Defining Accessibility (Properly)

These changes though, are seriously unlikely to pay for the doubled dev team and the coresponding budget increase.

Attracting the at least somewhat less dedicated or skilled gamers is how accessibility is most often (when I see it anyways, I am only one person) used by the pr people in the gaming industry. These changes are the ones I'm againt in the soul series.

As further examples:
Map=bad
Closed captions=good
Remappable controls =good
Simplified controls =bad
Narrative story =bad
More hidden stories in world details like item descriptions and environmental details =good
Extended tutorial=bad

Forum Pirate wrote:These changes though, are seriously unlikely to pay for the doubled dev team and the coresponding budget increase.

You would actually be surprised, I've seen the analytics on games I've worked on that show just how profitable catering for disabled gamers can be, especially if you plan it from the outset rather than try to retrofit.. in which case the cost is greatly reduced. Colourblindness is the classic, not really an issue for DS but for a male dominated colour reliant genre like FPS deathmatch a really quite small amount of work means hugely more players (8% of males) then being able to buy the game, without diluting the experience.. see COD:BO.

Just to make it clear, you can see from my number of posts that I'm not a regular on these boards, I came across the original post via google because it mentioned disability and accessibility. That's part of what I do for a living, consulting for game studios on disability related accessibility.

I see, Ian. Well, I stand corrected regarding the intended meaning of the website. Thank you for your candor and respectful tone in convincing me. Despite this, would you say that the game industry's tendency to make this term more broad (including players with lower skill levels) is really that bad? Or perhaps you are just saying that its unhelpful, due to the admittedly various interpretations of the term?

Even assuming the devs get minimum wage though, the cost of development took a huge jump.

Say hypothetically 20 people worked 8 hour days for 5 days a week for the 2 year cycle at $10/hr (unlikely, one doesn't go to college for 10 an hour), thats 584000 dollars.

The new game has at minimum a 2 year cycle, and a doubled dev team, the minimum cost, just in wages is now 11,680,000 never mind the increased advratising.

At 15/hr its 17,520,000 to 876000.

This is assuming everybody is paid the same, fairly low, wage. I have no doubt it can be profitable, but thats a huge amount of money to make up, just in wages. Its a 100% increase in cost, for a maybe 30% increase in sales. Going to need more than that to fill the cost gap.

Forum Pirate: Even if the core game is somewhat easier, I'm assuming that you mostly do PVP therefore an easier game wouldn't really effect you would it? The worst it would do is create more gankers.

It's like buying a fighting game and then getting mad cause the cpu's are too easy. No one buys fighting games to play against computers, they buy them to play against other people.

Now if games combat mechanics were getting overhauled, then we'd have something to worry about. I definitely don't want Dark Souls 2 getting turned into God of war or DMC even.

MasterofShadows wrote:I see, Ian. Well, I stand corrected regarding the intended meaning of the website. Thank you for your candor and respectful tone in convincing me. Despite this, would you say that the game industry's tendency to make this term more broad (including players with lower skill levels) is really that bad? Or perhaps you are just saying that its unhelpful, due to the admittedly various interpretations of the term?

Yep I didn't want to mention at the time that I wrote the sentence you were referring to, as no-one's opinions are any less valid.

So yes basically what's happened is that for a long while accessibility in the games industry has been used to refer to disabilities, and two things have happened simultaneously: firstly an exponential growth in developers thinking about disability related accessibility, and secondly (and completely separately) others starting to use the term to refer to casual/low barrier to entry.

The reason why it can sometimes be unhelpful is that thing about dumbing down, people working in disability related accessibility in not just games industry but in others too (ie. web) have been trying to dispel that myth for many years, together with the other key misconceptions of cost, complexity and low numbers.

It's perfectly natural to assume that catering for disabilities means spending loads of money on complex ways to dilute the proposition for the benefit of a tiny minority who aren't interested in games anyway, but in fact none of those things are true.

So that's why I jumped in, just to make it clear that the kind of accessibility that the DS director is talking about is a bit different to the kind of accessibility that Josh's article linked to from your original post is talking about.

It's really that thing you mentioned about negative stigma, about casual/low barrier to entry stuff excluding hardcore gamers (which sometimes it can, it's diffiult to make something that's all things to everyone), whereas the disability related stuff is kind of the opposite.

It's about greater inclusion rather than excluding anyone, and there's even often overlap between what hardcore and disabled gamers want (eg. remappable controls) - and of course there are plenty of hardcore disabled gamers, including successful professional gamers who have really profound impairments.

I keep banging on about it I know but it's important, that thing about necessary/unnecessary barriers. If there's something you can do to widen the audience for a game without diluting the experience that's always a good thing.

It's just a questions of precisely what that experience is, ie. the reason people actually go out and buy the game.

Quick disclaimer before I start I'm not in any way suggesting the following for DS. An interesting example is Bayonetta, where the designers abstracted out a little and figured out that the point of the game, what made it enjoyable, was a combination of the crazy set pieces with it being a challenging test of pushing your motor skills to the limit.

They realised that there is no typical gamer or set level of 'challenging' that can be set across the board, so they included a wide range of difficultly levels, all the way down to a single button press to execute complex combos. For some players, whether casual or disabled, that single well timed button press is just as enjoyably challenging test of their motor skills as the hardest difficulty level is for others, so many more people are able to experience the set pieces while enjoying challenging their motor skills.

So again before anyone panics I'm not suggesting that for DS, DS is a different case. What makes it enjoyable and challenging is actually very different to Bayonetta, the fun of Bayonetta isn't damaged at all by the knowledge that there's an easier difficultly level available as the core mechanic is not based on the premise of constant failure and frustration, the reward is from the experience of the combat itself, rather than constant pressure of failure in DS.

But it's still an interesting example of the kind of level at which you can think about what difficulty actually is.

I do do mostly pvp, but I'd trade every hour of it to relive the feeling of my first playthroughs of each souls game. decreased difficulty would detract from that in a number of ways I've already explained. The pvp is me prolonging the feel of struggling for success in hostile enviroments as long as possible.

The director aslo hasn't done anything to alleviate our concerns with what he's said.

A morality system? A straight forward narrative? A detailed and extended tutorial? This is dumbing down and/or explaining away things that lend to the sense of the overwhelming (like in profound lack of knowledge not actually difficulty) struggle for success and understanding.

One thing, I've always liked about this series is the the sense of accomplishment you get after completing something that was challenging(for me that would be soloing O&S and Manus) and I'm not sure how I'd feel if that were removed from the series.

Despite that, Demon's Souls was far harder for me than Dark Souls was. It's not that Demon's was harder per se, it's just that I went into Demon's Souls a noob and now I'm not (for the most part, backstabs and ripostes be dammed!). In order for the next game to be just as challenging for me they'd really have to up the difficulty( like idk...improved AI!).

I don't think a more detailed tutorial would be a bad thing at all. Actually if I recall right Demon's Souls Tutorial did a far better job of explaining the games mechanics then Dark Souls did(though I didn't even bother with most of Dark Souls hints so I can't be sure). That being said, if there is going to be a long detailed tutorial, I'd like it to be skip able.

But I still walked directly into numerous traps and got destroyed by hidden enemies so frequently that I was afraid to round corners. There were a few new things I really struggled to find the purpose of or way to use.

What knowledge I had from demons that transfered was hard earned. It was there because I'd been through it before. I earned it, just as I would have in dark if I hadn't played demons. I was merely continuing my adventure where others were beginning. It should be harder for them than me.

The atmosphere was similar in almost every way because of that, despite my forknowledge. "Improving" learning options would detract from that. They're (and to a lesser extent, I'm) not working to learn, just being told what to do and how.

Once you learn the basic controls theirs not much left to learn though, all you can really do is refine your own skill. Or is their something specific your referring to? Cause new guys would still need to learn when to roll, when to parry, and all that other jazz.

The game already gives you the basic controls and effects of stats, a longer tutorial then can either waste their time explaining something already explained, or start teaching them things like likely trap locations, when and why to do things they should be learning for themselves, because thats part of the main point. Dropping players in the deep end and telling them to swim.

On top of that, as I've said when the point of the game is instill a sense of struggle through constant difficulty and failure more help=less thrill of victory.

Sloth9230 wrote:Once you learn the basic controls theirs not much left to learn though, all you can really do is refine your own skill. Or is their something specific your referring to? Cause new guys would still need to learn when to roll, when to parry, and all that other jazz.

Here are some solutions to DS2 game design that may satisfy both the existing fans while also expanding the base of support to include casuals.

1) Extended tutorial for newbies that you can easily opt-out from if you want to do so. Include advanced optional tutorials that teach you how to parry, riposte, back stab. Also when, how, and where to roll. When, how, and where to attack. Point out the fact that blocking slows down stamina regen. Also make it so that newbies that stupidly skip the advanced tutorials have a menu option that allows them to retake those tutorials selectively (depending on what skill they need to hone, or what feature they need to learn about).

2) Extended near-end-game and end-game PvE content with increasingly difficult monsters and bosses relative to previous Souls games. That way, once the existing "hardcore" fans make it through 50-75% of the game, they really hit a brand new difficulty wall that didn't exist in previous Souls games. Reward players for making it into that higher end tier of PvE difficulty by saving the best scenery/views, atmosphere, and lore for those higher difficulty zones. Example: Being able to see the view of ash lake from the part of tomb of giants shortly before Nito. Being able to see lost izalith (or was it demon ruins?) from the first bonfire of tomb of giants. Epic views stuff like that.

3) And just a random wish of my own. Make the start-up logo screens skippable, and continue to make the cinematic cut scenes skippable. Granted, you can mod in the start-up logo screen skip for PC version, as many of us PC players have, but it'd be nice if it was built-in to start with.

ianhamilton_ wrote:...

Well, Ian, perhaps I am one of those developers then, because I have a strong habit of using the term that way. Maybe a different term to convey what Shibuya is intending would suffice?

Either way, I find it quite comical that nobody here, including me, was actually using the term "accessibility" accurately. Of course, I was a little closer to its correctness, but still so far off that I'm perpetuating the same amount of confusion that already exists regarding this term. Thanks for clarifying.

Despite this, none of it really changes my arguments that much. It just requires me to find a different term to represent them, LOL.

Whatever the correct term should be, and whatever FROM plans on doing to the game, as long as it doesn't significantly impact the experience of those who don't want it (like me), then I'm willing to be flexible enough to accept those changes.

ComaPrison wrote:

Sloth9230 wrote:Once you learn the basic controls theirs not much left to learn though, all you can really do is refine your own skill. Or is their something specific your referring to? Cause new guys would still need to learn when to roll, when to parry, and all that other jazz.

Here are some solutions to DS2 game design that may satisfy both the existing fans while also expanding the base of support to include casuals.

1) Extended tutorial for newbies that you can easily opt-out from if you want to do so.

2) Extended near-end-game and end-game PvE content with increasingly difficult monsters and bosses relative to previous Souls games. That way, once the existing "hardcore" fans make it through 50-75% of the game, they really hit a brand new difficulty wall that didn't exist in previous Souls games.

3) And just a random wish. Make the start-up logo screens skippable, and continue to make the cinematic cut scenes skippable. Granted, you can mod in the start-up logo screen skip for PC version, as many of us PC players have, but it'd be nice if it was built-in to start with.

Now, you're talking. Some good ideas there.

MasterofShadows wrote:

ComaPrison wrote:

Sloth9230 wrote:Once you learn the basic controls theirs not much left to learn though, all you can really do is refine your own skill. Or is their something specific your referring to? Cause new guys would still need to learn when to roll, when to parry, and all that other jazz.

Here are some solutions to DS2 game design that may satisfy both the existing fans while also expanding the base of support to include casuals.

1) Extended tutorial for newbies that you can easily opt-out from if you want to do so.

2) Extended near-end-game and end-game PvE content with increasingly difficult monsters and bosses relative to previous Souls games. That way, once the existing "hardcore" fans make it through 50-75% of the game, they really hit a brand new difficulty wall that didn't exist in previous Souls games.

3) And just a random wish. Make the start-up logo screens skippable, and continue to make the cinematic cut scenes skippable. Granted, you can mod in the start-up logo screen skip for PC version, as many of us PC players have, but it'd be nice if it was built-in to start with.

Now, you're talking. Some good ideas there.

I made some major edits as well, worth seeing.

Acarnatia wrote:I welcome a better tutorial level. I'm only concerned with what they mean by the game being accessible after that-such as lowering difficulty or generalizing the game. The tutorial was really ineffective for Dark. It was not good that I had to look online to discover what poise is-that should have been explained in the tutorial. Past that, I think it's open enough.

Indeed. If they're going to lower the bar at the beginning (which would help get the newbies hooked), they need to make it up to us serious fans by raising the difficulty to even NEWER heights after the 50% mark. If the bar is lowered across the board so that the newbies get to experience the end-game content without having been honed into significantly better players along the way, then they've killed the series.

Pressing select in the stat screen tells you what poise is (and every other stat) just like the indictments warn of the concequences of sin. Its there, you just had to look. No sympathy in either case.

Forum Pirate wrote:Pressing select in the stat screen tells you what poise is (and every other stat) just like the indictments warn of the concequences of sin. Its there, you just had to look. No sympathy in either case.

And would telling them that in a tutorial instead of having to read the menu not make it more accessible? And the descrption on stats sucks, when does the game ever tell you about diminishing returns, or how scaling works? hell, just include all this info in the dam booklet that comes with the game, that's what most games do.

And great idea's comna, I'd up-rep you though it seems I can only do it once a day.

It doesn't tell you about diminishing returns (as it shouldn't) and You can see your ar go up with appropriately placed levels so you can see scaling and diminishing returns at work if you pay attention.

Most games are not dark souls. If you don't take the initative to learn, you don't deserve to advance. Thats why the game withholds information.

The games attitude (and mine) in this instance is: "step up or step off."

If you don't like it, there are other games made for you. There are actually more of them than there are demanding games like the soul series. I quite enjoy them to, I can't tell you how much fun I have with saints row and bayonetta and NFS.

I can tell you thats not what I want or expect from the soul series. If I'm not confused and scared and quite possibly lost then its not doing its job, the reason many (i'd say most if I could prove it) players bought it in the first place.

The way I see it, having someone die because they don't understand or know about a mechanic is fake difficulty. If they simply can't perform the action even though it's already been explained to them(stupid roll backstabs) then that's different. But the game should at least make sure that players understand the basics before letting them move on, and that's something dark souls failed at.

Some people go through the entire game almost exclusively because of phantoms. Those people didn't earn the right to get to new game plus, where they'll probably do the same thing again.

They should just make a mini gwyn be the tutorial boss, that'll make sure noobs know how to parry.


EDit: and I certainly hope they don't point out traps, then my first expierince would be completely ruined :|

Another Edit: I just raid this "There likely won't be a tutorial, but instead limited abilities until players complete an instance that will feel like the Dark Souls game we all know and love."

Now I'm worried. Oh well, I got over DmC changing the way Dante looks, I can get over this too! I hope...

Asylum demon.

The game doesn't care wether or not you know what you need to, or it would have help messages in the loading screens. It simply isseues an untimatum: figure it out.

Some people look online for help to, if they must be cheap about it nobody can stop it. That doesn't mean the experience should be compromised for the rest of us. In fact, imo, it means they shouldn't compromise because the less determined will cheapen their experience anyways where the determined will soldier on.

Forum Pirate wrote:Asylum demon.

The game doesn't care wether or not you know what you need to, or it would have help messages in the loading screens. It simply isseues an untimatum: figure it out.

Some people look online for help to, if they must be cheap about it nobody can stop it. That doesn't mean the experience should be compromised for the rest of us. In fact, imo, it means they shouldn't compromise because the less determined will cheapen their experience anyways where the determined will soldier on.

Correction, the game didn't care

ianhamilton_ wrote:Also allowing sticks to be swapped, for left handed gamers.

I had to laugh hard at the thought of left handed people doing this. I'm left handed and I would be unable to play this way round as my hand memory is just too established to work right handed. It's the same for other stuff like I use my right hand mainly for playing notes on a piano, or I can only feel comfortable playing a right handed guitar, but I can only use left handed clubs when playing golf.

Sloth9230 wrote:And would telling them that in a tutorial instead of having to read the menu not make it more accessible?

It's bad if the approach to doing it is to make it mandatory for everyone, especially to the core fan base with their set skills. The new director talked about limiting options for the first part of the game. Getting to the gargoyles is technically the first part of DkS so are we going to get limited options like very few weapons, armour and routes to choose from, so newbies don't rage quit because they chose to go to the catacombs instead of looking around and figuring out what is the first intended route? To veteran's, the option to freely go anywhere from the minute you hit firelink is a very important to the replayability and challenge of DkS. This is what could be sacrificed, to have options like this removed so new players don't get put off from continuing. This is how accessibility is expressed in games or at least marketed, regardless of the fact what it was supposed to mean before hand.

Just hope and pray that the master key comes back, it's all we can do now.

Edit: That's it, I'm brilliant! Just add a very hard enemy that only someone with decent skills could beat, if they beat him then they get a master key. If not, then it's off to the nexus with you!