Jump to content

Difficulty Level - Where is my Easy Mode!


Qazimod
 Share

Recommended Posts

:lol:

 

If you disagree with games having mandated easy modes you’re a batshit insane ranter, but if you post the same thing over and over again about how a magic, free easy mode that takes no resources to develop or test should be forced into all games you’re just being sensible. 
 

It’s genuinely hilarious that when different groups of people want different things from games instead of just thinking “I guess it’s nice that there’s different games for different people” the response here is “ALL GAMES SHOULD BE THE WAY I LIKE THEM”. How dare HM make a game for people who want a certain experience instead of allocating their resources to making a completely different game that people on Rllmuk have imagined. The brass balls on these people who enjoy games they’re playing telling other people that they don’t actually want to play them just because they’ve identified things about the games that make them not want to play them! 
 

I’m just off to complain to my local Sunday league team about them not letting me use my hands when I’m playing. Don’t they know I’m shit at kicking and don’t enjoy practicing? They’re so selfish and devoid of empathy enjoying something the way they currently have it without even considering me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe there are still people arguing against making things accessible for disabled people without an ounce of shame.

 

It is quite grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Returnal is a perfect candidate for adaptive difficulty; it may already implement it in some form, as you wouldn't necessarily know. There's so many variables it could tweak on the backend based on the player's successes and failures, such as weighting the appearance of certain enemy types that they've had trouble with, making 'lucky' rooms more likely to appear after a long run that ended badly, dropping a suitable weapon just outside the boss arena, etc.

 

Obviously such a feature would require a lot of testing and tweaking, but ultimately the developers want people to play their game. They're aiming for a certain level of challenge, sure, but you can't reach that goal for a varied audience with a one-size-fits-all approach. The structure of the game makes it ripe for player adaptation, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should video games as a medium be accessible to all people, no matter their skills, ability, amount of free time, disabilities, etc? YES, absolutely. 

 

Should each and every video game be forced to include modes that makes the game easier? No.

 

The analogy given before about playing musical instruments is interesting. I agree that everyone should be able to enjoy playing a musical instrument to whatever ability they can play at. But if we truly apply this analogy to the debate about specific games (like Returnal) then you're basically saying that the composer who writes a piece for a concert performer needs to also make versions available to all other abilities of musicians. Clearly that's a nonsense. If there is a market for the same type of music, arranged in an easier piece, others will come along and make easier arrangements. That is literally what happens in music composition and arrangement. Why is this not accepted to be the way it works for video games? If the makers of Returnal have really dropped the ball by not including an easy mode, then there's a market for a game with similar mechanics that is made to be easier. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Broker said:

:lol:

 

If you disagree with games having mandated easy modes you’re a batshit insane ranter, but if you post the same thing over and over again about how a magic, free easy mode that takes no resources to develop or test should be forced into all games you’re just being sensible. 
 

It’s genuinely hilarious that when different groups of people want different things from games instead of just thinking “I guess it’s nice that there’s different games for different people” the response here is “ALL GAMES SHOULD BE THE WAY I LIKE THEM”. How dare HM make a game for people who want a certain experience instead of allocating their resources to making a completely different game that people on Rllmuk have imagined. The brass balls on these people who enjoy games they’re playing telling other people that they don’t actually want to play them just because they’ve identified things about the games that make them not want to play them! 
 

I’m just off to complain to my local Sunday league team about them not letting me use my hands when I’m playing. Don’t they know I’m shit at kicking and don’t enjoy practicing? They’re so selfish and devoid of empathy enjoying something the way they currently have it without even considering me. 

 

It's not the disagreement that makes you a batshit ranter mate. It's the batshit rants when you can't back up your points up.

 

I'm not mandating anything and I'm not pretending it costs nothing to implement, you've plucked that out of your arse. My argument is its good design practice to have easy modes, in the same way it's good design practice to have hard modes, or an FOV slider, or support pad controls on PC, or have colour blind options, or skippable cutscenes.

 

Nobody has been able to explain exactly how an easy mode changes someone's experience on normal, or how it takes anything away. On your own specific point that adding an easy mode to Returnal removes what's special about Returnal, you can't explain why, the best explanation you've come up with is a non-sequitur about Sunday league football. You've got nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Broker come across as some kind of really awful gaming equivalent of a mansplainer in this thread or is it just me? It's like the generally decent discussion has triggered some deep insecurity in him that's put him in all out gatekeping mode. Odd.

 

Also you can't use Returnal as an example of perfectly balanced difficulty when it relies so heavily on RNG and an easy mode can be purchased with a DLC weapon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the thread did this idea come from that these changes could or would ever be enforced or mandated in any way? I guess we're looking at it from the perspective of consumer-pressure potentially causing a soft mandate (as is currently happening with Returnal and the save game issue), but from platforms/the top-down? It's not on the cards and will never happen.

 

It will possibly happen for accessibility settings because it already sort-of happens: communication accessibility settings are mandated under CVAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Isaac said:

Can't believe there are still people arguing against making things accessible for disabled people without an ounce of shame.

 

It is quite grim.

 

Literally nobody is arguing that.

 

If you or someone else has a physical or cognitive disability that prevents you from being able to play Dark Souls or Bloodborne and there's some way that the game could be modified in order to make that possible that's an interesting idea. If you are physically capable of playing those games but just don't want to put in the time and effort then that's also fine, but the solution is to move on and play something else. "Hard" games can be completed by anyone who is physically able, it just requires some perseverance. If you don't want to persevere through the difficult parts you don't want to play those games.

 

My girlfriend had never played a 3D game before Bloodborne, and couldn't control the camera at all. She completed it, without summoning by just continuing to try. I've seen six year old kids complete Dark Souls. All that is required is the desire to complete it and the patience to learn how. If you don't want to complete it that's fine, but it seems bizarre to me to demand that it be changed to suit you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really appreciate it if the conversation here could continue without the "people arguing against easy mode hate people with disabilities / they have no shame" thing. For me at least this is not the case and irrelevant to what is being discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Isaac said:

Can't believe there are still people arguing against making things accessible for disabled people without an ounce of shame.

 

It is quite grim.

I don't think anyone is saying that, though? It's a complex issue and yet again the internet boils it down to a yes or no, black or white, you either want all games to be boring cookie cutter experiences that are completable by everyone or you never want a disabled person to play anything ever again. It's not that simple an issue. 

 

I was so bored of video games before I found the Souls series. Done with them. They have single handedly reignited my love of a hobby I've had since I was four, and for me a large part of that is due to the way they feel when you overcome obstacles. The push and pull of the combat. 

 

I'd like games to have as many accessibility features as possible in order to make them accessible to disabled gamers, everyone should have the ability to at least try everything. But certain videogames should be allowed to be difficult to complete if that's what the creator wants. Variety is the spice of life and all that and people should be able to craft specific experiences that cater to specific audiences that want to play games that test them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, matt0 said:

 

It's not the disagreement that makes you a batshit ranter mate. It's the batshit rants when you can't back up your points up.

 

I'm not mandating anything and I'm not pretending it costs nothing to implement, you've plucked that out of your arse. My argument is its good design practice to have easy modes, in the same way it's good design practice to have hard modes, or an FOV slider, or support pad controls on PC, or have colour blind options, or skippable cutscenes.

 

Nobody has been able to explain exactly how an easy mode changes someone's experience on normal, or how it takes anything away. On your own specific point that adding an easy mode to Returnal removes what's special about Returnal, you can't explain why, the best explanation you've come up with is a non-sequitur about Sunday league football. You've got nothing.

 

I've wasted plenty of time trying to explain my points about this to people who aren't interested in listening because they're so sure they're correct. There's plenty of posts in here stating that adding extra options would cost nothing to implement, usually in response to the point I've repeated a hundred times that what is taken away from the people who don't want an easy mode is the resources it takes to make an easy mode, which could be applied to adding other things to the game. I've written a bunch of polite, patient posts explaining that for a game like Returnal to have more difficulty options would require there to be less of the other stuff that's currently in Returnal in order to allocate those resources to creating and balancing different difficulty modes. It makes more sense to me to have a game like Returnal as is, and other games for people who think Returnal is too hard, rather than making it a less diverse, interesting experience so that it can become more palatable to a wider audience. The stock response is to either say that those things take away no resources and are easy, or to throw out some insults about how anyone who doesn't like this idea is a monster with no empathy who hates disabled people. It makes engaging with the discussion with any maturity or nuance feel like a wasted effort.

 

3 minutes ago, Opinionated Ham Scarecrow said:

Does Broker come across as some kind of really awful gaming equivalent of a mansplainer in this thread or is it just me? It's like the generally decent discussion has triggered some deep insecurity in him that's put him in all out gatekeping mode. Odd.

 

I'm just tired of being insulted and belittled because I disagree with a small number of entitled people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Opinionated Ham Scarecrow said:

I think you are confused about who the entitled people in this discussion really are and you should maybe start there.

 

Nope. 

 

There's a split here between people who see games as a skill to learn and people who see games as a fun thing to do. There's no threads on here about how games that are accessible and fun for a wide audience should be made more difficult and exclusive because nobody feels entitled to that. There's plenty of threads about how games that require commitment to learn as a skill should be changed to be more accessible and fun because people feel entitled to have that experience from any games they want it from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it an issue of self control then?

 

Still yet to hear a single argument as to why adding an easy mode to Dark Souls takes anything away from it that makes any sense.

 

If you want the challenge just don't play on easy, surely.

 

Anything else is entitlement and gatekeeping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Broker said:

There's no threads on here about how games that are accessible and fun for a wide audience should be made more difficult and exclusive because nobody feels entitled to that.

 

Well that's because when developers decide to put in bastard hard optional difficulty modes in their games (quite a common occurence), everyone is generally happy with that because they realise that it will take nothing away from their experience if people who want a harder game choose to use it. We only get the nonsensical anologies and must protect the sacrosanct vision when it's suggested to offer options (I repeat options) to lessen difficulty in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

I've wasted plenty of time trying to explain my points about this to people who aren't interested in listening because they're so sure they're correct. There's plenty of posts in here stating that adding extra options would cost nothing to implement, usually in response to the point I've repeated a hundred times that what is taken away from the people who don't want an easy mode is the resources it takes to make an easy mode, which could be applied to adding other things to the game. I've written a bunch of polite, patient posts explaining that for a game like Returnal to have more difficulty options would require there to be less of the other stuff that's currently in Returnal in order to allocate those resources to creating and balancing different difficulty modes. It makes more sense to me to have a game like Returnal as is, and other games for people who think Returnal is too hard, rather than making it a less diverse, interesting experience so that it can become more palatable to a wider audience. The stock response is to either say that those things take away no resources and are easy, or to throw out some insults about how anyone who doesn't like this idea is a monster with no empathy who hates disabled people. It makes engaging with the discussion with any maturity or nuance feel like a wasted effort.

 

 

I'm just tired of being insulted and belittled because I disagree with a small number of entitled people. 

 

If the argument is purely about resources then sure, I can't disagree that everything has a cost. But from AAA down to tiny indie productions, people implement this stuff and the games still get made and they don't lose what's unique about them. There's games that do very similar things to Returnal, have the same kind of loop, and still have difficulty options and weren't made with the backing of Sony.

 

Everspace is a very good example. 

 

Everything in game development has a cost. Letting a player edit key bindings has a cost. Testing a game works across multiple frame rates has a cost. Ultrawide screen resolutions have a cost. I get the feeling you wouldn't be arguing about the cost of an optional hard mode the way you're arguing against an optional easy mode.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

Nope. 

 

There's a split here between people who see games as a skill to learn and people who see games as a fun thing to do. There's no threads on here about how games that are accessible and fun for a wide audience should be made more difficult and exclusive because nobody feels entitled to that. There's plenty of threads about how games that require commitment to learn as a skill should be changed to be more accessible and fun because people feel entitled to have that experience from any games they want it from. 

 

The irony here is that the majority of my gaming time is playing skill based stuff that will offer me a high level of resistance. Online shooters, old school arcade games, hardcore 2D action games and platformers, character action games, tactics games, old school dungeon crawls, roguelikes of all descriptions. I don't play fighting games much any more but I had a blast playing Tekken 7 online when it cropped up on gamepass. I like games with interesting fail states, last night I watched an hour long run on Monster Train unravel because I made one overconfident decision, and the fallout was that I loved seeing the moving parts of the game conspire to kill me off. There's been games in the past year or so like Streets Of Rage 4 and Huntdown that I've gone through multiple times upping the difficulty for myself as I've gone.

 

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that arguing for allowing different levels of skill is arguing against skill based learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Isaac said:

Is it an issue of self control then?

 

Still yet to hear a single argument as to why adding an easy mode to Dark Souls takes anything away from it that makes any sense.

 

If you want the challenge just don't play on easy, surely.

 

Anything else is entitlement and gatekeeping.

 

What's interesting reading back through that CoD thread, is after drilling past pages of artistic vision and whatnot, the people who were most offended by the concept of having an optional level select screen open from the start eventually admitted that it was a combination of worrying they wouldn't have the self control not to use it and they felt it would take away from their own personal sense of accomplishment if 'lesser skilled' players could experience the same stuff as them (completely irrational IMO). In summary this:

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Games can be both a skill to learn and fun. I enjoy both. I'm having a blast with Returnal as it is. The entitlement is wanting that experience to just be for me and a selection of purists rather than wanting to share it. My mum for example would love the game because of the strong female lead and sci-fi setting, but she could never play it well enough as it stands now for various reasons. Surely me arguing that this could be changed for the sake of someone else is the opposite of entitled because I neither gain or lose. If some kind of assist mode was patched in, I could still play the game I bought exactly as I am enjoying it now without doing a thing.

 

Generally speaking, I'm more and more starting to believe that all the dancing around the houses arguing for purity and think of the devs etc comes down to  a lack of trust in yourself, because you know deeply that if the mode was there you would use it rather than persevering and that's on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Broker said:

There's a split here between people who see games as a skill to learn and people who see games as a fun thing to do.


How about making a learning process that’s fun? Two people can defeat the same boss in the same game, but what does it say when one person’s response is “well thank fuck that shitshow is over”? 
 

As per my OP, nobody wants to eradicate all semblance of challenge from something; people just want an experience that’s equally engaging for them as it is for more skilled players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Isaac said:

Is it an issue of self control then?

 

Still yet to hear a single argument as to why adding an easy mode to Dark Souls takes anything away from it that makes any sense.

 

If you want the challenge just don't play on easy, surely.

 

Anything else is entitlement and gatekeeping.

 

This post could literally be exactly what I'm desciribing like three posts before :lol:

 

Doesn't bother to read the discussion, ignores the answer to the question that's already been posted because he's so convinced already that he's correct. Throws in some insult and judgement to make it clear what a morally superior person he is.

 

2 minutes ago, Harsin said:

 

Well that's because when developers decide to put in bastard hard optional difficulty modes in their games (quite a common occurence), everyone is generally happy with that because they realise that it will take nothing away from their experience if people who want a harder game choose to use it. We only get the nonsensical anologies and must protect the sacrosanct vision when it's suggested to offer options (I repeat options) to lessen difficulty in some way.

 

Do we? There's plenty of games that have reduced their difficulty without it drawing much attention. Pretty much every major franchise that's more than a few generations old has included numerous quality of life updates and adjustments to make them more enjoyable for a wider variety of people, and unless I've missed it all it doesn't draw much attention. Coverage of increased control options in ports of older games or changes to make them more playable for a modern audience rarely seem to get much attention, though the lack of them often draws ire. 

 

The fact that there's only one or two major AAA franchise that are built around and have all their resources and energy put into creating a specifically challenging experience and they're constantly the target of people demanding them be made more like every other game ever is frustrating. 99% of games are made for the widest audience possible, so it feels weird that From Games can't just be for a niche audience. 

 

1 minute ago, matt0 said:

 

If the argument is purely about resources then sure, I can't disagree that everything has a cost. But from AAA down to tiny indie productions, people implement this stuff and the games still get made and they don't lose what's unique about them. There's games that do very similar things to Returnal, have the same kind of loop, and still have difficulty options and weren't made with the backing of Sony.

 

Everspace is a very good example. 

 

Everything in game development has a cost. Letting a player edit key bindings has a cost. Testing a game works across multiple frame rates has a cost. Ultrawide screen resolutions have a cost. I get the feeling you wouldn't be arguing about the cost of an optional hard mode the way you're arguing against an optional easy mode.

 

The irony here is that the majority of my gaming time is playing skill based stuff that will offer me a high level of resistance. Online shooters, old school arcade games, hardcore 2D action games and platformers, character action games, tactics games, old school dungeon crawls, roguelikes of all descriptions. I don't play fighting games much any more but I had a blast playing Tekken 7 online when it cropped up on gamepass. There's been games in the past year or so like Streets Of Rage 4 and Huntdown that I've gone through multiple times upping the difficulty for myself as I've gone.

 

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that arguing for allowing different levels of skill is arguing against skill based learning.

 

As I've stated a hundred times before though, if smaller or larger devs want to implement this stuff then that's great. If they decide the cost of adding features to make the game accessible to a wider audience is worth it that's their choice. What I find weird is the idea that if HM or FromSoft choose not to do that they're bad/idiots/leaving money on the table/clearly hate disabled people. The process of developing a game requires thousands of decisions about what is worth the cost and what isn't. Somewhere along the way, a tiny franction of developers decided adding and balancing difficulty options and working out how to integrate them into online systems wasn't worth the cost, because what they were making was for an audience who were willing to push through a challenging game and who they wanted to all have a unified experience.

 

It's not a coincidence that the Dark Souls community is really strong, and it's not a secret gatekeeping club. It's one of the most friendly, helpful gaming communities I've ever encountered because it's built on a shared sense of struggle and accomplishment. People who have played Dark Souls don't want to keep others out, they want to welcome them in, but they also want to feel needed, like the time and effort they put in was worth something more than just their own satisfation. They want to show off and offer advice and help people, and it's the single difficulty that everyone pushes against together that makes that possible. That's why despite being games without conventional difficulty options they've got a much higher completion percentage than most games, and it's an excellent bit of design that inspired and fostered that community. 

 

These games allocated their resources in a specific way to create a certain type of game that millions of people loved. I'm never going to believe it would be better if it moved those resources around to make it more like other games because then more people could play it, because it's the unique choices that were made during it's development that make it special. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Broker said:

:lol:I’m just off to complain to my local Sunday league team about them not letting me use my hands when I’m playing. Don’t they know I’m shit at kicking and don’t enjoy practicing? They’re so selfish and devoid of empathy enjoying something the way they currently have it without even considering me. 

Go in goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Opinionated Ham Scarecrow said:

Games can be both a skill to learn and fun. I enjoy both. I'm having a blast with Returnal as it is. The entitlement is wanting that experience to just be for me and a selection of purists rather than wanting to share it. My mum for example would love the game because of the strong female lead and sci-fi setting, but she could never play it well enough as it stands now for various reasons. Surely me arguing that this could be changed for the sake of someone else is the opposite of entitled because I neither gain or lose. If some kind of assist mode was patched in, I could still play the game I bought exactly as I am enjoying it now without doing a thing.

 

Generally speaking, I'm more and more starting to believe that all the dancing around the houses arguing for purity and think of the devs etc comes down to  a lack of trust in yourself, because you know deeply that if the mode was there you would use it rather than persevering and that's on you.

 

I like things that are set in Japan. That Fast and the Furious movie that's set in Japan would be great for me if it wasn't about boring cars but was instead about Wesley Snipes fighting Vampires with Swords. But if you changed it so that it was more interesting for me, you'd make it less interesting for other people. If you split the budget in half and made two movies neither of them would be able to have the same level of production value as one move made with that budget, but there would be more options and the car people would still get their car movie. Once again what you're suggesting is that money be spent on something whilst also stating that spending that money would have no cost. If they'd made Returnal more accessible for your mum it might have needed to be shorter or different and you would be missing out on the experience you have now.

 

Plus why is it a problem if there's games that force the people who play them to not rely on there being an easy mode? If there's people without the self control to force themselves through a hard mode so the developers make it the only option, why is that a problem?

 

27 minutes ago, Qazimod said:


How about making a learning process that’s fun? Two people can defeat the same boss in the same game, but what does it say when one person’s response is “well thank fuck that shitshow is over”? 
 

As per my OP, nobody wants to eradicate all semblance of challenge from something; people just want an experience that’s equally engaging for them as it is for more skilled players.

 

Sometimes what's fun is testing the skills you've learned. That's fundementally not the same as removing the need to learn those skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a completley nonsensical anaology. In focussing on the genre of a film the only impediment to watching it would be an individual's own interest level in the subject. There would be nothing physically stopping them.... Well that is unless they have a visual or hearing impairment, in which case adaptive measures are taken to try and help those people enjoy the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Isaac said:

Is it an issue of self control then?

 

Still yet to hear a single argument as to why adding an easy mode to Dark Souls takes anything away from it that makes any sense.

 

If you want the challenge just don't play on easy, surely.

 

Anything else is entitlement and gatekeeping.

 

It always comes back to Dark Souls.

 

The reality is that 'difficulty modes' would be such a tedious way to change the difficulty of Dark Souls. Dark Souls does it much better. It's designed around adapting the difficulty. It introduces the hardest game, and then everything you do in the game reduces the difficulty. Levelling up yourself and your weapons all lowers the difficulty, inch by inch, until you beat the hardest version of game you personally could beat, and that's an incredibly rewarding experience for the player. That might be level 150 with a +15 weapon, or level 40 with a +7. Thats the antithesis to Skyrims - you level up and so does everything else nonsense. On top of that you've summoning to aid you with bosses and levels. 

 

This of course means that what takes on average 60hrs to beat (according to timetobeat.com) for an average player takes 120hrs if you are as bad as me. But thats not 'grind' that's progress and development. Simple difficulty modes have the unwritten assumption that they should make it take the same length of time for people of different ability to play and I don't think that has to be the case. 

 

I think Dark Souls has a legitimate and interesting way to scale difficulty. And it's a mark of Dark Souls success at adaptive difficulty that people argue it doesn't have it. I can understand the argument that one would prefer difficulty levels, but surely different approaches are valid?

 

Frankly I wish more games would adapt that approach, than making a mode with half enemy hp and calling it a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Harsin said:

That's a completley nonsensical anaology. In the case of the topic of a film the only impediment to watching it would be your own interest level in the subject. There would be nothing physically stopping you.... Well that is unless you have a visual or hearing impairment, in which case measures are taken to try and help those people enjoy the film.

 

There's nothing stopping his mum from playing Returnal and learning to play a shooting game, unless she has a physical impairment in which case I hear Returnal has some really good accessibility features. The fact that she would like the strong female lead and sci-fi setting but she could never play it well enough as it stands now for various reasons means that there's only half of it that she would like, in the same way I like Japan but not cars. As there's only half of it that I'm interested in, it means that the overall product isn't that attractive to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Hylian said:

I would really appreciate it if the conversation here could continue without the "people arguing against easy mode hate people with disabilities / they have no shame" thing. For me at least this is not the case and irrelevant to what is being discussed. 

 

While I don't agree with the extreme example you posted (is that a direct quote?) I also think it's wrong to separate out the needs of disabled and non-disabled players in this discussion. As it is, the needs of a person with very minor physical or cognitive impairments can have almost identical functional problems with playing hard videogames to a non-disabled person on the lower end of the ability scale. So we've got these two groups, virtually identical in practice or at least with a LOT of overlap. So we look at the people with formal diagnoses and say, okay you get these accessibility settings and that's fine! But the rest of you without the diagnoses: just persist, it's not for you, just move on, play something else, you don't actually want to play this.

 

We would not say any of those things to a person with a diagnosis of disability, or we'd certainly bloody better think twice about it. But those groups - in practice - are having the same issues and the same experiences. One group we call entitled for even asking for this stuff, and the other we tell them to appreciate their accessibility settings and tell them that's enough.

 

I've mentioned her before but I always come back to Cherry Thompson who works for Ubisoft and often writes in great detail about gaming with chronic pain and other issues. 34% of people in the UK have chronic pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jonny_rat said:

 

While I don't agree with the extreme example you posted (is that a direct quote?) I also think it's wrong to separate out the needs of disabled and non-disabled players in this discussion. As it is, the needs of a person with very minor physical or cognitive impairments can have almost identical functional problems with playing hard videogames to a non-disabled person on the lower end of the ability scale. So we've got these two groups, virtually identical in practice or at least with a LOT of overlap. So we look at the people with formal diagnoses and say, okay you get these accessibility settings and that's fine! But the rest of you without the diagnoses: just persist, it's not for you, just move on, play something else, you don't actually want to play this.

 

We would not say any of those things to a person with a diagnosis of disability, or we'd certainly bloody better think twice about it. But those groups - in practice - are having the same issues and the same experiences. One group we call entitled for even asking for this stuff, and the other we tell them to appreciate their accessibility settings and tell them that's enough.

 

I've mentioned her before but I always come back to Cherry Thompson who works for Ubisoft and often writes in great detail about gaming with chronic pain and other issues. 34% of people in the UK have chronic pain.

 

It seems incredibly disrespectful to people with disabilities to suggest that they're functionally identical to people who just haven't learned something. The difference, and the reason they're separate issues, and the reason the diagnosis exists, is because there's no way the disabled person could overcome that hurdle without specific help because of their specific disability. That's really not the same as people who could overcome that hurdle but just don't want to and lumping them together isn't being more inclusive, it's suggesting that able bodied people deserve the same support as psysically disabled people if they just don't feel like bothering. 

 

That's why I see them as fundementally spearate issues. If you physically require help to achieve something then I see that as a valuable allocation of resources. If you just want help because you don't like doing it then I'm a lot less likely to move resources away from something else to accomodate you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.