Wow, it's just like politics! Every embarrassing or incriminating statement retroactively turns out to be a joke, no matter how little sense it makes.
Nice try, but no. You and the OP are the only jokes here.
If you were going to troll, this is the thread to do it.
However, the notion that it is a "gamer" thing kind of overlooks how the whole internet tends to operate around angry or gloating knee-jerking to headlines and 140 character messages.
Never mind the embarrassing nature of this specific OP and thread. Can we please put to bed this idiotic idea that bosses in Souls games are these impossibly fragile constructions that instantly fall to pieces at the first sign of another player? I've played every game in the series both ways, and that's not even remotely true.
In addition to the extra HP (which is itself significant), bosses have several traits that make them perfectly capable of fighting multiple targets by design:
...
This whole concept is nonsense spread by people who haven't even bothered trying to play the game cooperatively for fear of tarnishing their e-honor.
Bosses don't become trifling, but they are certainly a bit neutered in a comparison. I largely disagree this extra stuff resolves the difference. There's simply no understating how much target switching or splitting up multiple bosses changes the fundamental dynamic of that battle. The mere fact that you can jog away from a devastating hit to heal without pursuit changes what it means to take that hit in the first place. It's when you are on tilt and the boss(es) are not letting up is where the magic of Dark Souls combat really happens. Everything in the enemy design "matters" more in those moments; turn down the dial, and those very same details matter less overall. We are not talking about changing some stats or even a few behaviors, this is the flow of combat being disrupted on the fundamental level combat works in these games. It's a huge change, to say the least.
The matter of "e-honor" is really on the other foot I think. I've noticed this is a common and ironic occurrence in discussions about difficulty - the "elitist" is less concerned with reputation or "cred" than the people who feel attacked (as it is their reputation and cred which has been attacked). The aggressive response to the OP's crude comments is actually an attempt to defend one's "e-honor", while the OP, in spite of a controversial tone, is quite clear in not being concerned with it.
What reason does the OP suggest for not using co-op? Because of fun, playing for fun. The reason you shouldn't do it is not because it makes you a "better player", but, as he puts it, you would be "robbing yourself of some of the most memorable single player gaming experience either way". It's quite possible for "purists" to develop their beliefs in such a way it conveniently elevate themselves on some social hierarchy (an ever-present distraction in criticism), that's the accusation here, but the truest expression of the idea is that their love for something is so powerful they drive their attention inwards to the point where they stop being considerate of lesser ways to enjoy something. What's elevated is the game (the fun you have from it); ideas which lower it are rejected outright in a matter of fact way.
However, there is truth to the notion that there being a "better way to play" can be insulting to someone's experience, especially if there are barriers which prevent them from being able to do it that way (e.g., skill becomes valuable and in the process their lack of skill becomes a deficient they are increasingly made aware of). To put it bluntly, the idea that Souls bosses without co-op is the better way to play it says people who don't do that way have inferior experiences and what is a gamer if not someone who experiences games, so they are also inferior gamers - bye-bye gamer cred! But is the guy who wants the game to be as enjoyable as possible really more concerned about gamer cred than someone who is told their experience is inferior? You are perceiving a motivation based on the "damage" being done, but this exchange of social value is kind of happening all in your head; someone's just being a little too passionate about Dark Souls and is blind to stepping on others' toes. Nothing spells out the backlash more as a pride thing than how much of this conversation has been directed entirely around tone. Another red flag is being more concerned with an established image of "groups" being bullies, like the Dark Souls fanbase, rather than the actual premise being brought up. Your post is actually one of the few that addresses it.
Not I think the OP did the right thing; you have to account for human nature in any conversation, so there's little benefit to opening with derision unless you want to deal with a bunch of defensiveness. The other side of it though is that I'm thoroughly unimpressed with that defensiveness, especially when it borders on projection with the whole "e-honor" or gamer cred business. I really can't see what's so special about this: if we can have conversations making fun of people putting ketchup on steak or if they listen to Limp Bizkit, why not the ways they fight videogame bosses?
(The whole co-op thing isn't an exciting issue for me, despite having my reasons to think it's better skipping on, but the same patterns are found everywhere - who wants to talk about save-scumming? whew!)