• Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    21 days ago

    Sure, a complex difficulty system that the user can tweak is nicer to have. But making the player take more hits to kill is pretty simple and could be argued as an accessibility feature.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      How exactly is that an accessibility feature…? No seriously I sound like I’m being shitty (and that’s because in a small way I am, this conversation is deeply personally insulting) but I’m really curious why this is being considered accessibility when what we’re doing, the actual push for accessibility in gaming, is all things like allowing people to access the games not coddling people to where they have to have their own special extra-easy game modes.

      Things like support for 3rd party controllers, key rebinding, compatibility with external sound processing equipment, video setting adjustment (remove particle effects or other visual noise, colorblind modes, onscreen hilighting) are all the things we’re actually fighting for broad inclusion into videogames. Mandatory godmode isn’t, and it’s so dumb that it sounds like some kind of philosophical false-flag dreamed up by the conservatives to discredit the concept of disability accommodation in general…

    • Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      You have to test each difficulty setting multiplicating testing time and therefore costs. It is a financial balancing act on how more money to spend in development and how much more money with additional sales.

      Cost of development of easy mode is direct, ready to calculate and high, but to calculate how many more sales thanks to easy mode were done is very hard

      So why bother?