Slashdot Mirror
Can Video Game Accessibility Go Too Far?
A piece at GameSetWatch questions whether modern game companies are taking accessibility a step too far in their rush to attract people who don't typically play video games. This worry was inspired, in part, by the news that Nintendo's New Super Mario Bros. Wii would have the capability to play itself in order to let a human player get past a tricky part. Quoting:
"Bigger audiences finishing more games is certainly a worthy goal, and Nintendo has shown that accessibility is the servant of engagement. History has rarely — if ever — dared to disprove the wisdom of Miyamoto's foresight. History has also never disproven, however, the principle that any medium and any message degrades the wider an audience it must reach. Art was never served by generalization, nor language by addressing all denominators. Entertainment for the masses ultimately becomes empty. There must exist an absolute point beyond which greater accessibility means less engagement. Making a game so easy it can play itself for you at the push of a button just might be that point."
"Bigger audiences finishing more games is certainly a worthy goal"
There's nothing more frustrating (in the gaming world) than playing a game for hours just to unlock a part of the game I already paid for! Slogging through a dozen crappy songs just to unlock Anthrax and Megedeth was no fun at all. I paid for Guitar Hero. If the very first thing I want to do is play Free Bird on Expert then it's my right. (Or at least it should be.)
A lot of game companies don't seem to understand this, but a lot of gamers are adults with other interests and responsibilities. Spending hours "practicing" so that I can master a video game is not in the cards.
Just because the option is there does not mean you have to use it. Nothing is makeing you turn it on. You want the extreem chalenge never use it. However, if because you have a problem pushing the buttons fast enough due to a disability then this feature enables you to enjoy the game.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
"When I was a kid...I liked it because it was a challenge."
/I'd kill for that power in the rest of my life...
Exactly. But as an adult life has enough challenges already. Games are the only thing where I even have the option of saying "this is too hard, let's skip it."
If you want a challenge, don't use it.
Personally, while I enjoy a challenge, I don't enjoy playing the same level for hours on end, and never getting any further. I'll be using the "I'm bored, please let me play the next bit" button sometimes.
Nintendo did something new. I can't praise it without being labeled a 14m3r fanboi, and I can't criticize it because it'll probably turn out make them even more pots of money and then I'll look like a doofus. So I'll just talk around the issue to fill the space between these important messages from our sponsors.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"Making a game so easy it can play itself for you at the push of a button just might be that point."
No no and no. If anything, this is the [b]reverse[/b] - it means more difficult sections can be added to the game, without endangering less experienced players (by showing them "how it's done" and letting them skip the harder bits completely if they want to).
This means each demographic gets what it wants - hardcores get a game with some nice tricky sections, and casual gamers get a fun game where they skim over the bits they find too difficult/tedious.
The quoted article is just alarmist turd, and skims over the fact this is, effectively, difficulty levels on crack. There's absolutely no difference between this and selecting Easy/Medium/Hard - this is just a clever hybrid.
It is how I look at most games. I like a challenge, but I do not want to have to allocate project management, tons of research, and bringing my A game every time I play it. This is just a new easy mode, same as a cheat for God mode, or turning down difficulty a ton like a combat slider in Oblivion.
I want to be involved in the game story, get some enjoyment out of it, and not miss some part of the game because a different minority wants me to suffer through a game to get the best items or game play experience just because they had to.
I give Progress Quest as an example of the game will play itself, you will watch it, and you will be amused as an example of this. http://www.progressquest.com/ It has a following, so maybe there is some truth in the matter.
When I was your age we didn't have music file sharing utilities. We had to go out to a store and shoplift the CD.
How is this different from the difficulty slider in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion? If I get to a part that is particularly pissing me off, I drop the slider all the way down to easy and kill those pesky Dremoras with one swipe of my Sword of the Divine Crusader.
There are those of us that do not want to be overly frustrated with video games; we simply want to have fun. While I enjoy a bit of a challenge, it's nice to know that if I fail at something 5, 10, or 25 times, I can just click a button and make it easier (or skip it).
I have a bad feeling about this...
The purpose of a video game (for most people) is to have fun. I'd hardly call skipping the parts that aren't fun "intellectually lazy". It's more like "pragmatically efficient".
First of all, I think your argument has more or less merit depending on the artwork in question. For something like The Lord of the Rings, perhaps you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't slow down and experience the whole thing. But if you're watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture, fast-forwarding is simply efficient. (I thought it dragged in fast forward.) Your argument presumes that all parts of all artwork are equally worthy, but I don't think this is always true.
Second, there's a time for thinking and a time for not thinking. It wasn't until my third child that I realized why America's Funniest Videos is on at 8:00 on Friday. It has no plot to remember, no characters to keep track of, no storyline that lasts more than 30 seconds, and it mostly consists of sledding accidents and people getting hit in the crotch. There has never been a show that demands less from its audience. (So as to retain some shred of credibility, I don't watch AFV (my kids do). But I've seen enough of it to appreciate its utter simplicity.)
Third, in this particular case we're not always talking about skipping something because it's boring or because you want to get to the good bit. If I need to spend hours "practicing" a game to get past a difficult mission then it's the game that's flawed. Demanding that I pay $50 for the right to play a game is one thing. Demanding that I spend 50 hours of toy guitar practice before I can play all the songs on the disk, or demanding that I play 50 boring quest or racing missions before I can unlock Las Venturas and play virtual video poker is...poor customer service? Poor game design?
The fundamental argument is the right of the artist to control how you experience his art vs the right of the consumer to experience the art on his terms. By your logic, it would be lazy to skip songs on a CD to get to the song you actually want to hear. Certain artists may agree because they carefully wrote and sequenced the songs to achieve a certain effect. But ultimately I believe that I should be the one to make the decision.