@humanity: That metaphor implies there's only one pair of shoes available and that they should be made to fit everyone, which is obviously not true. There are other games out there which are accessible and are easier and instead of an designer who deliberately made a game with a high barrier of entry because they wanted their players to feel a sense of accomplishment (direct quote from Miyazaki: “a feeling of accomplishment that may be relatively rare among other games”) having to tone their shit down just so more people can see what the later stages of the game look like, I'd rather people respected the original vision and came to terms with the fact that not everything is fair and not everything is for you.
The argument, put forward by Jeff and everyone else in this thread, is that you only gain something by adding an easier mode, but that's not true either. Something is gained, but something is also lost. As Simon Parkin wrote for The Guardian;
I think it's completely reasonable for an artist to say "if you're not going to experience my art the way it's designed to be experienced then I don't want you to experience it at all" - because art is fundamentally fascist and personal and an audience is not entitled to it. Sometimes art is supposed to be exclusive and inflame and isolate - some of the greatest works of the 20th centrury did exactly that (impressionism, cubism, abstraction, anyone?) and they dictated the way art and fashion and society evolved for the next 100 years and continue to do so. And I also completely understand if people disagree, and i'm completely on board with any designer who doesn't do that and is happy to open up their game to as many people as possible. But that's for the artist to decide, not the consumer, and in the case of Sekiro, Miyazaki has expressed repeatedly the point of view that carries the implicit suggestion that not every game need cater to every person.
I want to dissect this because I think it's interesting and you do put up some great logical arguments here that I'm going to (hopefully kindly) disagree with...
Does the Cliffnotes version of Julius Caesar ruin the main experience? Think about it, granted it wasn't the artist who wrote the Cliffnote's version, but for those who aren't well versed in 16th century dialect is it really that big of a loss. Did they ruin Julius Caesar for themselves?
Here's the thing about 'experiences' they're completely subjective. If I chose to mod or cheat Sekiro and the director came bursting into my home and exclaim 'YOU PLAYED ME GAME WRONG!', I'd reply 'you made the game wrong'. The problem is who's right in this situation? I find when you try and argue that something is lost when an 'easier' option is added in you go into territory that's really murky. You can dismiss the audience all you want, but if they're subjected to fascism, they have a right to fight back against it. The artist loses control when they show or sell their work to someone and it's really hard for me to see otherwise.
I do agree it's the artist's decision to not include an easy mode, but if I chose to cheat and make it easier for myself and you say 'well it's not supposed to be fair!' You become a penguin...