I'm not shouting on the internet about how people need to get good or anything..
But one consideration I haven't heard discussed (but I don't follow this conversation really so forgive me if it's been talked about), is that often, almost always, people take the path of least resistance.
That's why they can't stop staring at their phones all day instead of doing things they once liked, like playing guitar or drawing or whatever.
So if you have a game that is known to be challenging, that rewards persistence, I can't say it certainly, but I have a feeling that in the speed of our modern lives and surrounded by easy paths in supersaturated media environments, a lot of people that might have stuck it out in a mode that would actually be a good fit for them, that they'd actually like, are just going to go with the easiest thing presented to them just to get through it. (Remember that offtopic thread asking what speed you listen to podcasts at?)
I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, I'm just suggesting it might be possible that there might be some deeper positive experiences in that will be missed, replaced by a passive disconnected experience where you may not feel like you even got your time's worth.
This is coming from someone who barely plays games these days because of work, family, other things. Honestly the idea of sekiro is a bit scary for me. I am a big fan of the cooperative multiplayer aspect of the other souls games, and the things I've heard about it being even more difficult, even more of a one hit kill game than bloodborne, has me stressed at the idea of getting into it.. So it might cross the line for me, I'm not an expert gamer. I'd say I'm middle of the road skill level. But I can tell you that before Demon's Souls came out, when everything was a handholding thing where difficulty even when it did exist, felt like bullshit, and then Demon's Souls appeared and reawakened my love for gaming. I was seriously ready to step away from it, I was bored out of my mind with rollercoaster/linear experiences that felt designed by committee. Demon's Souls just let you play. It was a puzzle you felt like only you could solve, and the kind of reward from that experience was extremely fulfilling.
After discovering these souls games, I'm sure I strongly prefer this approach. The game is designed in one way, then there are options actually designed into the game, that can make it easier or harder for you and you are free to make those choices. (It sounds like perhaps Sekiro steps away from that and is just fucking hard though?)
But also, I agree with the idea that creators make something the way they want, and then people will attract to those products in a way that makes sense. If the creator wants to put in easy modes, the game is probably designed in a way where that makes sense. If the creators have something else in mind, they may be trying to attract a certain demographic. The argument "if you don't like it, don't buy it" is one of the worst things I've heard on the internet, and yet, here I don't think there is some major issue and there's some validity. If you like it, but it's way too hard or obtuse in some way for you to enjoy... well I guess it's fair to criticize of course, but I want to say that in the case of Demons, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne, there are mechanisms that make the game easier, and much of the most difficult portions are gated into optional areas. I can't speak for Sekiro.
I also fully expect the game to be patched to be easier. Dark Souls was a lot more challenging in the first game, pre-patch and after many patches, the game is a lot more accessible in its generosity with handing out souls and beneficial items. I assume the same thing will happen with Sekiro, to some extent, especially since it's apparently missing the difficulty adjusting mechanisms from the other games.
