Accessibility options are a good idea, so's an easy mode really if the devs feel like putting one in. The problem is Jim does not clarify what he means by accessibility options. I like to think of it as being like a swimming pool: nice and deep for all the strong and capable swimmers but with a shallow end for the kids and those who can't swim so well. However, what I really think Jim is asking for is a function for him to play as well as the skilled players without having to put in the time, ability, and effort. Which to use the swimming pool analogy, would be the equivalent of draining the pool to ankle deep so there's no risk of anyone drowning. I don't even know how you'd integrate difficulty settings in Elden Ring or whatever though, it's an interconnected single/multiplayer world. It would be like demanding World of Warcraft put an easy mode in.
I don't even play souls games, too much bullshit for me, but I do play a lot of RTS and boomer shooters and RPGs and their difficulty settings usually go from "an actual baby could play this" to "only an autistic no-lifer could play this". But again, those have separate single and multiplayer modes.
This might be quite long because this discussion gets me proper spergy.
There's accessibility in the sense that you make games more accessible to people with disabilities, such as one hand controlling and colour blind settings etc. Then there's accessibility in the sense of a game simply being incompatible with a certain player's ability or sensibilities. Jim constantly conflates the two and it's infuriating. Admittedly there is a grey area in between the two, plenty of games rely on fast reflexes and quick inputs from the player, which some people simply lack the ability to do. But Jim never explores this, instead he just says "oh you don't want there to be an easy mode in Elden Ring, do you hate the disableds?" when the conversation is way more nuanced than that.
To take your swimming pool example, some people just cannot swim. Many of those people could learn how to if they put themselves to it, and others will never be able to swim no matter how much they may want to. Jim seems to want to accommodate both of these groups in exactly the same way by placing them in the same category. In my eyes that just infantilises the ones who refuse to learn, and patronises the ones who physically can't. If you treat both the same way you'll end up satisfying neither. Sure, all olympic sized swimming pools could have shallow ends to accommodate everyone, but I can't see that being an ideal situation for anybody. The people who can swim will have their pools made worse, the people who refuse to learn will still have no incentive to learn, and the ones who can't will just be paddling about watching the people who can swim. Who wins from any of that? Wouldn't it be better if everybody had experiences tailored for them specifically?
Minor power level but I love horror games. Or I at least love the idea of them. In reality I am far too much of a chicken shit to actually play many. And when I do I always get nightmares. Is this an accessibility issue? Possibly, my enjoyment of media is being affected. But it's an issue I could overcome in theory with practice. Or, we could do as Jim says, and make the experience more accessible for me. There should be a "horror free" mode to horror games, to allow me to experience the game without being scared. But then, horror games are supposed to be scary. If you remove the horror, what is the point of playing? I would not only be extremely egocentric to expect something like this from a game, I would be undermining the very reason to play the game at all.
It won't even get rid of the "elitism" that has Jim's panties in such a tizz. It would just move the conversation from "oh, you couldn't beat Elden Ring? Get good" to "oh, you beat Elden Ring on easy? Get good"
But then, I'm not a grown man on Youtube wearing a cheap wig. So what do I know.
