next »

[TwilightVulpine]

I am under the impression that accessibility in games is undervalued. Either by those who believe it is responsible by shallow gameplay or by the developers that actually make the gameplay shallow for accessibility. That is, when it's even taken on account.

Still, it is important. I don't think we should create a barrier of entry if we can avoid it. Recent games, particularly 3D games, are often fairly complicated even in its basic controls if you are not used to gaming. While in these cases some effort by the player is fundamental, we should avoid overwhelming them with excessive complexity all at once.

What are your opinions on accessibility? How it is possible to make a game accessible without giving up complexity? What are examples of good accessible games?

[Seth]

I don't think accessibility is undervalued--for example, look at all the people who complain about Dwarf Fortress.  I think what gamers complain about when they complain about too much accessibility is, as you said, the tendency for developers to create shallow gameplay.  I guess the best example I can think of is how the newer Zeldas seem so accessible that they seem boring to me. 

I used to think everything should be accessible to everyone, but not so much anymore.  I don't think there's anything wrong with making a "gamer's game" just like I don't think there was anything wrong with Pynchon writing Gravity's Rainbow.  People have different levels of literacy, and not every experience can be given on the most accessible level.  There are different joys each type of game can give.  You can make Dwarf Fortress more accessible, most definitely, but I don't think it will ever be extremely accessible without losing something.  Make accessible games, but also make more complicated games for more game-literate people, or for when the less saavy gamers become better equipped. 

[s0]

or by the developers that actually make the gameplay shallow for accessibility. That is, when it's even taken on account.

Wouldn't that be overvaluing accessibility? And I think accessibility is extremely important for a lot of newer AAA mainstream games. They have tutorials all over the place, "handholding" mechanics and even built-in "cheating", like New Super Mario Bros. Wii. If that's not accessibility, what is it then? I think a lot of games these days are designed with the idea that they could be the player's entry into the medium.

Also, there's nothing wrong with casual or "entry-level" games, but I have to agree with Seth, there's nothing wrong with "gamer's games" either. And I stand by my assertion from the other thread that not every game can be accessible. No amount of interface polish is ever going to turn Dwarf Fortress into Peggle.

[eclectocrat]

Accessibility, or interface design is my obsession, so I definitely think it is underrated.

You tickled my rant bone, so here goes...

Games involve both mental models and physical models, or game and interface. They both play in integral role in how we react to a game playing session. Some people like classic fantasy and also like contemplating physical conflict, especially spectacularly violent combat, perhaps as some sort of catharsis of their anger towards people who bullied them (or maybe not, who knows?). So a game with a mental model that includes orcish warriors and elven mages in violent combat may appeal to these people. Some people enjoy platformers requiring sharp reflexes, others like puzzle games, yet others enjoy word games, or even sexually themed games. Different strokes for different folks.

Why exactly people enjoy games is something that psychologists and mathematicians can unravel. For most indie developers, I think we can agree that an intuitive grasp of fun is usually sufficient for our design purposes (As an aside, some major developers invest in psychological research on games, including such cute fuzzy topics like compulsion/addictiveness and social hierarchy displays). Just looking at all the topics on Tigforums about "dream games", it's pretty obvious that we don't have a very hard time imagining the outline of a mental model for "fun" games.

Now we come to the second critical design ingredient, interface. As human beings, we have limited attention, visual focus, can hold a finite number of datas in our conscious mind concurrently, and are subject to a whole host of susceptibilities; to stress, frustration and fatigue (mental and physical). We, as game designers, aught to take these into account. Now, just like the mental model can often be designed from the gut, some people are able to intuitively design a 'good' interface, it goes both ways. This whole post betrays my bias in that I gloss over the mental model and go bananas over the interface, but that's because I am comfortable with my intuitively dreamed up game concept. Only feedback will validate or destroy that comfort.

So, go ahead, take 10 seconds to come up with a really fun game concept in your head, something that you would love to play. I can think of at least a half dozen interesting games that I would pay for, it's easy. The next level, the physical model of interaction, just doesn't enter into most peoples dreams, and the behind the scenes level of actual implementation in code and assets is usually totally ignored by players.

So in summary, yes, accessibility is underrated, because it doesn't enter into most peoples design process until rather late. It's almost always dominated by the mental model that tickles childhood associations of fun, mystery and adventure.

PS. This is not an endorsement for sacrificing the game concept for the interface. Like most things in life, a delicate balance can be reached, but you must be aware of what you're balancing before you can do it effectively.

PPS. Mental model and physical model are pretty lame terms, and there is a lot of overlap and entangling, I just can't think of a better way to express myself now. Sorry.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

First off, I think this a fascinating question. I can see both sides of the argument, although I tend to sway towards the belief that accessibility is important.

I think it is very important for first-time developers to get to grips with making their games accessible. This was something I learnt the hard way, as most of my early games were barely playable because they weren't clear enough, or because they didn't make it obvious what was going on. Perhaps these days I'm overcompensating for my past shortcomings. But I also like the idea of trying to get people who wouldn't normally play games to enjoy my work - it's a fun design challenge. If my mum enjoys playing one of my games, or if a 5-year-old cousin does, then I feel quite proud of myself.

Accessibility isn't about hand-holding, and I think that's where some developers drop the ball. To me, accessibility is about offering clarity: explaining the game rules in simple and obvious ways, and giving clear feedback for all actions and decisions, so it's easy for the player to learn how to play. Accessibility to me is also about avoiding punishing the player. VVVVVV and Super Meat Boy, with their fast and frequent respawns, are great at giving the player another shot if they fail a challenge. That kind of accessibility is what allows these games to be so challenging, without being frustrating.

These kind of design decisions aren't integral to the game designs, but they allow these designs to be enjoyed without frustration. That said, I can see the arguments for it being given too much importance. But to me, a good game design is fairly simple, and the complexity develops naturally as it goes on. That's just what I prefer. And for these simple games, it's very easy to make these accessible with a little bit of effort.

How it is possible to make a game accessible without giving up complexity? What are examples of good accessible games?

SIMPLEX! I'm a great believer in games which are based around simple concepts, but to which complex strategies emerge as you get into them. I don't know if there's an existing word for that, so I like to call it "simplex".  Go is a simplex game, as the rules behind it are very simple, but it can be played at an incredibly high level through use of complex strategies. Poker and bridge are also simplex.

Puyo Pop Fever and Puzzle Fighter are very easy to learn, but have so many complex strategies that can emerge from them. Super Smash Bros. is another - it's very easy for people to pick up and play, the controls are pretty simple (two buttons and four directions to press), and yet there's this high-level competitive scene, with detailed strategies for different characters and stages. Super Monkey Ball is incredibly accessible, as you just use the control stick to roll your guy around. The opening levels are very easy, but it gets very hard by the end, offering a smooth and challenging path from beginner to expert.

[s0]

SIMPLEX! I'm a great believer in games which are based around simple concepts, but to which complex strategies emerge as you get into them. I don't know if there's an existing word for that, so I like to call it "simplex".  Go is a simplex game, as the rules behind it are very simple, but it can be played at an incredibly high level through use of complex strategies. Poker and bridge are also simplex.  

I call that "depth".  

I think depth is ultimately more important than complexity. A game that's complex doesn't necessarily have to be deep (I can't think of any examples right now, but I'm sure they exist).

However, I also think complexity and lack of accessibility have their own charm. Personally, I like a lot of micromanage-y strategy games like Dwarf Fortress, Europa Universalis, The Settlers etc, probably because I live right next to Germany, where these type of games are extremely popular. Having complete, detailed control over a complex system is something I find fun.

Also, I enjoy games that don't have in-game instructions or tutorials and don't do much to "ease" the player into the game. For me, discovering and exploring the rules on my own is part of the experience of playing games.

I'd say something about having lots of checkpoints to minimize frustration as well, but I'll save it for later. I don't wanna turn this into a wall of text.
 

[Alistair Aitcheson]

Also, I enjoy games that don't have in-game instructions or tutorials and don't do much to "ease" the player into the game. For me, discovering and exploring the rules on my own is part of the experience of playing games.

That's quite an interesting thought. Grasping a complicated set of rules can be quite satisfying once you get the hang of it. I guess it's just like learning to program in a way   But I don't find the learning process enjoyable most of the time, and I often give up when I ask myself if it's worth it.

On the other hand, with simplex/deep games ("simplex" sounds more cool ) there's a certain beauty about them that I admire. Like a good mathematical proof...  

I tend to feel that learning rules isn't very fun, but developing strategies is. Rules have the feeling that they've ben arbitratily designed by some guy. You need to read the creator's mind somewhat to understand them, and I don't enjoy that because it feels quite artificial, or like a chore. Once you understand the rules you can start developing strategies to play the game well. And that takes creativity and imagination, and you're free to approach things however you want. I find that way of thinking a lot more enjoyable. So to me, making the rules-learning process as simple as possible makes it easy to get to the bit I tend to enjoy most.

I'd say something about having lots of checkpoints to minimize frustration as well, but I'll save it for later. I don't wanna turn this into a wall of text.
 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this

[eclectocrat]

How it is possible to make a game accessible without giving up complexity? What are examples of good accessible games?

Good question.

I am from an ancient era, so my picks might not resonate. Also please remember the context in which they were released, they were really unique for their time.

Ultima 7 and 8 - double click something, (a) something happens or (b) a target appears, double click something else, something happens. Dozens of game mechanics were expressed this way. The 4 different U8 magic systems were not even distinct from the item use system, just extensions. I was awed by the sorcery system of charging items in pentagrams.

Diablo 1 - click = attack, move, open, cast spell, talk, go up/down stairs. Throw in some badly placed hotkeys and presto, my little brother was playing like a champ when he was 7. No one is going to give Diablo an award for depth and complexity, but it managed to make dungeon crawling fast paced and accessible with 2 mouse buttons.

Zelda 64 - the first 3d game in which I could actually control my character (I'm old at heart). In comparison to other 3rd person (and many first person) games of the time the interface was simpler and far less frustrating, and the game maintained decent depth.

Granted, (aside from the ultima interface, perhaps) these interfaces could probably never scale to handle a game like DF, but I think it's more accurate to think of DF in terms multiple interface modes instead of a single modeless interface, like the above mentioned games.

What other games stand out?

[TwilightVulpine]

Wouldn't that be overvaluing accessibility? And I think accessibility is extremely important for a lot of newer AAA mainstream games. They have tutorials all over the place, "handholding" mechanics and even built-in "cheating", like New Super Mario Bros. Wii. If that's not accessibility, what is it then? I think a lot of games these days are designed
with the idea that they could be the player's entry into the medium.

I don't think so. By making the gameplay shallow, the creators aren't putting effort on accessibility, but rather dodging the issue. In the same building analogy, it would be like if, instead of building a stair or an elevator to the upper floors, they were removed altogether. You could say everything is accessible, but it doesn't mean accessibility actually received any real thought. The same goes for self-playing games, they aren't enabling the player to play.

Tutorials are good, as long as they are integrated to normal gameplay. When they aren't, they are likely to feel like an obstacle between the player and the game. On-demand cues and hints usually seem better than detailed explanation, unless there is a lot of context-sensitive actions and complex combinations.

[Ego_Shiner]

i agree that some games are meant to be accessible and others meant to be "gamer's games"
if you wanted someone to get into reading fantasy, you will give them a simple, attractive novel like one of the narnia books, not the simarillion. this doesn't mean complex, difficult books are bad, it just means you have to be at a certain reading level in order to appreciate them. games like viewtiful joe and tvc started out feeling oppressive and complex, but as i persevered and mastered the necessary mechanics they became unrivaled experiences and some of my favourite games ever.

[gimymblert]

Old game: simple control, deep gameplay
New game: complicate control, shallow gameplay
modern accessibility: simple control, shallow gameplay

It's an over generalization, and mostly limited to action game. But it's true in like 90% case

At first I said that as a joke, then I realize WHY it wass true: Most tutorial focus on teaching control instead of gameplay.

I have a simple mnemonic to classify control in game: the head, the hand and the feet.

The head is accessing information
The feet is navigating options
the hand is interacting

Game control are literally map with this in mind
the head is the right stick/mouse
The feet is Dpad/left stick/arrow/wasd(QSDZ)
The hand is button/zc(wx)

First games only had the player to control feet and hand, the head was a single screen. Once scrolling (head) was there it was also controlled by feet. The game was 2D so was the control, that's easy to see in their name or their descriptor like "run'n gun" or hop and bop, it was the "feet + hand" format.

Once 3D was born, suddenly you had a new dimension and had to care about "look" INDEPENDENTLY as the head. In mario 64, who defined the first correct camera controls, it was literally a second character and in term of interface it really is, you control two characters at the same time! Game became more complicate to play as "head" is an important function, it convey the feedback you need to play a game (through decision (feet) and acting (hand)). In contrast to the 2D format of descriptor, now you have 3 terms for a genre like FPS (run, aim, shoot) that follow the exact head/feet/hand format.

Look at a game like halo, to move and aim while jumping you need 3 hands! Jumping is an important action to both navigate and access information. Fortunately flip buttons act like a 3rd hand but games still use heavily faceplate button that share a thumb with the right stick, that make 4 hands total needed to cover all situations!

Old game used to overload function on buttons too, "moving" for example was often "picking", that made hand and feet correlate. Control responsibility was also held by the level through context and affordance. In pac man, you don't have a "go wild" button, you have super pills, it make interacting with the world more complex and more meaningful, in pac man everything is handle through "feet" leaving very simple controls and yet the game is deep enough. Even a game like doom had a lot of affordance (picking was moving too there). Modern game have a button dedicate to picking, reducing the meaning of space and gameplay opportunity, how many times on an old game you had to navigate around an undesirable item while keeping a good position to fight enemy? How about collectible? not only they were indirect hand (to buy life or other things later) they also helpt as non intrusive and rewarding hint system for players, they give importance to space and decision.

By reducing head to a single screen it emphasis perception while scrolling introduce a bit more memory and permanent world forced player to keep a global scale understanding of the world. Global scale was achievable because the simple presentation was clear and readable, so temporary obfuscation of information was good and manageable or even desirable. 3D and increasing realism introduce muddy art with chaos and ambiguity, a trade off over readability, they have also more complex interface and button mapping that take all the cognitive load leaving little to process the gameplay. It precipitate simpler and shallower gameplay were the challenge is mostly the control and the readability of the game (80% of player played arkham asylum with detective mode always enable) as almost a necessity, without anticipation and with less meaningful space, modern game are timing based with convincing but random pop up (ai is a dress up!).

Global scale gameplay also made more sense when the world is the interface instead of the pad, navigating, backtracking, exploring is meaningful because you have things to do, place are action moving is a decision. A game like Super mario bros is the embodiment of the world interface paradigm, every interaction depend on that: power ups move and modify dynamically chokepoint, being big and small mean navigating the world vastly differently, and what about OMG turtle shell! You can't even turn back. By contrast mario galaxy is very "local scale" based and change of state carry very little onto the next point of the map, each planet is a far call of single screen gameplay. Mario 64 is the first full global scale mario as it demand to keep a global model of a level.

Look a casual game, and you can see how they come back to more manageable controls with a big focus on hand rather than head or feet. Bejeweld, hidden object or escape the room game just remove head and feet problematics to focus entirely on the meat of "doing" (hand). The two latter genre are also prototypical adventure game reduced to the bare-bone of the genre (literally pixel hunting) and element of global scaleness like inventory, map and multiple room are absent or greatly tone down. That does not make these game necessarily less deep but certainly less complex. A game like Heavy rain is also interesting because it tried to reduce complexity (and freeing presentation) by toning down head and feet, for emphasis on hand, in fashion very similar in spirit to old game, making hand contextual and tied to the world through affordance.

Bringing back simple "hand" and toning down "feet" and "head" is also a trend we see coming back, whether by the revival of old format (2D platformer like NSMB, DKCR or epic yarn) or new format that simply toss modern convention (wii sport, metroid other m, mario galaxy, sonic unleashed). Maybe the future of game is based on how we master the balancing of the 3 layer of control, something where head is shinier than ever while being spot on about information convey to player, where feet is reduce to only meaningful and higly contextual navigation for nuanced acquisition and where world are richer not because thousand of direct action mapped on controller but simple nuanced control based on affordance and context? Some game like ninja gaiden DS got more control with simpler interface when they switched from pad to touch screen, there is certainly hope.

[jwk5]

Ninja Gaiden 2 for the XBOX360 and PS3... T-they gave you... *sniffle* ...regenerating... *fights back tears* ...R-REGENERATING HEALTH!!!

Somebody please, please tell Team Ninja there is a difference between creating accessibility and watering down the game play that made the game awesome in the first place!

But seriously, nothing sucks worse when a challenge gets neutered to make the game "friendlier" or more "accessible" (especially considering that it then becomes less accessible to someone looking for a real challenge). Not every game needs to be a game of low to moderate difficulty. You're not really climbing the mountain if they gave you a helicopter...

[AaronLee]

I don't think so. By making the gameplay shallow, the creators aren't putting effort on accessibility, but rather dodging the issue. In the same building analogy, it would be like if, instead of building a stair or an elevator to the upper floors, they were removed altogether. You could say everything is accessible, but it doesn't mean accessibility actually received any real thought. The same goes for self-playing games, they aren't enabling the player to play.

Tutorials are good, as long as they are integrated to normal gameplay. When they aren't, they are likely to feel like an obstacle between the player and the game. On-demand cues and hints usually seem better than detailed explanation, unless there is a lot of context-sensitive actions and complex combinations.

First off; sorry for the necro but tutorials are on my mind since I'm wracking my brain over my game's own.

I don't think we should confuse shallowness for accessibility. Modern games like portal are essentially one giant extended tutorial elaborating on its unconventional puzzle mechanics. So a well integrated tutorial (or as Tvtropes calls it, a justified tutorial as it fits the setting's continuity) that fits the world but, most importantly, the solid gameplay of the game proper should never be underestimated.

I think we can make any game much more accessible by just having some simple design allowances. Take most modern SHMUPS, SHMUP-dev.com et al. Take White Butterfly as an example. Start game. Okay a menu. Select new game. Enter. That didn't work. Uhhh, Q? E? Z? X? Damn.

These are sort of facedesk fixes that would help on a simple, intrinsic level. I added a little, colorful tooltip beside my new menu system describing all of the navigation and select controls (the menus are nested and a bit funky so it was more necessarily.) It doesn't detract or stand between the player and their game, it's just there, cycling through explanations next to the cursor unobtrusively.

[baconman]

That is absolutely fine. I don't mind a game that tells me what buttons to focus on, in a context like that. If anything, that's the GOOD kind of tutorial. The opening screen from "The Binding Of Issac" does the same sort of thing, it just explains all of the controls from the get-go, besides using pills or tarot cards, and even those appear in a little bubble with "Q" written right beside it.

That exact sort of thing is what one should be like.