink Shrine, but any cautious player would suddenly realize it's better not to meddle there yet; however, the area is there for them if they want.

This whole sense of pervasiveness is made by fixing one specific point of challenge; something players must try to overcome. It's obviously not a game for everyone, but it's not made like that for any elitist sense or any other reason; it's because the whole games are designed with that vision in mind. Adding a difficult mode, let's say, that makes enemies deal 95% less of damage and the player have twice the HP would void the whole point, as the player can breeze even in parts the developer expects a more seasoned player to come later, thus screwing up most of the design. They could also implement a difficult that entirely rearranges enemy/item/equipment position, but why would them? It's not how they conceived the game at all, and that requires far more time and resources.

I don't really mind more difficulty modes, at all. The problem is that they're absolutely pointless in Souls games specifically; not for elitism, not for any bragging sense of challenge, but because every design decision poured into these games is thrown immediately out of the window in favor of a lesser experience. Yes, trust me, being able to breeze through Dark Souls would make it infinitely more boring, because the sense of progression would be entirely broken.

And still, there are invincibility or easy mods for Souls in PC, so there's that.

No. I already gave my piece to someone else on this thread. At this point it's clear that you don't care about an actual discussion and would rather get on a high horse. Stating things I never said... looking at difficulty as a mere gateway to the game when it's so much more than that. To be clear, the whole "allowing players to feel difficulty while not feeling 'forbidden to play'" argument is dumb, since the entire Souls discussion was about people like Vivister thinking a no challenge story mode should be in Souls. I dont mind it being in Horizon, in Souls it would be awful. To be clear I think you are a great user, this isn't an attack on you. But I guess this is just a scenario where we will never agree.

I appreciate your input Wright.

But you know that this isn't totally impossible to overcome right? The problem is really the level of the challenge, taking 20x less damage and having 2x the life, making it 40x harder to die is really a strech.

But having natural adapting difficult is possible.

Good games (like mario that doesn't even had any difficult choice mode when I played them) evolve the difficult along the game and you master while you play. Soul is basically made to screw you over and over. So allowing for adaptative difficult where it can keep the areas you aren't supposed to go at same original difficult, but the natural (but unkown at the first time) path easier enough for someone less skilled to have a similar challenge as someone good at the game (so fail several times, but possible to clear with some dedication) could be made and meet the idea of challenge while being acessible.

I have no interest in the game itself so I don't really bother with it or its difficult, as I have passed through my phase of wanting really challenging games when I had from 8 to 15y, that being in the 90's. Now I want to have challenge and fun (mostly fun). So I'll play crushing on UC and enjoy it for the most part (and cursing from time to time) and doing golden laps on GT, at the same time playing SFIV on easy to normal difficult. I just can't justify playing a hard game for the sake of being hard and rewarding anymore, I have too much games and too little time to dedicate so much for a game like Souls (but bought it to support the dev anyway)