Is it fair to people that want a harder experience to have to wait until ng+? Again, if it can have ng+, be more difficult for a second play through, the opposite is also possible! A static difficulty level simply does not work for everyone. But sure, if it's only supposed to be appealing to those that fit the difficulty curve, then well done.

It's just weird people complaining about extra health or bigger timing windows, enabling more checkpoints, ability to skip bosses, like that would alter the core game. It doesn't. But that's just my opinion :)

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

By that logic, should the developers of Dark Soul change their mind and release Dark Souls 4 with an optional easy mode, you wouldn't have an issue with it?

I personally would, since I wouldn't like it(unless the "standard mode" managed to maintain the usual difficulty level they are known for, but I doubt it if the easy mode is really an easy mode). I would complain and all that, but I would respect their wishes.Especially since now that all developers know there is a market for (truly) hard games, there will always be other games I can play, if Dark Souls 4 drops the ball.

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

But how would it be "dropping the ball" if the standard mode remains true to the previous games? Or would the simple existence of an easy mode somehow poison the game? The game would still be truly hard but there would be a not so hard mode to go along with it.

Yet what they want you to experience turns out differently for different people. It's great it fits your play style and abilities, but that doesn't mean it turns into a very different experience for someone else, far off from what the devs want you to experience. Unless there is some AI analyzing your gamepla, there is no way of knowing whether you are experiencing the game as intended. Did they intend it as a frustrating experience many people give up on. Did they intend it as a "read a guide, get op early" breeze through it experience. Did they intend it for those that played their earlier games and can finish it in 20 hours or less. Or is it meant for new players to struggle for 60 hours. There is simply no way to provide the "intended" experience with a fixed difficulty level to cater to new comers and veterans alike. So even if you just take the group it's "meant to appeal" to, it still is entirely dependent on their earlier experience with From's games.

Btw you don't alter the core game by skipping parts (boss battles) of it. You simply experience less of it. If you quit after a few chapters, you don't change the game. Flexible games are more fun. I skipped most of the story shoot outs in GTA5 since that's not something I enjoy. The game letting you enjoy it the way you want to makes it the behemoth it turned into. In Death stranding I simply ran through the shoot out bits in very easy, I wasn't playing it for that. In the end I clocked well over 200 hours in that game figuring out how to optimize things and get 500 legends of legends ratings. (which is only available in hard mode, but you can switch freely)

I'm well past the age that I have to eat my veggies first before I can have desert. No need to put up with that with games either :) Boss battles are not for me, I can't remember any enjoyable ones apart from Astro bot. I only remember them in ranks of most annoying and Dark Souls scores high on that list. Beating a boss doesn't give me any satisfaction, just a well that was a waste of time, can I get on with the fun part now please. Different people play games for different experiences, and of course if a developer doesn't want you to experience the 'fun' parts without passing a test first, then that's their choice. And my choice to not buy from them any more. Not adding options is in their right, but the defense that it would alter the "intended experience" whatever that might be, is a lame excuse.

Yet what they want you to experience turns out differently for different people. It's great it fits your play style and abilities, but that doesn't mean it turns into a very different experience for someone else, far off from what the devs want you to experience. Unless there is some AI analyzing your gamepla, there is no way of knowing whether you are experiencing the game as intended. Did they intend it as a frustrating experience many people give up on. Did they intend it as a "read a guide, get op early" breeze through it experience. Did they intend it for those that played their earlier games and can finish it in 20 hours or less. Or is it meant for new players to struggle for 60 hours. There is simply no way to provide the "intended" experience with a fixed difficulty level to cater to new comers and veterans alike. So even if you just take the group it's "meant to appeal" to, it still is entirely dependent on their earlier experience with From's games.

Btw you don't alter the core game by skipping parts (boss battles) of it. You simply experience less of it. If you quit after a few chapters, you don't change the game. Flexible games are more fun. I skipped most of the story shoot outs in GTA5 since that's not something I enjoy. The game letting you enjoy it the way you want to makes it the behemoth it turned into. In Death stranding I simply ran through the shoot out bits in very easy, I wasn't playing it for that. In the end I clocked well over 200 hours in that game figuring out how to optimize things and get 500 legends of legends ratings. (which is only available in hard mode, but you can switch freely)

I'm well past the age that I have to eat my veggies first before I can have desert. No need to put up with that with games either :) Boss battles are not for me, I can't remember any enjoyable ones apart from Astro bot. I only remember them in ranks of most annoying and Dark Souls scores high on that list. Beating a boss doesn't give me any satisfaction, just a well that was a waste of time, can I get on with the fun part now please. Different people play games for different experiences, and of course if a developer doesn't want you to experience the 'fun' parts without passing a test first, then that's their choice. And my choice to not buy from them any more. Not adding options is in their right, but the defense that it would alter the "intended experience" whatever that might be, is a lame excuse.

Then Dark Souls isn't for you. I don't like racing games, so I don't play racing games. Should they add "more options" and give me a "non-racing option" in their racing game? Or perhaps, I say perhaps, I should not play racine games?