A Dark Souls easy mode would require a fundamental change in level design.

[DoPo]

I just started playing Dark Souls a few days ago as an early Christmas present and I must say that it is a VERY, VERY fun game. However, I've already been called a filthy casual for two reasons. 1) because it is also known to some of my friends that I enjoy "button mashing games" like Skyrim and God of War 2) My first attempt was with a pyromancer. Apparently I am a dickless coward since I kite/los creatures to my advantage and because I'm a "mage nerd" and FUK MAGIK UZORZ!

I also just played it. Literally, I played it until 5 minutes ago. Borrowed it from a friend of mine to see how it would run in my computer. I already knew that apparently "magic is too easy lol", so my test character I made was an assassin (otherwise I would have picked at random and could have gotten a pyromancer). But apparently when you start a game you can choose an extra item - without really thinking I picked one at random, and I was told I chose wrong because I had picked the Master Key which unlocks every door and that makes the game too easy. Yeah, double standards. The game already has stuff that makes it easy but you shouldn't pick those because it's easy. So an inclusion of easy mode would have been treated absolutely the same way and people are now making a big fuss over non-issue, as there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between staying away from powerful options and staying away from a powerful mode.

 

[barbzilla]

3: I don't want an easy mode because I don't have enough self control not to choose it (I.E. Easy mode is a tactical advantage that people would be stupid not to choose).
Once again, who cares. If you don't have the will power to complete a game you could otherwise complete, without choosing an easier route, why is it anyone else's problem but your own?

Given that I'm the only one I've seen make the stupid tactical choice argument... Equating that to willpower is kind of a dick move. The whole argument is centered around restricting myself to get a challenge devalues loss which in turn devalues success. I've played plenty of games with multiple difficulty modes on the easiest and hardest settings trying to find a way to make me give a crap about losing and succeeding, but if things are easy I don't care and if I'm handicapping myself for a challenge I don't care. So much of enjoying any sort of media is about your outlook, how you perceive things, and in general the way you think. The fact that you'd suggest that the affects of including something that changes the way someone views what they're doing is a bullshit reason to not want it is rather silly.

As for it being my problem... So it causing me problems isn't a valid argument for why adding it isn't the best thing ever for everyone and does in fact affect at least some people who don't want it?

1, You are not the only person to make that argument by a long shot. I haven't read through this thread completely, but I am referring to all of the threads I have read through on this subject, all of the arguments against it fall into those categories. I used the tactical reasoning as an example, and it is but one example of people making that argument. The fact that you took it so personally tells me you understand my reasoning. As for it being a dick move, how? It is a statement made on an evaluation. The fact that it is truth, does not make it a dick move. As for it being a willpower issue, how is it not a willpower issue. You argue that you don't want an easy mode because you would choose it instead of the superior normal mode. You are telling me that you would choose an inferior product just because it is easier, and not because it is better. What other explanation is there besides it being you lack the will to stay your course on a difficult product? I'm not trying to insult you, I am being quite genuine.

2, It is your problem because the only people with any reason to decide to add or not add another difficulty is the developers. Where I have a problem with the argument is the biggest people crying this are the ones against the easy mode (mainly because those for the easy mode are asking for a change), yet those are the same people that threw their mouths(fingers) at From Software when the mistranslated article came out about the potential of them adding an easy mode. The same ones saying let the developers make the decisions were the same ones yelling at the developers threatening to never buy their products again (once again I'm not directing this at you, as I have no idea if you were one of those people).

In short, it really doesn't matter anymore. The devs are making a new game, they have stated they are not making an easy mode. Why is it so important to you guys that you keep fighting against it. Let the easy mode supporters have their moment and move on. It isn't as though it is going to make any difference to your game what-so-ever as From has said no way no how.

 

[loa]

So you think dark souls difficulty stems from it mainly being a platformer?
That's funny, I always thought it was "difficult" because of its sluggish animations that often times make the controls unresponsive, the still hilariously unbalanced build options (good luck with your dex character later on) and random dicks in low level areas that do nothing the whole day long but to invade people and oneshot them with their inferno spells and lightning washing poles.
Speed the slomo animations (especially that 5 seconds "getting up" one) up, disable that retarded pvp, bam, easy mode.

 

[barbzilla]

OT: The game requires you to think and read and otherwise not be lazy. Not too many things are outright told to you and thus people think its "hard". I get why this game has such a cult following, I got quite the nostalgia trip when I first looked at the menu screen and had my first encounter with a lowly skelton or whatever mob and it killed me. This probably will sound odd, but I got a Castlevani:Symphony of the Night vibe from Dark Souls. As to an easy mode or if including something like that would fundamentally change the style of the game, I don't know guys, for me this a tricky one. To me Dark Souls comes across as very purposefully designed to be unforgiving in certain situations. Then there is the weak argument that I hear all the time, "casuals seek experiences, non-casuals seek challenges". I don't know if I'm experienced enough with the game to fully give an educated opinion yet. I still plan to play through it at least 3 or 4 more times, and I haven't even beat it for the first time yet. But there is something to be said about that. The reason I want to is because I know I will be challenged both by the static difficulty of the bosses, and the variable difficulty with facing them each time with a new build and a new style of play that I won't be familiar with

Honestly, I think you will find that after the first playthrough the game is pretty darn easy anyway. It really doesn't matter what build you use. A change in build brings a bit if difficulty for about 30 minutes to an hour depending on how quickly you adapt. I also got a Castlevania feel when I first started playing the game. And being on NG+++++ I really don't think an easy mode is needed. I only support it for two reasons, one it doesn't matter at this point, and two it would mean more money for From (though at this point it would be very marginal).

 

[Sylveria]

Snip

You realize your whole arguement is negated by Megaman 9 and 10, right? Both games had easy modes (if I recall) and there was no change to the level design.

I can say the same for Ninja Gaiden 3 and NG1 and 2 Plus with Hero (easy) mode. No change to the level design, you can still die to falls and failing certain events, but the combat is far easier.

"Easy" does not mean "You can't die to anything ever." Easy means.. well.. easy. Not "You win with no effort"

 

[BilltheEmu]

...so my test character I made was an assassin (otherwise I would have picked at random and could have gotten a pyromancer). But apparently when you start a game you can choose an extra item - without really thinking I picked one at random, and I was told I chose wrong because I had picked the Master Key which unlocks every door and that makes the game too easy. Yeah, double standards.

Actually, if someone told you that you picked wrong with that class/gift combo, it's likely they were trying to point out that the thief class ALREADY starts with the master key, and that choosing it as a starting gift is redundant, in this case, and was essentially choosing no gift at all. Also, the master key in particular has the potential to make the game HARDER. It is one method that can be used to access areas out of order, meaning you can end up fighting a notorious one-shotting NPC before the first boss, or immediately skip ahead into an area past the first four bosses.

But as you said, different playstyles can by very different in difficulty. Starting out as a deprived with a pendant will be much tougher in the beginning than a pyromancer or sorcerer. These are rather effective ways of including variable difficulty without the need for "easy mode." Perhaps just a couple pieces of text suggesting that one class could be a good choice for beginners...

 

[Sylveria]

To those who say it won't all they have to do is look at PC gaming 5 years ago when every other game was a shitty console port. Lot's of these old IPs have had radical changes to their design because the devs are making the games for the avarage console gamer and not the oldschool PC gamer who loves System Shock 2, Quake 3 or Doom.

For a second, I thought this picture was of Final Fantasy 13. "Big" JRPGs have gone the same way I guess.

FPSs are the extreme example. They became the dumb-kids-with-money genre. Allowing an "Easy" mode does not mean "Turn it in to a hallway where you can't die. Let's not forget that Doom and Quake had easy modes and had the option for you to flip on Godmode whenever you wanted.

Also, your PC hardcore superiority argument makes little sense here.. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls started as console games. This may come as a shock but not all console gamers are the COD-tards who couldn't find there way out of an elevator without a big red arrow pointing the direction. Like-wise.. I see a lot of people playing CoD on PC.

 

[Raioken18]

Permit me to use Minecraft as an example.

Easy mode, enemies do less damage, fall damage is the same.

Normal mode, enemies do medium damage, fall damage is the same.

Hard mode, enemies do massive amounts of damage, fall damage is the same.

If it's good enough to satiate the casuals in Minecraft then it's good enough for Dark Souls. Frankly if you reduce the amount of damage enemies do then it's difficulty would be greatly reduced. But I do get your meaning, the Taurus Demon (second boss?) the hit box is quite wide and will sometimes knock you off in a glitchy sort of way. It's not a well designed area for a fight, but it's not that big a deal.

However I do think that for Dark Souls, enemy attack speeds would likely have to be reduced.

Take fights like Ornstein and Smough, their attacks are so fast that it's basically an impossible fight for casual players. Also it was a popular player killing farm area, so anyone seeking help was often instantly killed on their way to the fight.

This was the fight that ended the game for me. I had been killed around 30 times in a row between the checkpoint and the fight by players invading my world, and wasn't good enough to solo the fight myself. It was brutal and unfair and just took all the fun out of it, most of the player killers would just 1 shot you, or were invisible, or would kill you before your screen had even loaded properly. I'd even bought a bunch of Indightments, however they seemed like a shot in the dark.

The pvp system in Dark Souls was crap and the lack of ability to ask for co-op help from friends also meant that the randoms for co-op were often useless especially in terms of tactics.

I did end up continuing to painted world, but the next time I got stuck I was just totally broken from my experience in Anor Londo and threw in the towel instead of looking for help.

Also! I hear that there was meant to be a timer between invasions, however my average time between being invaded was around 5 minutes, it would have been less but I had failed a few attempts in between. The quickest consecutive invasion was around 30 seconds, to who I'm pretty sure was the same guy (same armor and weapon). I died and instantly revived, spent humanity again, ran out killed 6 or so enemies... Bam! invaded and instakilled.

I know a lot of people who quit around the same area for the same reason.

If you want my opinion? Don't' do easy mode, but split it so there are separate modes for co-op and for pvp. That way you can get help when you want it and fight people when you want to... it would be a big problem solved.

 

[DoPo]

...so my test character I made was an assassin (otherwise I would have picked at random and could have gotten a pyromancer). But apparently when you start a game you can choose an extra item - without really thinking I picked one at random, and I was told I chose wrong because I had picked the Master Key which unlocks every door and that makes the game too easy. Yeah, double standards.

Actually, if someone told you that you picked wrong with that class/gift combo, it's likely they were trying to point out that the thief class ALREADY starts with the master key, and that choosing it as a starting gift is redundant, in this case, and was essentially choosing no gift at all. Also, the master key in particular has the potential to make the game HARDER. It is one method that can be used to access areas out of order, meaning you can end up fighting a notorious one-shotting NPC before the first boss, or immediately skip ahead into an area past the first four bosses.

Except I was told that it made it easier, hence I shouldn't be picking it. Also, I chose an assassin, those don't have the key, AFAIK. Finally, I was making a throw away character, not the one I'd be playing seriously. I actually ended up playing through the whole of the beginning level (until you're taken by the giant raven) which is more than what I planned for. I was only testing how it's running.

 

[Signa]

I'm not sure why everyone is hating on the OP. Level design is crucial when building an expereince for a player. I've never played DS, but just limiting the player's movement with cliffs in a battle with an enemy is enough to make the game feel harder.

All that aside, I think the OP makes at least one solid point: why redesign a game around people who don't want to play it? All that will do is piss off the people that liked your game in the first place, because of the way it was designed. Let those people go play another game, and leave this one to the fans that want it to be the way it is. I've lost a good few favorite franchises because of moves like this. Soon, there won't be anything left that is fun to play.

 

[DoPo]

All that aside, I think the OP makes at least one solid point: why redesign a game around people who don't want to play it?

You are correct - that is a good point. You are also incorrect - that is a strawman OP used. Because nobody has ever said the devs would ever do that. And nobody has ever asked them to do it. Arguing against that point does nothing, as it has never been a point. OP makes it up, OP argues against it - a strawman. Finally, while falling off ledges makes a game hard, it is not the entire source of difficulty. You can leave ledges and make the game easier. Both of these at the same time.

 

[Signa]

All that aside, I think the OP makes at least one solid point: why redesign a game around people who don't want to play it?

You are correct - that is a good point. You are also incorrect - that is a strawman OP used. Because nobody has ever said the devs would ever do that. And nobody has ever asked them to do it. Arguing against that point does nothing, as it has never been a point. OP makes it up, OP argues against it - a strawman. Finally, while falling off ledges makes a game hard, it is not the entire source of difficulty. You can leave ledges and make the game easier. Both of these at the same time.

So then, tell me why you think that designing a game to be both hard and easy at the same time is possible without harming the expereince for one of those modes? I don't give a flying fuck what classification the OP's argument falls into, I want to know why you think that making a game that appeals to its original audience while appealing to another diametrically opposed audience is a simple matter to not be concerned about.

Why do we even need to care about appealing to those people at all? DS was a commercial success, so you can't argue that it needs to have more mainstream appeal in order to stay profitable. There's no need for these changes (or options, if you prefer).

You know what, fuck this argument, I'm not in the mood. I've never played Dark Souls, so I don't even have a horse in this race. I'm just sick of games being changed for mainstream appeal, and people blindly defending those changes without regard to those who liked it the way it was. Believe me, there will be changes that the fans of the series won't like. They might be overblown once they hit, but they will be there when there was no need for them in the first place, and they will be there after the fans specifically asked them not to be. It's just another case of a developer/publisher respecting money more than they respect the people who made them and their franchise what they are.

 

[DoPo]

I'm just sick of games being changed for mainstream appeal, and people blindly defending those changes without regard to those who liked it the way it was.

Blindly defending? My, my. I see no blind defence here, I see blind attacks, however. OP is attacking a non-issue, for example, other people are making stuff up, too, and all this over something that is not even sure to be in the game. People are attacking easy mode even though nobody said it would exist. Get that. Not to mention that nobody knows what would this mean, even if it exists. Which side is more blind in that case? Finally, who the fuck cares if it exists if it's not what you're after? Judge the game on what it is, not on what might potentially happen, maybe, but is not even confirmed and is a sort of a nightmare scenario, perhaps. What if it allows smooth flawless "normal" mode (that would be the hard setting) and an easy mode that does not mesh with the other one at all? Or what if there is no easy mode but they throw in a quick tutorial and, like, several more lines of explanations of the world? Or what if there is no change? Why is only one of the ifs the "not blind" while all the rest are?

 

[Eddie the head]

I think if you can't make a game easier and not change the level design then you just made a bad game. Hard games are not fun because they are hard, they are fun in spite of them being hard.

Plus yeah, Straw Man.

 

[infinity_turtles]

1, You are not the only person to make that argument by a long shot. I haven't read through this thread completely, but I am referring to all of the threads I have read through on this subject, all of the arguments against it fall into those categories. I used the tactical reasoning as an example, and it is but one example of people making that argument. The fact that you took it so personally tells me you understand my reasoning. As for it being a dick move, how? It is a statement made on an evaluation. The fact that it is truth, does not make it a dick move. As for it being a willpower issue, how is it not a willpower issue. You argue that you don't want an easy mode because you would choose it instead of the superior normal mode. You are telling me that you would choose an inferior product just because it is easier, and not because it is better. What other explanation is there besides it being you lack the will to stay your course on a difficult product? I'm not trying to insult you, I am being quite genuine.

I've read through pretty much all the recent Dark Souls threads, and I've been the only one making the specific tactical choice argument. If you saw it on this site, it was assuredly from me. That's why I took it personally. And again, playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

2, It is your problem because the only people with any reason to decide to add or not add another difficulty is the developers. Where I have a problem with the argument is the biggest people crying this are the ones against the easy mode (mainly because those for the easy mode are asking for a change), yet those are the same people that threw their mouths(fingers) at From Software when the mistranslated article came out about the potential of them adding an easy mode. The same ones saying let the developers make the decisions were the same ones yelling at the developers threatening to never buy their products again (once again I'm not directing this at you, as I have no idea if you were one of those people).

You're generalizing more then I think is reasonable. Most people didn't come out of the woodwork until people started saying all games should have an easy mode and anyone who didn't think so was an elitist prick. There was, what, one thread with a couple of pages of posts here until Jim did an episode on it? There was a bit more in places dedicated to Dark Souls, but most of the current stuff is more defensive then anything else. Most of the arguments read more as "there isn't much that fills this niche anymore so please, please don't try and take it away."

In short, it really doesn't matter anymore. The devs are making a new game, they have stated they are not making an easy mode. Why is it so important to you guys that you keep fighting against it. Let the easy mode supporters have their moment and move on. It isn't as though it is going to make any difference to your game what-so-ever as From has said no way no how.

I like to argue and people in their generalizations have been calling me an elitist prick with no willpower. Seems simple enough.

 

[barbzilla]

Sniped for verbosity

You maybe the only one who made the tactics argument (I would have to go back and look, but I'll take your word on it), but you are by no means the only one who makes the argument that if there was an easy mode I would pick that instead of normal/hard. Rooster was one of them and he is the only Anti-easy mode advocate I've conceded a point to. I am really not above doing so, and when both sides look at something logically I think we gain a greater understanding. If you say it isn't due to willpower, I have no choice but to take your word on it, as I am not you, nor am I able to fully understand any person who isn't myself. But, it still seems to be an issue of being unable to make a choice to further your enjoyment. If you are arguing that the normal mode is superior to any planned easy mode then why would you choose it, unless it is because it is easier? On the other side of the coin, if you are arguing that an easy mode is superior to the default mode of play, why are we having this argument? Do you see my confusion?

I am not generalizing, on point two at all. It is ultimately up to the developer. That is a very direct point. And as far as the other people I am speaking of, I have seen people being hypocrites on said point, that is why I made the statement, also not a generalization. I even go so far as to say I have no idea if you were one of those people or not (I would assume you are not, because you are not taking that side of the argument).

As for the number of topics created, The escapist was and still is awash with said topics. It has been going on since the developer was mis-translated in that article. Then it started dying down again, then Jim did his video. That is when it picked back up again. This isn't a recent thing.

As for the Niche title thing. I have no real issue with that. Once again I think it is on the developers to make that decision. All I think is that I would support the developers if they decided to go that route. Instead we have elected to have a discussion about the pros and cons of said implementation of an easy mode. I happen to think the pros out weight the cons. it is as simple as that.

I never called you an elitist prick, I did accuse people making that style of argument of having little willpower, but I never intended to point it at you directly. If you like to argue, that is all well and good. I enjoy having an intelligent discourse and that is why I continue to bother with responding to threads like this. I am hoping to meet another person like Rooster Cogburn who will illicit a response in me counter to my point so that I may concede another point.

 

[WoW Killer]

playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

What if there were some kind of unique rewards on the normal/hard modes? Say there was an endgame weapon/spell/ability that could only be unlocked on the hardest setting. To my mind, that would then feel like the easy mode was the one in which I was handicapped. Would that be better for you?

 

[infinity_turtles]

You maybe the only one who made the tactics argument (I would have to go back and look, but I'll take your word on it), but you are by no means the only one who makes the argument that if there was an easy mode I would pick that instead of normal/hard. Rooster was one of them and he is the only Anti-easy mode advocate I've conceded a point to. I am really not above doing so, and when both sides look at something logically I think we gain a greater understanding. If you say it isn't due to willpower, I have no choice but to take your word on it, as I am not you, nor am I able to fully understand any person who isn't myself. But, it still seems to be an issue of being unable to make a choice to further your enjoyment. If you are arguing that the normal mode is superior to any planned easy mode then why would you choose it, unless it is because it is easier? On the other side of the coin, if you are arguing that an easy mode is superior to the default mode of play, why are we having this argument? Do you see my confusion?

Again, it's a mindset thing. Mode selection is not and will never be a special choice to me. It's the same as any other tactical choice I make during the game, aside perhaps from it being very clearly spelled out which one is more effective. Now to build on that, I also can't enjoy a challenge unless I'm doing my damndest to win. To make a poor tactical choice I know is a poor tactical choice is under no circumstances doing my damndest to win. Maybe I'm off-base on what others view as reasonable, though I hope others wouldn't suggest this as a way to enjoy the challenge of an easy game, but it's the exact same to me as playing with control settings flipped around in a way I don't like and that I find difficult to use. It's an option sure, but to say if I want a challenge I should just do that for every game is... Well, I just can't really wrap my head around why people would think that's a good suggestion. Either way the game isn't challenging, I've just chosen to screw myself over. If I've screwed myself over on purpose, why would I care if I fail? And if I don't care if I fail, why would I care that I've succeeded?

I am not generalizing, on point two at all. It is ultimately up to the developer. That is a very direct point. And as far as the other people I am speaking of, I have seen people being hypocrites on said point, that is why I made the statement, also not a generalization. I even go so far as to say I have no idea if you were one of those people or not (I would assume you are not, because you are not taking that side of the argument).

Perhaps I misread you, but while you excluded me once we started specifically addressing one another, the way your original statement reads sounds like you're throwing most of the people defending no easy mode and pointing to it being the developer's choice in with everyone who threatened boycott. If that's not what you meant then I'll take your word for it, but your word choice was vague enough that, to me at least, it read that way.

As for the number of topics created, The escapist was and still is awash with said topics. It has been going on since the developer was mis-translated in that article. Then it started dying down again, then Jim did his video. That is when it picked back up again. This isn't a recent thing.

Entirely possible I'm misremembering, but I don't remember there being too many before Jim's episode.

As for the Niche title thing. I have no real issue with that. Once again I think it is on the developers to make that decision. All I think is that I would support the developers if they decided to go that route. Instead we have elected to have a discussion about the pros and cons of said implementation of an easy mode. I happen to think the pros out weight the cons. it is as simple as that.

I'm not particularly fond of looking at these sorts of things as pros and cons like that. Niche titles and media tends to get shafted there because so much of "pros" tend to center around what more people enjoy. By it's nature, unless the discussion switches to one of the advantages of niche media existing in the first place versus everything being mainstream, well niche will always lose.

I never called you an elitist prick, I did accuse people making that style of argument of having little willpower, but I never intended to point it at you directly. If you like to argue, that is all well and good. I enjoy having an intelligent discourse and that is why I continue to bother with responding to threads like this. I am hoping to meet another person like Rooster Cogburn who will illicit a response in me counter to my point so that I may concede another point.

I was talking more generally about why I post in these sorts of threads, as I thought your point about letting them "have their moment" was a bit more general as well. Didn't mean to suggest you called me an Elitist Prick.

 

[infinity_turtles]

playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

What if there were some kind of unique rewards on the normal/hard modes? Say there was an endgame weapon/spell/ability that could only be unlocked on the hardest setting. To my mind, that would then feel like the easy mode was the one in which I was handicapped. Would that be better for you?

The answer to that is, it depends. Theoretically possible that it could be done in a way that I'd enjoy it, but as the loss of enjoyment stems from feeling like I'm playing stupid or not being challenged, I'd have to believe the reward to be competitive with the advantage of Easy Mode. Easy Mode in a normally challenging game by it's nature is such a massive advantage that having it from the start almost certainly outweighs any possible advantage you could get that only arrived at the end. So possible, but so unlikely that if I'm playing smart I'd never take the chance.

 

[Nero18]

playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

What if there were some kind of unique rewards on the normal/hard modes? Say there was an endgame weapon/spell/ability that could only be unlocked on the hardest setting. To my mind, that would then feel like the easy mode was the one in which I was handicapped. Would that be better for you?

That often only works in theory, in reality that end game reward has to be something really amazing or the player will at some point just go "fuck it, its not worth it" unless they have amazing will-power. It has happened to me quite some times when I for example dont even feel like the reward is worth me "torturing" myself. To really pull it of i think the game needs to constantly reward the gamer for playing on a higher difficulty, an at that point you start to get into some very tough game design where the game has to adapt to every difficulty.