this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
88 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30568 readers
257 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this a single player game? Then cool, 100%, love it. Co-op? Probably fine, but I'd have some implementation questions.
Pvp? I ate the biggest backlash I've had on the Internet on another forum when I argued that players shouldn't be able to unilaterally make the game easier for just themselves in a competitive game, and I'm still mad about it.
When did games go from being something fun to do, to people getting so serious about them that they would rather fuck over a bunch of disabled people than lose a game?
Whenever I play competitive games I see people raging in the comments like every game, and it's usually people who aren't doing very good that round because they want to blame everyone else for losing. Idk why y'all are paying $60+ just to be angry the entire time. Fuck around and have fun, it's not that serious.
It's so bad you're STILL mad about a hypothetical situation that doesn't even exist. Spiderman 2 is single player. If it was competitive, and disabled people being able to play ruins your life sooo much, then don't play it. Crisis averted.
I'm not sure what you're on about but he wasn't complaining about Spider-Man 2. He even said if a game is 1P, then he's fine with any settings a player wants.
His complaint was about competitive games and I think it's a fair complaint (albeit a bit off topic) I don't think it's in your (or anyone else's) purview to tell others what games are or aren't about nor how seriously they should take their games.
We have entire competitive (and, imo, friendly) communities centered around competition and the notion that the rules are the same for everyone.
I know I said I'm still mad about it but you seem like really mad in your comment.
I don't see how anything I said has to do with fucking over disabled people.
I didn't say anything about raging.
It's not for you to tell people how seriously to take their hobbies.
I didn't say disabled people shouldn't be able to play it. How did you come to that conclusion?
Yes, I do get upset when people act like disabled people needing accommodations is ruining their life. For obvious reasons. Disabled people had no accommodations in games for literal decades and suddenly able bodied people act like it's the end of the world when they start getting introduced. The difference is that some disabled people literally cannot play when you have a choice. And ranting, on multiple forums, about how accommodations will ruin your hypothetical competitive game that doesn't even exist yet!
And games are not the only scenario, I see a similar attitude in every instance where disabled people are granted accomodations.
You want accomodations to not exist in certain scenarios. Your comment was clear.
You're not engaging with what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying accomodations are ruining my life.
It feels to me like what you're saying is that "Accommodations" has an unbound scope. Anything and everything can be changed in the name of accommodations. Double your health in street fighter? Fine. See the other players hands in Poker. Sure. Turn on slow-mo in Quake9? Well okay.
And any of those things might be fine and fun if everyone playing agrees. Maybe you're new at poker and I want to show one of my cards as a boost to you, the rookie. But for you to walk into a game and be like "yo I need to see your cards to play" seems egregious.
Maybe that's not what you meant.
Maybe for you this is a "for me it was Tuesday." You've possibly spent your whole life arguing with assholes like me who can just take their presumably abled asses and just walk away when it's no longer interesting to them. I'm sorry for your struggles and injustices. You don't really owe me anything.
How would it even be possible to slow time for one player and not the other?
You could give bullet time to one player while the other moves and controls slowly. Or you could give one player bigger iframes to sort of approximate it.
Like, for one player they're invulnerable for a full two seconds after pushing dodge, but the other player is only invulnerable for a quarter second.
Lots of ways to try
But as someone else in this thread said, this was kind of me going off topic. Slightly related but not exactly what the article was about.
To some extent. But why can’t you just match those with like-for-like accessibly features turned on?
That's probably fine. Like if you want to play with triple iframes you can play with other people that have triple iframes (or who said they're ok with that). I just don't think you should be able to adjust your iframes whenever you want. Like, not in the middle of a match you're losing.
I don't know how to solve match making if you have a lot of those settings. Like if you can change iframes, parry frames, max health, max stamina, max incoming damage, min outgoing damage, and so on, that's an explosive set of variables. You'd be lucky to find someone with your exact settings. Which is maybe fine? Maybe most people would use the defaults.
But the last time I had this conversation, some guy was adamant he should be able to play with me even if he has his settings tweaked to be nigh indestructible.
Don't make me point to the sign with people standing on boxes in front of a fence.
This should be very easily solved with matchmaking lobby settings.
Anyway, most accessibility settings are either something every competitive player should be using anyway (reasonable color contrast settings, HUD tweaks for clarity) or things that only people who need them despately would ever use (remapping all buttons to be able to play using only a stick in the players mouth, because they have no hands).
This seems to me like a total non-issue. And in the very few cases it is, the ranked lobbies can just diable that setting.
The backlash was probably because for you and I a harmed pvp experience is a "could happen" while for a bunch of gamers the lack of accessibility is a daily undeniable part of their reality. For some people, games are a critical sanity-saving retreat from the rest of their life. Let's let them have their tweaks outside of ranked play.
I don't have problems with control changes, subtitles, HUD stuff, all the things that are typically considered accessibility. I reject the idea that any arbitrary piece of a multiplayer game can be unilaterally changed in the name of accessibility. Which is maybe not a take any reasonable person has., but it's one I've encountered.
But your last paragraph is probably right in that for them it was an emotionally charged "every day I deal with this bullshit" and I was coming off as "yeah but like what if i'm mildly inconvenienced one day?".