Jprhino84

@Jamies I’m not going to call you names but I will say this: telling a paralysed person to “keep sitting on their butt and whining” isn’t the best of looks. Especially when the very article you’re responding to shows the author trying to “do something about it”, as you so demanded.

@drewber2635 If you don’t mind me asking, how do you know that the accessibility options for the Last of Us series didn’t significantly increase sales?

For the record, estimates indicate that disabled people make up 15% of the global population. Even if you want to argue that some can’t afford video games, that’s a sizeable percentage to ignore.

@-wc- You’re welcome. I know it was hard to back up the more hostile side of this discussion as comments disappeared.

Personally, it’s surprising to me how many people are oddly against accessibility options. I’m old enough where my brother would tease me for playing NES games “wrong” because Game Genie was the only accessibility option I had that allowed my reflexes to keep up. Now developers are theoretically capable of so much more and I wish more people would see accessibility options as the potential boon to the industry that they could be.

@johnvboy There was one comment (it may have been deleted now) that literally said that they don’t want Nintendo “jumping on the accessibility bandwagon” because it actively makes games worse. They had a decent chunk of likes too.

I appreciate that you’re being the centrist in this discussion and I do actually agree that it’s important not to sensationalise the overall tone of this comment section but you’re bordering on being a bit too much of an apologist for what were some outright irritated comments on the anti/indifferent side.

I mean, don’t forget that this article is just one disabled gamer suggesting optional improvements, so seeing enough people for it to be noticeable dismissing or outright resisting the concept was understandably disconcerting for some, myself included if I’m honest.

@Ryu_Niiyama Just a quick clarification: I’m not meaning this from an emotional stance (though I admit it’s hard to strongly advocate for something without it coming across that way), I simply think striving for anything to improve in society - even something as relatively trivial as video game accessibility - requires actively pushing for progress. Logically, while it’s self-soothing to assume everyone tried their best and considered every option, it’s not great for getting the results many disabled gamers hope for. I think Nintendo dropped the ball in this instance and letting a complete lack of options slide is self-defeating. Even if they can’t do everything for fear of compromising their creative vision, they can do far more than they did. Even sticky button combos would help some, for example.

@Ryu_Niiyama Okay, let me start fresh with a concerted effort to remove any accidental confrontational tone. That’s on me. It takes me a while to type and it sometimes leads to inconsistency in my longer thoughts.

I am actually surprisingly accepting of many video games simply not being viable for me. I avoided the Wii (bar a stint in physical rehabilitation) because it was difficult for me to use and not practical for adaptation. I accepted this and moved on.

Why I disagree with your stance on video game accessibility (though I completely understand the viewpoint) is that it unintentionally advocates for apathy towards continuing accessibility. It’s really not for us to decide whether developers “tried their best” in this or not. It’s up to disabled gamers to keep pushing for more. You’re right, we’ll never reach 100% accessibility for all games. But we’re not even close to that right now. And while I absolutely don’t agree with aggressively insulting Nintendo, I can completely understand the frustration when a game like TotK releases with 0 visible effort to improve accessibility.

Once again, I apologise that my previous comments came across as personal attacks. They weren’t supposed to be. I was frustrated by a fellow disabled gamer wandering into “deal with it” territory when there was already enough far more blatant examples of such an attitude in the comments section.

@Ryu_Niiyama I think you’re being a little presumptuous here, no? Just because I and other people in this comment section want accessibility in games to keep improving, doesn’t mean that games are expected to be playable for every last person in the world. Trust me, my social circles include people who have far more pressing physical concerns than playing video games.

However, whatever a developer can reasonably do to make video games accessible to more people should never be a question for debate and seen as a prerequisite for development. As someone who’s had to “deal with” not being able to do plenty of things as I get older and my disability deteriorates my health, I do not want developer laziness to be an arbitrary roadblock for myself and video games.

@Hilliard Because it’s far too easy to get lost in the woods of debate in the comment section, I wanted to directly say that this is a brilliant article and I’d love to see these become a semi-regular feature for major game releases.

@Ryu_Niiyama While I respect your opinion, I think it’s key to remember that we are talking about a form of entertainment here and I think we can agree that entertainment should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

With that in mind, using TotK as a fair example, if Nintendo ARE discussing accessibility with disabled gamers, they’re doing a terrible job of implementing said feedback. I’m not going to accuse them of malicious negligence but I would say that they’re demonstrating a distinct lack of interest in improving that weakness.

@Wisps By “started the conversation”, I was specifically referring to you saying not to include an easy mode for Dark Souls.

For the record, I’m fairly severely physically disabled (cerebral palsy, renowned for greatly reduced reaction times and joint mobility) and I will die on the hill that difficulty options are another form of accessibility. Assist Mode helped me play and complete Super Mario Odyssey while still providing a fun challenge. I would have given up on the game far sooner if it didn’t exist.

So no, I don’t agree that difficulty modes aren’t a part of the accessibility discussion, they’re actually a key part of it too.

@Wisps With all due respect, you brought up the difficulty discussion, so it’s a bit disingenuous to act above it now.

Okay, let’s say Dark Souls 4 is created. The game is made exactly as intended by the developers. They then create an easy mode where they, say, increase damage for the player, reduce damage received and lengthen dodge windows. This is a separate mode. If you never touch it, you’ll never notice a difference. Where’s the harm? You can play exactly as you prefer and it’s accessible (there’s the magic word!) to more players. In every way that matters, it’s a win-win scenario.

@Wisps You do realise that an “easy” mode in any game is an option, right? An option that wouldn’t have to affect the standard difficulty at all. The only reason to not want that is because you wish to be part of some elite community that can beat a brutally hard game and will gatekeep others from completing/enjoying it.

@DaniPooo Aren’t you just playing with semantics at that point, though?

“Oh, those changes? Yeah, but I don’t personally count them as ‘big’, so my original statement was right.”

Of course, you’re more than entitled to your opinion but that’s such a subjective argument that it’s a little shaky. It’s like saying there’s never been a good Mario game because you personally don’t like them. it’d be absolutely true for you, but other people are going to question your taste in video games, heh.

Well, there’s definitely no longer an argument whether this was an impressive launch.

@Nintendo4Sonic What point did you even make? I have zero problem with your opinion. Never did. I just find the framing of your opinion as if it’s inarguable as rather odd. That’s all. Nothing deeper than that.

@Nintendo4Sonic You’re really putting too much thought into this. You don’t like the game, many do. That’s it. Trying to psychoanalyse others and twist it into some kind of self-delusion is all rather silly. Sometimes, we’re in the minority and that’s fine. It doesn’t need to be rationalised.

@Nintendo4Sonic I never said you claimed people weren’t allowed. You said it was “impossible”. I pointed out that it obviously isn’t. You’re defending against something I never accused you of.

@Nintendo4Sonic What are you talking about? You quite literally said it was “impossible” that people could like the game because of the reasons you personally dislike it.

That was all I responded to. Please take a moment and reread your original comment.

@Cashews You do realise that if TotK is the “biggest boxed launch of 2023” as per this article, that means it also beat the mammoth launch of HL on PS5 too?

@Nintendo4Sonic It’s not impossible though, is it? They just like something that you don’t.

@riki_sidekicks But that’s nonsense though. Think what you’ve just written through logically. We’re dealing with a 100-point scale, right? 66/100 is right on the cusp of breaking into the top third of the scale. If that’s “really bad”, the scale is broken.

@riki_sidekicks How have we gotten to the point where 6.6/10 as an average is “universally panned”?

@Hajilee While I can accept that you meant it as a joke, I don’t agree that it was “obviously” one. Claiming that “nobody” cares about something is a fairly standard claim on the internet, meant completely seriously most of the time. It’s practically a default way of dismissing something you don’t like, in fact.

@NinjaNicky That’s not what I was referring to. Believe me, I understand the annoyance. But what was the point in accusing people who do play the game of “sponging off their parents”? It’s quite an unsubstantiated claim.

@NinjaNicky This reads as needlessly antagonistic (and presumptuous) towards people playing a video game with a real-time clock.

@Hajilee Eh, you kind of set yourself up for those kind of responses with the perceived smugness of your original comment. And it is kind of easy to just invoke the “joke defence” after the fact to make it look like other people are overreacting.

@samuelvictor I think what helps the preservation of the service is it now being tied to a universal account. While there’s no guarantee they won’t start from scratch, I think even Nintendo realise that they’re finally starting to claw together a semi-valuable subscription with a decent monthly console rotation. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

@samuelvictor It’s reasonable to assume that the NSO library will reach a plateau eventually. I have hope that it’ll continue beyond generations.

@samuelvictor Yes, I’m aware. But because the guy I was responding to was already playing fast and loose with definitions, I stuck to the general ethos of the two models. I’m not discounting anything you said though.

@DwaynesGames No, you’re twisting definitions now. Your original comment was simply wrong.

Like I said, just because it’s not growing at the pace you’d like, that doesn’t make it the “Disney Vault”. That specific strategy released titles on a short term schedule, then made them unavailable for prolonged periods. The Netflix strategy is a growing selection of titles for a monthly fee. In fact, NSO hasn’t removed a single game in the 5 or so years of the service’s existence. That is the complete opposite of the vault strategy. Keep dancing around your own definitions if you wish, but your initial comparison was wrong.

@DwaynesGames Not to rain on your passionate plea but NSO IS the Netflix/Disney+ model. Just because it’s not going at your preferred pace (which is completely understandable) doesn’t change the fact that it now houses something approaching 200 games (I think?). That is definitely not the Disney Vault approach.

@Kirgo It makes people happy because it allows them to express themselves.

If I may use a personal example, I am physically disabled and use a wheelchair. It doesn’t bother me to play as able bodied characters but I feel acknowledged on the rare occasions when a wheelchair is an option. And when you boil that request down, it wouldn’t change much in most games either.

@Kirgo I think you’ve kind of stumbled upon answering your own question. I’m sure many non-binary people do play as male or female. But many people understand that broadening choice in games like this is never a bad thing. I think it’s simply about expressing yourself in a medium you enjoy.

@NinjaNicky Stop trying to put words in my mouth, please. It’s disingenuous. I am 100% for the inclusion of everyone. I thought I’d made that clear by now. What I find odd is that you’ve somehow decided that not everyone can be included (which is pure speculation on your part, quite frankly) therefore no attempts should be made by the developer to improve inclusion. Your logic doesn’t make sense. That’s all I’m saying.

@NinjaNicky Okay, let me explain my problem with what you’re saying. My issue is that you’re being slippery with words.

“I’m actually all for inclusion! So much so that if we can’t include absolutely everyone, we shouldn’t try to include anyone else at all! See? Now nobody can get mad! I’m so inclusive!”

The issue is, all @CharlieGirl asked for was a non-binary option. The rest are roadblocks you’ve imagined just to tell them why they shouldn’t get their request. It’s odd.

@NinjaNicky Wait, hang on. Don’t try to turn this on me as if I’m some kind of bigot. That’s outright insulting.

This all started because you said that non-binary options shouldn’t be added because they’d be pointless. When that was disputed, you said it would be too time consuming. When people didn’t buy that, you invented a mob that would demand more and more exaggerated features. You’re playing word games and constantly moving goalposts.

I’m a physically disabled person who was previously married to (and is still close friends with) a gender-fluid pansexual. I can assure you that I couldn’t be more in favour of inclusion if I tried.

@NinjaNicky Okay, you need to calm down with the whataboutisms. It’s deflection and taking away from the actual discussion.

Everyone else is talking about a very simple change that changes nothing for people who don’t want to use it. You responding with “and next they’ll be demanding surgeons!” is absurd and a bad faith, slippery slope fallacy.

@NinjaNicky There is an inherent flaw in your Tomb Raider argument. It is a narrative driven franchise revolving around the experiences of a female character. Stardew Valley outright encourages you to create your own character and weave your own story. It’s completely understandable for people to want the game to give them as many potential life experiences as possible. I see no problem with it.

@NinjaNicky With all due respect, now you’re just creating problems in your head as imaginary roadblocks for fulfilling a simple request. It’s fine if you personally don’t want non binary as an option (though I can’t think of a real reason why not) but don’t create an imaginary mob to rationalise it.

@NinjaNicky But hasn’t @CharlieGirl already explained how the change would “make a difference” to her? And considering it’s pretty much surface level (adding a 3rd gender option), I doubt it’d be that complicated to add.

@theModestMouse It’s only 12GB and change fully updated on PC. It’ll be even smaller on Switch.

@PinderSchloss I could be missing a new phrase but “gobbling up that corporate storytelling” reads like word salad that sounds profound on the surface but means sod all in the context of a gameplay video.

@mcdreamer In absolute fairness, I can totally understand why some people aren’t a fan of the subscription model. But yeah, the fact that there’s always at least one person rushing to publicly dismiss the service whenever a game is added (as if it’s a badge of honour) can come across as slightly odd at times.

@rawzeku

I really wish people wouldn’t misuse the word “scam”. Paying for a service and proceeding to get what you pay for isn’t a scam. Having perfectly reasonable gripes with a business model does not make it a scam.

“Would you kindly”… I’m not falling for that again, Mr Ryan!

@DKGXX85

“I played wrestling games 25 years ago when they were actually good.”

I’m 38 years old. So did I. And if Fight Forever was truly going for a retro look, I’d fully respect it. I’m really not a graphics person. But it looks too clean to be retro but too half-baked to be current gen. I may even buy the game, if it manages to actually impress as opposed to constantly pandering to “the good old days” with its marketing.

@DKGXX85

Aren’t you being a little over sensitive? I mean, it’s hardly a biting critique to say the game doesn’t look stellar, considering they’re presumably showcasing their top-of-the-line PS5/Series X graphics here.

Man, this game looks rough. I really don’t want to know what the Switch version will look like.

I chose the future because I’m going to be entirely honest. I already have the complete NES, GB, SNES, Mega Drive and GBA libraries (with a smattering of GameCube for good measure) on my Steam Deck. And I’ve come to realise that I barely play any of the thousands of options. New experiences hold my attention far more.