http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070501/adams_01.shtml
This article argues that action games ought to be made more accessible to the disabled.
Making games accessible to the disabled is a laudable goal, but this Adams character doesn't offer much insight into how to achieve it. Consider his entry in the accessible games competition. It isn't enough to address the mechanics of pitting the able-bodied against the disabled; the game still must be appealling to the former. There's no point in developing a multiplayer game for both able-bodied and disabled players if no able-bodied gamers will want to play it. Imagine the reception for a game whose tagline is, "there's no such thing as 'too slow.'"
And any time that some form of accessibility aid is introduced in a multiplayer game, a critical question must be answered: How do you prevent able-bodied players from using those aids to gain an unfair advantage? Online gamers tend to raise a hue and cry whenever they perceive that something has unbalanced the playing field. One solution would be to notify a player when his opponent is using aids. But consider the player's decision-making process at that point. He might suspect that his opponent is an able-bodied player abusing accessibility aids. Or he might decide that competing with a disabled player wouldn't result in an even/fun/challenging match. We ought not to expect many players to accept challenges from the disabled out of charity, since that is not a defining characteristic of online gamers.
As to the general issue of making action games more accessible, there's the question of whether there's even a market for accessible action games. The author of this article presupposes that there is, but there's no certainty that sales to the disabled would offset the cost of accessibility. One of the ideas offered is to create two paths through levels. Well, that doubles the work of the level design team, doesn't it? And there's a fair argument that developers shouldn't even try to make action games accessible. There are many genres of games, some of which by their nature offer a better fit to the disabled, e.g., because they move at a slower pace. Trying to shoehorn accessibility into a genre whose very name, "action," implies fast, kinetic gameplay may not be sensible.
This article argues that action games ought to be made more accessible to the disabled.
Making games accessible to the disabled is a laudable goal, but this Adams character doesn't offer much insight into how to achieve it. Consider his entry in the accessible games competition. It isn't enough to address the mechanics of pitting the able-bodied against the disabled; the game still must be appealling to the former. There's no point in developing a multiplayer game for both able-bodied and disabled players if no able-bodied gamers will want to play it. Imagine the reception for a game whose tagline is, "there's no such thing as 'too slow.'"
And any time that some form of accessibility aid is introduced in a multiplayer game, a critical question must be answered: How do you prevent able-bodied players from using those aids to gain an unfair advantage? Online gamers tend to raise a hue and cry whenever they perceive that something has unbalanced the playing field. One solution would be to notify a player when his opponent is using aids. But consider the player's decision-making process at that point. He might suspect that his opponent is an able-bodied player abusing accessibility aids. Or he might decide that competing with a disabled player wouldn't result in an even/fun/challenging match. We ought not to expect many players to accept challenges from the disabled out of charity, since that is not a defining characteristic of online gamers.
As to the general issue of making action games more accessible, there's the question of whether there's even a market for accessible action games. The author of this article presupposes that there is, but there's no certainty that sales to the disabled would offset the cost of accessibility. One of the ideas offered is to create two paths through levels. Well, that doubles the work of the level design team, doesn't it? And there's a fair argument that developers shouldn't even try to make action games accessible. There are many genres of games, some of which by their nature offer a better fit to the disabled, e.g., because they move at a slower pace. Trying to shoehorn accessibility into a genre whose very name, "action," implies fast, kinetic gameplay may not be sensible.
ing easy. I beat it in a week. It was fun, exhilirating, I restarted a couple times on some bosses, but it was a far cry from being a difficult game. I personally beat it on Normal before BLACK introduced the "Ninja Dog" difficulty.
