I liked Hollow Knight, but yes, it kind of was. Frequent destinations were far away from fast travel, and there was a low level area that they transformed into a high level area later in the game specifically so that crossing the map wouldn't be a cake walk. I'd argue that earning the power to make an area like that into a cake walk is a core part of the fun.

I'm not really used to metroidvanias having runbacks honestly. Most I've played either have save points close to the bosses or just drop you outside the boss room if you die.

I never actually liked FromSoft’s themselves, but several Soulslikes I really enjoyed did away with runbacks, or always had checkpoints right before bosses.

I really just want people to start evaluating each design decision Dark Souls made on its own - stop worshipping the whole as being perfect, because it most definitely is not. So many of the knowledge checks (poise, anyone?) are just there for experienced players to lord over confused shrubs.

Not putting checkpoints close to boss fights is not difficulty.

You're pointing a finger at the Soulslike genre here, not only HK. Some games may abandon it, but this is common enough to be called a genre stable.

Just like the "hit hit, dodge/parry, hit hit" combat pattern, losing/recovering currency, enemies respawning on bonfire use… etc.

I think this whole genre is wack, TBH. I don't even find it difficult, I just think what they test is perseverance in the face of misery and tediousness, which's a bizarre thing to test in a video game. It's almost as if it's straight up telling you: this is a serious video game, no room for fun here.

Meanwhile, Ninja Gaiden proved you can simultaneously have extreme difficulty AND fun like one million years ago.

You can make the case that it's not a fun use of our time but how is it not tied to difficulty? Being able to get to the boss with enough health or consummables is certainly part of the intended challenge.

I wouldn’t mind checkpoints before the boss even if it’s not a bench and more of a “retry” option.

But the annoyance of run backs raises the stakes of the fight a bit. Like, “Please let me win this time so I don’t have to do another run back.”

But I was annoyed at a particular fight that started without warning and I had not really explored the new area yet, so I didn’t have a chance to find a closer bench.

I disagree, runbacks are as much difficulty as having to recover your currency after death, or even having to recover your items after dying in Minecraft. It's a punishment for dying, and a way to make you treat it seriously.

It can incentivise the wrong things, punish experimentation and make players stick with what they know, even if better options exist. You're free to dislike it, and it has downsides, but dismissing it as "not difficulty" is just dishonest.

My partner loved that aspect of the game. Each to their own, that's why it's good games have differences.

disagree. they are related and absolutely add to the difficulty of learning how to beat a new boss. it’s way easier to develop a strategy and muscle memory if you can retry the boss fight as soon as possible without having to redo other sections of the game first.

Have you considered that the run back is trying to tell you something? The game doesn't want you to bash your face against the same enemy the same way. It may not even want you to fight that boss yet at all.

The run back is meant to be an incentive to think about your options. Do I have other areas to explore? What do I keep dying to? Am I overlooking an obvious weakness during a particular boss mechanic, or am I not using an ability as effectively as I could be to stay alive?

If you let the player immediately run back into a boss, they will veg out and do just that until they eventually get lucky and barely down a boss by the skin of their teeth. But that's not how you should be approaching these fights.

Sometimes the most productive run back even involves a good night's rest.