The cup runneth

Age of the Geek Column: Last month I wrote about "Cuphead" and the minor scandal that erupted when a games journalist humiliated himself while demonstrating the game.
VentureBeat's Dean Takahashi posted his 26-minute video-of-shame decrying the difficulty of the game, but his amateur performance made it hard to gauge exactly how difficult the game really was.
Well, now "Cuphead" has been released to the masses and I can confirm that while the game is certainly challenging, beating it is not the impossible task it's been made out to be. In about 12 hours of game time spread across two weeks, I bested the game, defeating cartoonish flowers, dragons, pirates, ghosts, and even the Devil himself.
I'm far from exceptional in this regard. I was able to beat the game by the most basic standard, often clearing stages by the skin of my teeth and only after countless failed attempts.
Far more capable gamers than myself have already conquered the game's more challenging modes and have even started giving themselves handicaps. Last week speedrunner PeekingBoo beat all of the game's bosses literally using his feet, playing the game with "Dance Dance Revolution" game pads, rather than a regular controller.
And yet, a debate seems to have surfaced about whether or not the game is too difficult.
"Cuphead" is an interesting target for this criticism. It's hard, but there are much harder games out there. Games like "Super Meat Boy" have spawned a whole genre of incredibly difficult precision platformers and "Cuphead" itself would be considered on the easy end of the "Bullet Hell" genre.
It's no coincidence that the games journalists questioning "Cuphead's" difficulty are the same ones that defended Takahashi a month ago, but their question does have some merit.
Should games be playable for players of every skill level?
For every gamer out there getting perfect scores on expert mode, there are doubtlessly several others that will hit a wall and give up in frustration, on even the novice difficulty.
But is this the fault of the game? Is a player entitled to see the ending of a game they paid for? Is it the responsibility of the developers to ensure that difficulty levels can be adjusted so even the worst players can get through and see the ending?
Or is it simply the responsibility of the player to "get good" and either take on the challenge as intended or find something else to play?
It's not a new argument. Before "Cuphead," it was "Dark Souls," at the center of this debate. A franchise built on its reputation of punishing difficulty, that reputation is enough to scare away new or casual gamers, prompting calls for an "easy mode" that would let them see what all the fuss is about without having to actually deal with the fuss.
Of course on the other side of the argument you have the existing fandom, concerned that any changes to make the game more accessible will water down the experience for those that like things as they are.
I can see both sides of the argument. There are definitely games where I've taken the easy way out to get through. When renting games for a weekend as a kid, cheat codes were often the only feasible way to get through without wasting the limited hours mastering every level step-by-step. Level select and infinite lives codes give you a chance to play the more difficult stages without having to start from scratch every time you fail.
Even today there are times where I don't mind giving myself an edge in a game. I'll happily use cheats to cut down on the repetitious grinding of the recent Final Fantasy re-masters. I've already poured countless hours into those games and don't have any desire to do it again when I get the urge to replay them.
Other games like "FTL: Faster Than Light" or "XCOM 2" I've gone so far as to modify the game code myself to adjust the game to my liking. I can say I'm "re-balancing" an unbalanced game to make it more fun, but the fact is that "more fun" often requires making it easier.
On the other hand, when it comes to a game like "Cuphead," it's harder to justify reducing the challenge because the challenge is the entire point of the game. Playing a Final Fantasy game is like watching a movie. Playing "XCOM 2" is like playing with action figures. But playing "Cuphead" is about the challenge of playing "Cuphead."
In my own experience with the game, every boss had me wondering if they would be the impossible wall. If I would meet my limit and be forced to admit defeat. And every time, after much swearing and many failed attempts, I overcame the challenge. That sense of satisfaction isn't something I could have gotten had I played on a lower difficulty, much less skipped the harder bosses entirely.
People argue that the option to skip stages at will would allow more gamers to experience the whole game, but that's flawed thinking. If you aren't playing it the way it was intended, you aren't really experiencing it.
I don't see the harm in letting a game hold your hand. There are plenty of games I'd rather watch being played than actually play myself. But a game like "Cuphead," I don't see the point.
Travis Fischer is a news writer for Mid-America Publishing and never plays on easy mode unless normal is too hard.