Then they label the intended difficulty with "recommended" and say that will give the best experience and that if you choose a difficulty higher or lower you might impede the intention of it.
You're missing the point, which is weird because I explicitly stated it. To repeat, an artist might not want to create an inferior version of their art, irrespective of the utility of doing so. Art is an egotistical affair.
I really don't see the problem with having options.
Options can make sense in some games but not in others; a developer deciding not to include them has likely either figured they wouldn't work with the game's structure, wouldn't be a good use of their time or both. Difficulty options are simply not a one size fits all solution, for the same reason it wouldn't make sense to demand all painters make colorblind-friendly versions of their paintings.
I meant that the story/easy mode wouldn't conform with their vision. To expand on my example, if your game is portraying a grueling trek through a swamp where enemies abound and rest is scarce, the struggle would be an inalienable part of the experience; removing the struggle would fundamentally alter the story being told through the game. It's not about their vision being intact or not; it's about not wanting to intentionally make an inferior version of their art.
I mean, presumably because it'd compromise their vision for the game or some such? Some games use gameplay as part of the storytelling, so nontrivial difficulty swttings would compromise the story being told (for example if the game wants you to experience a gruelling trek through a hostile area). Now that doesn't mean a story mode or similar is bad, but there are reasons to consider for a game dev to consider such settings incompatible with their game. Also in a game with more complex mechanics difficulty would be more complicated than player and enemy stats, and a dev might simply consider implementing satisfactory difficulty settings not a good use of their time.
In a game like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), I can't help but feel such a crude setting would end up doing more harm than good. I mean, let's take health for example. Increasing your health wouldn't help much if you can't handle what the game is throwing at you; the few extra masks the game gives you only really help if you can handle the difficulty but need mistake tolerance, otherwise enemies will still hit you and you'll still fail at platforming and fall into spikes. Fundamentally the difficulty of a game like Hollow Knight comes from a lot more than just damage numbers, so a naive difficulty scale would only give an illusion of accessibility that would fade away at the first difficult part, and in that case it's better for everyone involved if the inaccessibility of the game is easily apparent.
(I'm just irrationally mad that they removed the cheeseable pogoing. It was so cheeseable but I get why they tweaked the mechanic to become harder to use in exactly the same way. I'm actually using the other offensive abilities more.)
Minor spoilers regarding crestsThere's actually one crest that straight up brings back pogoing and another that give you something similar, but honestly Hornet's default dive is very underappreciated I'd say. It allows you to do maneuvers that you can't with normal pogoing, and even platforming isn't that hard when you get used to it.
Early game areas feel as hard as late game areas from the first game.
Are you sure about that? It's been a while since I played Hollow Knight, but other than Hunter's Marsh I think Sillksong has been comparable to or slightly harder than equivalent parts of the Hollow Knight. The enemies are tougher, but you also get more tools to deal with them so it evens out. Mostly thinking of the projectiles here, but the mobility difference also can't be understated; you can abuse dash attacks in Silksong in a way you never could in Hollow Knight. Also I haven't quite (or at all really) gotten the hang of it but the game might've been designed with parrying in mind, which would allow you to avoid a lot of damage because many of the harder enemies are warrior types.
Have you played the original Hollow Knight? I don't think you need to in order to play Silksong, but it'll help you know what to expect and it's also just a great game.
I was obviously (okay maybe not very obviously) talking within the context of their invasion of Poland. Anyway Nazis didn't have legitimate grievances with anyone they targeted (because they targeted whole ethnic groups), which is part of why they're hated so much and what illegitimizes the comparison between them and insert your hated organization of choice here.
Edit: Wait, what just happened? Did you actually say saying you'd be okay with a game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if they "had legitimate grievances against the Polish"? WTF?
I mean depends on those specific grievances by the hypothetical Nazis, yes, because then they wouldn't be Nazis as we know them.
My premise assumes that every Hamas fighter that crossed into Israel on Oct. 7th is a terrorist.
You'll need a source for that.
Because the they were a terrorist movement that targeted civilians. Why would you even ask that? Are you seriously okay with glorifying terrorists if you happen to agree with their goals?
Your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. Nelson Mandela was listed as a terrorist in the US until the 2000s. "Terrorist" isn't a bad word that makes a whole organization irredeemable human scum, and considering the IRA's contribution to North Irish liberation, I'd say the answer is yes. "Terrorists" are people you can love or hate depending on their specific actions and goals.