How Accessibility Consultants Are Building a More Inclusive Video Game Industry Behind the Scenes (washingtonpost.com) 146
An anonymous reader shares a report: Last year, Forbes published an article titled "'Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice' Needs to Respect Its Players and Add an Easy Mode." In the piece, Dave Thier, the author, argues that the title's egregiously high difficulty settings detract from the superb world and character design. "The difficulty is only one part of what defines these games for me, and honestly, it's not the most important part," wrote Thier. Easier difficulty settings would allow those with physical or cognitive limitations -- or just limited time to play games -- the opportunity to experience the studio's artistic vision. It was the latest salvo in a debate that has taken on a culture war-level valence among players online, a debate that has been litigated and re-litigated to no apparent end.
Fans of the series, angered by the article, argued that not all games are meant for disabled players. Futzing with difficulty settings, they said, tampers with the creative intent of a game, especially in genres where a game's key selling point may be its difficulty (as is the case with Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice). But the recent efforts of accessibility consultants and developers to create inclusive products tell a different story. Unbeknown to many, accessibility consultants have been pushing for an accessible industry for years. From menus containing a plethora of options, including the ability to customize controls and adjust subtitle size, to disabled inclusion within the workspace and gaming community, the often-hidden efforts of accessibility consultants are beginning to become standard practice within the industry.
Fans of the series, angered by the article, argued that not all games are meant for disabled players. Futzing with difficulty settings, they said, tampers with the creative intent of a game, especially in genres where a game's key selling point may be its difficulty (as is the case with Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice). But the recent efforts of accessibility consultants and developers to create inclusive products tell a different story. Unbeknown to many, accessibility consultants have been pushing for an accessible industry for years. From menus containing a plethora of options, including the ability to customize controls and adjust subtitle size, to disabled inclusion within the workspace and gaming community, the often-hidden efforts of accessibility consultants are beginning to become standard practice within the industry.
There's limits, yo (Score:2)
Pretty certain that the blind are going to have a very hard time playing the First-Person shooter games (or anything requiring visual acumen, really)... only so far you can go to accommodate, campers... sorry about that. I think it would be cool if someone innovated a means to let the blind actually get in on the action in such games, though.
Also, I don't get the 'limited time' angle. Isn't that what save-points are for? As long as you're not requiring a player to grind through, say, two hours of gameplay a
Re:There's limits, yo (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine, there can be limits. I mean, I wouldn't expect the disabled to be competitive in online play, for example. But online gaming is just a small part of gaming in total - plenty of games are single player where the goal is to communicate a story.
I don't play online because I'm not great or competitive, but some games have great campaigns or are designed to be single player experiences. Why shouldn't those games be accomodating? If you have a twitch element, make the window of the "twitch" bigger to accommodate people, or let them push the button slower.
There are games with no-death mode where you can't really die, but you get to explore and look around and do plenty of things to experience them. Sure they do disable achievements, so it's not like people are going to use it to cheat their way to 100%.
Given how much games cost to make, it seems like making them more accessible gets them in front of more eyeballs and more sales to help recoup the cost. I don't see it as a limitation - people still love to brag about completing games at the "super hyper impossible to win" level, while others are happy to just make it to the end.
And yes, I've abandoned many games for reaching a difficult spot and being unable to get past it, missing out on the final part of the story
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying accessibility shouldn't be considered when developing games. However, the a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, design the entire game intact with no difficulty levels, then you've got your perfected Nintendo-hard game. Then, call that "Master Level", and hand it to the accessibility team, and they're NOT allowed to change Master Level, but they can nerf it for other levels.
Best of both worlds
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty certain that the blind are going to have a very hard time playing the First-Person shooter games
You'd be wrong. Blind players can play many mainstream first-person games, and play them well. Among audio games, you'll find that the majority are first-person games.
Blind-compatible action game (Score:2)
Pretty certain that the blind are going to have a very hard time playing the First-Person shooter games (or anything requiring visual acumen, really)... {...} I think it would be cool if someone innovated a means to let the blind actually get in on the action in such games, though.
You joke, but Evil Dog has litteraly done that [evil-dog.com] - a flash game about a blind swordsman, entirely played using audio cue and no visual feed-back.
(Note: although the game was developped as a joke, the game *is* functionnal).
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds of a door opening, the noise from the traffic no longer muted. The gentle patter of rain, footsteps to your right.
*strafe right* *swing sword horizontally*
Screams. Shouted commands, but you can't make them out over the screams. Running footsteps, many, a car horn, more shouting. More screaming.
A sharp crack, the screaming intensifies. Several more sharp cracks. The sound of your blood, bubbling out from your lungs.
Game over.
Re: (Score:2)
Many games are very bad about savepoint placement, or having unskippable un-reviewable cutscenes. Due to needing surgery to fix my urethra at birth (my bladder didn't reach the outside because of intersex-related deformities) I need frequent bathroom breaks as I can't hold it in too well. A game that has very long stretches of unpausable cutscenes like Metal Gear Solid is much more difficult to enjoy. It's even worse in MMORPGs where some bosses require constant attention for long periods of time, but sever
Not a Hard Concept (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all games are for all people. Trying to make all games for all people will just create a very homogeneous style of games.
There are tons of games for casual players. Things like difficulty is a completely separate category from the last line of the summary; color blind options, subtitles, etc. are fine to be made into standards, and those should be encourage. Difficulty? That's kinda like demanding that the artist changes things for your particular sensibilities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is complete crap. Not all disabled gamers want to play casual games. It may be art but it is also a product. Adding an easier mode make no difference to the artistic style of the game and is it does then dont play the easier mode.
Re:Not a Hard Concept (Score:4, Insightful)
This is like saying War and Peace should have its writing style changed so a first grader can read it. So, not complete crap. It's not even about disabled gamers. You're not entitled to have all games have an easy mode.
I'm a pretty good gamer, but I'm not entitled to have every game have a difficulty setting for me. Games like EVE Online are incredibly complex, I'll never get into it, and there is no need for them to tone down the complexity for someone like me. I can go play a less complex game.
Re: (Score:3)
You're entitled to advocate for one. It's called customer feedback and knowing your market. It complements your design goals, rather than requiring you to accede to it.
Yet you're entitled to ask for one. Just as the developer is entitled to say no.
Re: (Score:2)
You're entitled to advocate for one. It's called customer feedback and knowing your market. It complements your design goals, rather than requiring you to accede to it.
This isn't coming off as "feedback". This is coming off as creating standards. Which is fine for things like color blind options, subtitles, etc. Not okay for difficulty.
Ummm, the "easy mode" topic does not concern PvP, only the "accessible controls and visual" part. If you make a PvC game ridiculously hard you're limiting your market. If that's your goal, fine. But it's limiting your audience.
PVP is not the complexity that's being talked about here for EVE Online. Lots of things are "audience limiters". Hey, I guess that every game should be rated E for Everyone; otherwise, you're limiting your market! Hey, every game should only use two buttons; otherwise, hey, you're limiting your audience! I think you need to look up the phr
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to look up the phrase "If that's your goal, fine" before advising that I do something utterly redundant.
Re: (Score:3)
Demanding easy modes (whatever that actually means...) for virtue points is less fine.
What does that mean? Why do you think players shouldn't be allowed to petition for options that they believe should be included?
If having the option of an easy mode, accessible controls, or the ability to change the size of in-game text bothers you, you can always petition the developers to remove them or demand they not be included in future games.
Or do you think your own right to petition should be restricted as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So don't read it. Having an "easy to read" or condensed edition of a book does not mean that every copy of the original magically vanishes, nor does it mean that you'll be forced to read it!
I have absolutely no idea why you'd find this objectionable. Are you offended by the idea that someone would want something that you don't want?
Re: (Score:2)
So don't read it. Having an "easy to read" or condensed edition of a book does not mean that every copy of the original magically vanishes, nor does it mean that you'll be forced to read it!
So don't play it. Your life will go on if you don't get to play a specific game.
I have absolutely no idea why you'd find this objectionable. Are you offended by the idea that someone would want something that you don't want?
So you haven't been reading this thread? At all? Concerns about development time and cost. Letting the artist/developers choose to make what they want. That's fine if you want to invent strawmen to argue against, but try reading the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
My enjoyment is not more important than someone else's. Nobody is under any obligation to make things I do enjoy, especially not at the cost of their own creative expression.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't, it's like saying War and Peace should be translated in English. Or do you believe that only Russian speakers should have access to it, to maintain Tolstoy's artistic integrity? And that non-Russian speakers can just go and read some other book?
English War and Peace is not the same book as the original War and Peace, but it has a great deal in common with it, and is accessible to many more people.
Planescape Torment wasn't very hard to begin with, but an ultra-easy mode would have made the most i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a Hard Concept (Score:4, Insightful)
>> "Not all games are for all people. Trying to make all games for all people will just create a very homogeneous style of games. "
Actually, trying to make all games for all people will kill the gaming industry. The "hardcore" or the specialists will get bored fast and move on to something else, and the casuals will probably get bored with "too easy" games. Diversity is the key.
Re:Not a Hard Concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Path of Exile's developers had an interesting comment on this at their convention. They spend 20% of their time developing content that only 10% of the playerbase will be able to reach. That makes sense, because it creates an aspirational goal for the rest of the playerbase, whether they reach it or not. It also creates something to challenge and engage streamers, who will show off the content to their audiences. When something is rare and difficult to achieve, it becomes more valuable. If they had made this content easy to beat, it wouldn't create anywhere near as much engagement for their players.
Re:Not a Hard Concept (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably 90% of the streaming on Twitch and YouTube too. That kind of free publicity is priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if that 10% of the player base accounts for something like 40% of the total hours played, so in a way that 20% of development time is more fair than it might seem at first.
How is hours played relevant to anything, except on subscription games? What matters is sales. If the 20% of developer time spent on that content doesn't increase sales by a corresponding amount, or more, it's wasted effort. I suspect it's not wasted, but not for the reason you state.
Re:Not a Hard Concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all games are for all people. Trying to make all games for all people will just create a very homogeneous style of games.
To start with, TFA conflates two very different things that should never be jumbled together: accessibility and difficulty. There's no excuse whatsoever in the modern world for a game from a AAA studio to not have robust accessibility. It's both immoral and hurts profits not to. It's so obvious these days that you need to have colorblind options, that you need to do subtitles correctly (and have them on by default during the opening cinematic), and that you need options to disable screen shake and "head bob", that you need a FOV slider for first person, and so on. There's a wealth of information now on how to do this stuff right, and it's so cheap to do that even tiny indy devs barely have an excuse. Also, it's time to abandon control schemes involving either holding a button for a long time or rapidly mashing a button, if at all practical.
If you're not making cheap and easy accommodations for the disabled at this point, you're just being a giant asshole. Looking at you Japan: you're games still suck at this. Do better.
Difficulty is a totally different discussion. I hate to bruise your fragile "some games aren't for everybody" ego, but there's no downside to adding an easy mode from a studio's point of view. You will always sell more copies that way, especially if the default difficulty is too hard for "games journalists". It's just dumb not too.
Now default difficulty is a very different discussion. Difficulties harder than the default rarely get properly Q/Aed, and many games just don't work properly if you elevate the difficulty above the default. So, if you want to make a "hard" game, make the defaults hard. Fair enough. But if you don't also add an easy mode, you might as well fill a barrel full of cash and burn it to keep your creator's ego warm. And your stockholders probably take a dim view of that (but, hey, if you're an indie "auteur" and don't want to sell out your high principles for dirty cash, have fun with that).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your main point about not conflating accessibility & difficulty although I do believe an argument can be made that there's a genre of "hard" games whose value does increase with difficulty (think Veblen goods like a Rolls Royce but instead of value increasing with price, it's increasing with difficulty).
For example, consider From Software's games (i.e. Demon Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Sekiro, etc.). I believe there's a substantial portion of their audience that they'd lose if they made
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there's a substantial portion of their audience that they'd lose if they made ways to make their games easier,
I don't think they'd lose a single player. Mostly, people ignore easy difficulty settings, and refuse to lower the difficulty of a game even if they really should. Thing about gamers: if they find a particular game fun, they'll buy it regardless of all the noise they might make about it. The industry knows this, which is why player protests and "boycotts" etc are almost universally ignored. People whine, then buy the game anyhow. But only if it's fun.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have to design, program, and test those other difficulties.
Liek I said, non-default difficulties usually get minimal Q/A, and that's probably fine. But as far as development costs go, the cost of any large title are mostly art assets and marketing. As long as adding an easy mode doesn't change art assets (and why would it?), it's a trivial cost for a large studio.
Now, if you want to get clever with an easy mode, like Celeste's assist mode, then, sure that's some real effort. But the developers of Celeste knew they were making a game with a narrow appeal, and sma
Re: (Score:2)
(adventure games may have different enemy locations, number of enemies, differences in how enemy AI performs, etc.).
Or you just give all the NPCs 75% of their normal hitpoints and have them do 75% of their normal damage.
You seem to be thinking about this from an angle of adding a harder mode, where you need to change AI, add more NPCs, etc in order to make the changes more interesting.
Approach it as adding an easy mode instead. There's little need to be more interesting than the base game when you're doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
Inflating and deflating numbers is the worst way to do difficulty. To properly adjust difficulty, you need to adjust enemy formations, their numbers, aggression, and their options in combat. Making a fight shorter or longer doesn't make it easier or harder, it just makes it take a different amount of time. A room with 5 goblins is going to be much harder than a room with one goblin with ten times the health.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that everyone arguing that adding difficulty levels costs a lot are thinking about how to make the game harder, while the point of the discussion is the cost of making it easier.
I agree that making a game harder while ensuring that it's still playable is challenging. But when you're talking about making a game easier, you don't have to care much about balance or carefully tuning the challenge level. If the easy mode is so easy it's boring to "real gamers", fine. It's not intended for t
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just scale stats down without making other changes and expect it to still be the same game but at an easier difficulty, any more than you can just toss a novel into Google Translate and expect the resulting mess to be the same novel but in a new language.
So that it's clear up front: I agree that gamers should not be deprived of experiencing a game merely because they lack the ability, time, or desire to achieve greater competency, and I fully support adding multiple difficulty modes. That said, do
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you are thinking about this as "how do I make this harder". Bullet sponges are a terrible way to make a game harder, so you need all that complexity.
To make the game easier, just make things die faster and hurt you less. There's no need for sophistication when you design for hard and then need to make it easy.
In that room with 5 goblins, make it so they can't hurt you much and you can 3-shot them. Ta-da! Easy-mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Since video games are a luxury activity, I agree that there shouldn't be a requirement (legal or social) that the game have an easy mode. Exact same for the game being playable by handicapped people. It's a luxury activity, and so it is OK if some segment of the population can't have it.
The provision of an "easy mode" should be entirely up to the game designer. Leaving out an easy mode will alienate a potential target market, thus reducing profits, but it will also win-over a different target market, pot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking as a game developer myself, I don't believe that accessibility is about homogenizing games at all. What it mainly involves is some pretty simple things, like ensuring you don't only rely on color differentiation for important gameplay events, that audio is subtitled, that you can remap your controls (#1 thing disabled gamers request), and so on. These are all things that will make for a better experience for everyone anyhow.
There are a few other things you can do, like making text resizeable, off
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're going to find too many people are that saying that color blind options and subtitles shouldn't be included, even as default. Those are things that (for the most part) don't do anything to the core game experience and only help more people enjoy the game.
I think it's fine for developers to set games at whatever spread of difficulty they want. I just don't think it's fine for anyone to think that they're entitled to an easy mode. But I do realize that having a wide spread can help a game
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't think it's fine for anyone to think that they're entitled
How dare someone think the wrong thing! Better call the thought police!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're going to find too many people are that saying that color blind options and subtitles shouldn't be included, even as default.
It MUST be a choice though. Why can't we mandate something so simple?
Because there are more types of color vision anomalies than you could possibly accommodate. I didn't realise this either until I was watching some Battlefield preview thing on Giantbomb and it seems half their staff have some kind of color blindness. The thing that got me was that Jeff said he plays with the accessibility option off because NONE of the options provide more contrast than the default which he technically can't "see" but some
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day when games were pirated they often added a "trainer", basically cheats you could enable like infinite lives, ammo, money etc.
When I found a game too hard I'd use the cheats. Years later I was good enough not to need them, but cheating meant I got to see more of the game and it helped me improve.
I'm okay with hard games having a cheat mode or easy mode. You don't have to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always a problem when you make something universal though. You say I don't have to use the easy mode if I don't want to, but if you mandate an easy mode it causes game design considerations that wouldn't exist otherwise. Many games treat the gameplay loop as a battle of attrition where you'll take a certain level of minor damage while you slog to the end of the map and so you can trivially drop the damage levels and up the player's ability to take out the hordes. Those aren't exactly the pinnacle of ga
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I like cheats. Obviously being invincible or having infinite resources breaks the game but that's fine for some people. You don't really need to design for it and developers often put those things in anyway to help with testing the game.
Is this about easy-mode, or rebinding controls? (Score:4, Insightful)
This article can't decide what it wants to be. It starts out covering the backlash over Sekiro, and rightfully so, since adding easy-mode dilutes the accomplishment of beating the game. Then it talks about activists who want rebindable controls and colorblind modes. I don't get it. What do those have to do with one another?
Re:Is this about easy-mode, or rebinding controls? (Score:5, Insightful)
> since adding easy-mode dilutes the accomplishment of beating the game.
Does it though? There are other games out there that have everything from easy to insane skill settings when you start a playthrough, and people still brag about playing through XCOM on Impossible without save-scumming and the like.
Deus Ex: HR even has a "Tell me a story" skill level for those who want to play and enjoy the story without having great FPS skills, but I don't feel that diminishes the accomplishments of those who play through DXHR on the advanced difficulty levels and finish the game without needing to make a (non boss fight) kill.
Re:Is this about easy-mode, or rebinding controls? (Score:4)
The existence of difficulty modes in that game gave me something to work toward and added replay value. I think it's a great example of why difficulty levels can be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What'll surprise you is that the first Deus Ex game at normal, is about on par with "Give me Deus Ex" in DXHR. Enough so that the DX:Revision guys cranked the difficulty up even higher and made it even more challenging.
As for the foxiest of hounds no-alarms option it's hard to do, took my second play through to get it. If you're wanting to try again this might help. [fandom.com] The one that most people mess up on is Omega Ranch and shutting down the jammer.
Re: (Score:3)
since adding easy-mode dilutes the accomplishment of beating the game.
Does it though? There are other games out there that have everything from easy to insane skill settings when you start a playthrough, and people still brag about playing through XCOM on Impossible without save-scumming and the like.
In this case, yes, having an easier mode does dilute the accomplishment. From Software has a reputation for making their games brutal going back to Demon's Souls. Their games have actually gotten easier since then (if for no other reason than they started actually explaining some of the mechanics), but it's a gamer bade of honor to be able to honestly say you beat Demon's Souls because everyone knows there is no possible way you could have done it without developing a significant degree of mastery in the
Re: (Score:3)
When you have Dark Souls, which only offers hard mode, that means that Dark Souls fans are fans of hard games, and Dark Souls communities are places for fans of hard games to congregate. That creates a distinct subculture. When you change Dark Souls to have an easy mode, all of a sudden you destroy that subculture by diluting it with the more mainstream game players, who don't have the same interests or standards as the original culture. This creates a conflict and change within the community, until the asp
Re: (Score:3)
So, for you, it's all about gatekeeping? Why does the addition of an easy mode in a video game prevent you from having a forum that only allows "fans of hard games" to join?
that's a very selfish thing to do
If you think that only your group should be allowed to play a particular game, that's the very definition of selfish.
I honestly don't get the whole gatekeeping thing. I'm a Tetris Grandmaster, yet the millions of people who play just for fun don't in any way diminish me. It's just a game, after all. If any thing, the accomplishment
Re: (Score:2)
So, for you, it's all about gatekeeping? Why does the addition of an easy mode in a video game prevent you from having a forum that only allows "fans of hard games" to join?
Because people don't join forums for "hard games". There's all sorts of hard games out there, many of which I could care less about. People join forums for specific games. You can't create a community based around enjoying hard games, if the prospective members of the community haven't played the same games. You need shared experiences to bond people together.
If you think that only your group should be allowed to play a particular game, that's the very definition of selfish.
I think people who enjoy the game as it is should enjoy it, and people who don't enjoy it should play something else rather than demanding the world c
Re: (Score:2)
All this talk about "culture" and it's preservation needs some perspective. You're worried about new people joining an internet forum about a video game.
Why not just deny membership to people who don't agree with your forums stated beliefs and values? If you're worried about people who enjoy a game the "wrong way" joining the group, don't let them.
I think people who enjoy the game as it is should enjoy it, and people who don't enjoy it should play something else rather than demanding the world change to fit them.
This is just an assault on free speech. People can and should express their beliefs freely. They should be allowed, even encouraged, to petition companies for
Re: (Score:2)
I'm nowhere close to completing Noita yet I love that game.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just deny membership to people who don't agree with your forums stated beliefs and values? If you're worried about people who enjoy a game the "wrong way" joining the group, don't let them.
Because in the opinion of those wanting to join, that's racist, sexist, ableist, patriarchal ideology, and any right-thinking moral person has an obligation to forcefully abolish or internally subvert it.
This is just an assault on free speech. People can and should express their beliefs freely. They should be allowed, even encouraged, to petition companies for changes that they believe are important.
After all, you're free to express your views as well. You and your "subculture" can petition against easy modes in whatever game it is you play.
Why deny others that same essential freedom? Because you're afraid that someone you won't like might join an internet forum? That's pure madness!
It's not an assault on free speech. You're free to call for those things. You're just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically it's about nostalgia. The developers of Dark Souls have no obligation to you to sustain your niche community on the internet. You have the freedom to complain about that, but they have the freedom to create sequels however they see fit, or even to not create any at all. If you don't like it, feel free to complain about it and not buy their next games. But don't think you're entitled to more than that, the developers have no obligation to you at all (unless you paid them in advance to work for you, but I guess you didn't).
This article is about how Dark Souls isn't changing, and is therefore already catering my interests. YOU are the one who wants the game to change to cater to your interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it talks about activists who want rebindable controls and colorblind modes.
Yeah, that confused me too. I'm hoping it is just a poor summary and the actual articles make more sense.
since adding easy-mode dilutes the accomplishment of beating the game.
I used to play games on the hardest settings, for the challenge. I beat Doom 1 using just the fist. I used to try to find every secret. But with kids, aging parents, and a full-time job I now play games on the easiest settings. I don't have time to spend for hardcore gameplay, but I want the experience, the ambience, and the storyline. I just played BioShock 1 on easy. For BioShock 2, I am just go
Re: (Score:2)
They're actually related in so far as things go. You do have to look at things a bit different though.
Skill in videogames 'broadly defined by ME' is a combination of strategy, tactics, and physical control (how fast you can press buttons, hand eye coordination...)
Different games provide challenges differently in each of those domains. A 'dumb' action game might be all physical control. A civilization style game might have 75% strategy, 25% tactics...
To use a crafted example, suppose you wanted to make a fig
Re: (Score:2)
adding easy-mode dilutes the accomplishment of beating the game
Why?
You can have multiple achievement levels, such as "beat the game on easy/normal/hard/insane mode" and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily that easy to do that and still maintain the core gameplay.
Souls games are about punishing mistakes. If you could tank damage it wouldn't be a souls game. You can call it gatekeeping if you want, but if there's two communities of people, one who loves learning the ins and outs of every fight to perfectly thread the needle through attacks and win, and another who just wants to play it like a hack and slash, then you've got a culture clash. One group's concerns for the sequels are vastly d
Know your customers? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no one size fits all here. Some games are deliberately and unapologetic PvP-fests, it's why they exist and what makes them fun and they have a consistent audience of acolytes forever trying to one up each other. I would not spend a lot of time or money on art or non-functional sound on these games. Similarly I would expect a lot of potential customers are not even going to look at these games.
If you've invested a lot in artwork, or music or an overall experience however, and you want to get eyes on it, I would focus on making games a little bit more like the pre-2000 timeline. Slower moving, ponderous, possibly story or puzzle oriented with controls that are either simple and flexible, or that have more involved UIs (perhaps UIs that aren't joystick friendly) that assist with the complexities.
The problem is when you try to one size fits all a game. That rarely works.
Video games are art (Score:4, Interesting)
Video games are an art form, and it should be up to the creators to decide how they want to express their vision. And if that means making games early Nintendo hard, then so be it.
Video games are also a business, and it is smart for creators to cast a wide net to allow as many players as possible to experience their creation.
Personally, I would rather live in a world where 90% of games are not for me, and 10% of them are laser-focused on what I love, than live in a world where everything is generic pablum designed to be inoffensive to everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Video games are a product that you often pay $60 for, not factoring in the cost of console if you buy one of those, peripherals, etc. That's not to say they aren't also art, but if you're trying to sell a game to a lot of people, it often makes sense to at least listen to those peoples' preferences. All of the problems critics of difficulty sliders have can be bypassed with a simple solution: de
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For me, CivV doesn't become fun until I get into the upper difficulties. At "normal" difficulty (Prince IIRC) I can win without really thinking much - it's like being on cruise control, not having to micro-manage cities or worry much about unit positioning. Some of the scenarios aren't even a challenge unless you set them to Emperor or Immortal. But this makes it good - they know there are people who just want to cruise through a game, and people who enjoy having to think every turn through carefully. T
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Plenty of research tools out there, Twitch and You Tube are great for researching, and reviews, blogs, and tons of other options out there too.
Games are about what the game's creator wants them to be, and not all games are made for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, FPS games aren't going to appeal to people who don't like FPS, etc. So if you're designing an FPS game, you shouldn't dumb down the FPS elements just to appeal to people who don't like FPS games. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about difficulty. Adding an option to make the game easier isn't changing the core gameplay elements. As long as it's transparent that the game is mean
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like it? CHANGE IT.
BRB, demanding the Kebap restaurant next door to cook me Chinese meals.
Fandom is not zero sum (Score:2)
"Futzing with difficulty settings, they said, tampers with the creative intent of a game, especially in genres where a game's key selling point may be its difficulty"
Then uhh... don't play on easy mode. Someone else enjoying something differently from you doesn't detract from your entertainment. What's difficult for you may be impossible for someone else. And being possible is what makes a difficult game fun.
I can at least see the origins of some gate keeping. People who were ostracized by the attractive, popular people growing up and later in life having sex workers exploiting their loneliness for cash will view cute streamer girls with suspicion that it's part of
More Color Blind modes please (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Inside the industry, fortunately, there's more awareness of colorblind issues these days. It's more rare to see icons solely differentiated by colors, especially red and green (blue and orange is more typical now, although color AND shape is always preferred), at least at the AAA level. Indie game developers are still having to learn a lot of those lessons, unfortunately. In my own game I'm developing, I'm looking into various color-blind debug modes, and I'm considering additional control options to hel
Alternatively... (Score:3)
The article could be titled "David Thier Needs to Respect the Developers' Creations and Buy Other Games Instead."
The gist of that article would be that different products are made for different people, and he should focus on finding products that he enjoys. Maybe not even a video game, if something else is more appealing.
I like challenging games, and every game that tries to span a huge difficulty range usually fails somewhere. It's hard enough to balance a game once. Doing it 3-5 times to support a range of skills is even harder.
The best games I've seen in this respect are the 2K releases of XCom:EW and XCom 2. But the lowest difficulty still confuses/deters players who are new to the genre. And the challenge at the top end isn't as high as other games in the genre. So even though it's the best example, it's far from a perfect example.
Re: (Score:2)
Which just means you're right - he should play something else. Nobody has a right to enjoy every game, and devs are not under any obligation to make games everyone enjoys. As they say, "there's no accounting for taste", and some people have a taste for things the author and I hate. C'est la vie.
Mad about Sekiro being hard (Score:2)
I always thought it weird that people were mad about Sekiro being hard. Most people that suggest playing Dark Souls or love the game won't stop jerking off about how it is "THE HARDEST GAME EVERRRRRRRRRRR" and whatnot. Whereas it's mostly just.... a punishing game that doesn't baby people.
Meanwhile Sekiro had people being excited as it was "Dark Souls Japan" or whatever. Then the game came out and there was a massive outrage that the game had the audacity to be hard.....? I thought (for some people) t
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have time as an adult these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Most days as an adult I have an hour maybe two for downtime to enjoy playing a game. If that hour is spent trying to figure out how to jump up on a box because some game designer decided that's part of the game, I'm turning it off and finding something easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Remove the "an adult" from your post. It's irrelevant. Being an adult isn't a valid excuse for anything. Stop trying to use it as one.
When the market doesn't produce good results (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Games are too hard for me usually. (Score:2)
Sometimes I'll get sucked into one and then I can play other games competently for awhile but mostly I don't have the time.
My first order of business is figuring out how to cheat which takes a lot less effort than getting good at the game.
I can see why a lot of people would feel cheated paying 60 dollars for a game and then beating the whole thing in a weekend but I feel cheated when I pay for something and it takes more than a few days.
The idea of passing time is completely alien to most modern workers und
The only accessibility options a game needs. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Consideration for the colorblind.
- Subtitles for all dialog, and subtitles for the totally deaf that provide visual feedback in place of sounds.
- Full HUD customization (including on-screen text size)
- No-questions-asked control customization. If I want to map attack to me flicking the right stick upwards you don't fucking argue
- No rapid button mashing/QTEs-in-cutscenes.
- Pause or save/quit at any time. (I'm mildly incontinent so any game where I can't pause cutscenes is a kick in the teeth)
I feel someone is entitled to fully experience a game, but I feel that nobody is entitled to complete a game. That is up to you and your personal skill level. I would also like to remind you all of gamers like BrolyLegs who despite their severe disabilities are very skilled players.
Entitled? (Score:2)
Accessibility is largely ignored, sadly (Score:2)
I worked in the Accessible Software industry for the better part of a decade. I met some amazing people during my time.
I was selling/developing software primarily to the U.S. Federal Government, which by law (Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1982) is required to comply with. The problem? The Government didn't enforce the requirement. As a result, few complied.
As of today, I am unaware of any requirement in the private sector. There has been talk of adding digital Accessibility requirements
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the sound
Won't work for all games (Score:2)
That's maybe possible with action oriented games where making the game easier is quite easy to pull off. In a FPS game, just make the enemy move slower, shoot slower and hit less hard, you can actually get to the point where the enemy doesn't even move and you're always winner (wonder how many get that one...).
How do you do that in a puzzle game? How do you allow everyone to play every level of things like Lemmings, Bridge Builder or The Incredible Machine where the goal is essentially to figure out how to
Re: (Score:2)
How do you do that in a puzzle game?
That depends a great deal on the nature of the game. I suspect that it would be possible to adapt most puzzle games for those with limited cognitive ability.
I feel like I should point out that Sudoku puzzles very often come with a difficulty rating. I've also seen electronic Sudoku games with hint systems that make it possible for even poor players to complete difficult puzzles.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, playing puzzle games with hints is like getting a second chess computer for the one you have so they play against each other while you watch a movie. Why bother with a puzzle game when you let it only play with itself?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the neat thing about hint systems: they allow anyone to adjust the difficulty of a puzzle to best fit their needs or abilities. That also means that you don't need to use if you don't want or need it.
Players that find some puzzles impossible and frustrating, might find them fun, but still challenging, with just a little bit of help. That's a good thing.
Anyhow, I think all of this reasonably answers your question "How do you do that in a puzzle game?"
Accessibility is an interesting and challenging
Only helps with crappy games (Score:4, Insightful)
Difficulty that came from a slider never really was, in my opinion. You won't have a very compelling "ultra-hard" Megaman by setting him to 1HP. By turning a boss to a billion HP. Or exhausting XP curves and grinds.
The above hints at the counterpart of artificial difficulty: Situations not made easier by sliding a variable. A water temple puzzle. Or navigating lava, spikes, jumps, etc. Or a boss that requires you to perform a certain gimmick, like Mario extinguishing torches, or parrying the centipede giraffe.
I think I'm saying the sliders only help with making things easier, not "challenging". I'll try expressing it another way:
Adding extra minutes to a mission timer is a valid way to design accessibility
Removing minutes is a crappy way to design challenge
Leading to my original conclusion: If the sliders helped, the "challenge" was more likely numeric than skillful.
The flip side of that, of "sliders help with lazy numeric trolling", is that they won't really provide meaningful handicap versus difficulty born of non-numeric craftsmanship.
I'll emphasize: "Sliders won't help*"
If someone plays like they're in a hack-n-slash against Jinsuke Saze, granting them 100 resurrections won't matter. And he's an unremarkable miniboss, a simple gimmick fight with a requisite gimmick of requisite skill. A puzzle boss. Sliders don't really help with puzzles.
* unless the game's "challenge" was built on poorly-made, artificial, numeric difficulty
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm saying the sliders only help with making things easier, not "challenging".
But, how to make it easier is the whole point here. So, design a challenging game, then add a slider that lets the player make it easier. This is possible even in puzzle games; the easy mode just has to offer some hints. This can be done ham-handedly, of course, in a way that makes the easy mode simply pointless... but if your easy mode is so boring no one wants to play it, how have you lost anything compared to not having an easy mode at all, which no one can play?
Difficulty (Score:2)
If the game is too difficult, then cheat!
what is hard? (Score:2)
if you grew up during the 8/16 bit era, then you know what hard games are.
what people call hard games these days are most of the time is still easier then what we had to endure in the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
Torn, but come down on side of dev's vision (Score:2)
That said, if the dev's intent is to make a game that's controller-smashingly hard because some people like that, then more power to them. They can target whatever audience they want, and if t
Re: (Score:2)
Someone may also take to one genre of game and be crap at another
Yeah, it's too bad that every game uses the same difficulty slider. Imagine if each one had its own difficulty setting.
Should easy mode make you invincible and set all enemies hitpoints to 1?
Lovely strawman. I like what you did with the hat.
I guess the thing is to make every part of game difficulty have customization?
Are you new to video games? 'Cause for decades now a single difficulty slider has been common in lots and lots and lots of games. No one is asking for breaking it down to an individual setting for every statistic in the game, and there's no reason to deliver this. Even with your "where does it end!?!?!?!" fallacy.
But strawmen sure are e
Re: (Score:2)