Hi folks,
I've wanted to make this thread for some time because it relates to many discussions I see taking place on Restera and other gaming forums. I think that some of the conversations that we're having surrounding games and accessibility are a little limited and I wanted to use this thread to open up a wider discussion about inclusive game design.
An area of discussion that I think I important, but under explored in conversation on communities like this, is the distinction between accessibility and enablement, and particularly what that means in the context of games.
Games as a distinct inclusivity challenge
The first thing I think that is important to highlight is that games offer a distinct challenge for inclusivity because they often have many purposes. Historically, a lot of work has focused on areas like web accessibility where the users goals are pragmatic, they need to get x information out of the system and the designers will try to provide accessibility tools to help the player accomplish those experiences.
However in games, alongside those pragmatic (functional) goals, games most frequently feature hedonic (enjoyment) and eudemonic (meaning) elements.
Games require players understand the systems and are able to get information out of them but they also intend to deliver an experience that elicits a sense of pleasure for players. And many games also seek to have long-term meaning, with content like video game narratives seeking to change the way players think and feel about particular topics, and resonate with players in the long-term.
So in order for a game to be truly inclusive, video game players need to be provided with both access so that they can theoretically use the systems featured in the game, but also enabled so that these players are able to realise the games experiential goals (which may be hedonic and or eudemonic).
Enablement vs Access in Context
In real terms, this means if games really want to be inclusive, playable by everyone, then they need to go beyond features that only provide access to the system, and include features which enable players to accomplish their hedonic goals. As an example I want to use Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuelled.
Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuelled is a an arcade racer targeting a wide range of audiences, and the original game is one of my favourite childhood titles. Yet, it's a game that I don't feel is very inclusive, both for reasons of accessibility, and enablement too.
On the access side of things, Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuelled lacks features like custom control remapping. Custom button remapping means that some players simply won't be able to play, for instance a player who only has control of one half of the controller due to disability, won't be able to steer and accelerate at the same time.
But on the enablement side of its design, you also have some very punishing track design which can make the game difficult to enjoy if you're not able to operate the game as quickly or efficiently as other players.
To provide an explicit example, Hotair Skyway (pictured above) is not a track we can enjoy when I play Crash Team Racing with my mum. She can't stay on the track, she can't keep up with the AI. Even when the AI is placed on easy mode the game isn't successful in enabling her to have the same hedonic experiences that my sister and I have when playing the game. The experience isn't inclusive.
The Mario Kart series actually tackles this issue in a number of ways. Engine classes let you modify the overall race speed, making turns approach you less quickly and becoming more manageable. While a driving assist option gives players a little bit of assistance in staying on the track.
Another example that I quite like is the bowling alley scenario. This too is a game, but a real world one. Bowling alleys often offer 'gutter guards' so that players can experience the game in a positive way even if they'll don't have enough power to throw the ball. Does it make the game easier and significantly alter it's design? Absolutely, but it doesn't detract from the experience of anyone that is playing without the guards and it provides a means in which players who can't aim the ball in a straight line (due to a motor disability, a cognitive impairment, or any other reason) can have an experience of bowling that isn't absolutely terrible.
If you're interested in reading more about accessibility, enablement and inclusion there's a neat HCI paper that centres on this discussion on the link below.
https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~pcairns/pubs/Power_ThirdWave_18.pdf
Options are optional
I think this is where the discussion can become a little bit stunted, because it's easy to see how a feature like Mario kart's driving assist affects the overall design of the game. It's not just about providing access, but changing how players interact with the game, how it is played, the challenge it poses, even the routes the player can take on the track.
However if you backtrack to the experience that the designers want players to get from the game, the feelings they want players to feel during play, these features enable someone like my mother to have an experience of the game that's much more closely aligned with that of my sister and I, she can experience the whole race from start to finish, and she gets to have a fair chance at beating at least some of the AI.
Additionally, to provide a brief note about options, the inclusion of options and features that enable inclusive player experiences does not take away from the experience of any other player. My mum playing Uncharted 4 on the easiest difficulty with all of the accessibility options enabled does not take anything away from me for completing the game on the hardest setting. I love that she has been able to get an experience of that game that's somewhat close to my own.
Disability as a social construct
I think something that's important to bear in mind when opening the space for this conversation is that disability is widely considered a social construct. People aren't inherently disabled, instead the disability manifests from the result of a mismatch between the users capability and the expected interaction.
Broadly speaking, I do not consider myself disabled, but when playing standing VR games my untreated scoliosis can make the game experience quite painful after a little while. Plus, I'm not quite as flexible as everyone else so the speed and range of movement expected in some titles inherently makes things more difficult. In those experiences, the presence of difficulty options enables me to re-align the games expectations of the user (me) in such a way that I can have the types of experiences expected by the games designers. Difficulty options (and many other techniques that adjust the games design) help enable players and therefore, create inclusive player experiences.
This idea of disability as a social construct emphasises why I think that inclusive design is so important within games, because within this space we have an opportunity to ensure that as many as possible can share our experiences.
Key points and guidance for discussion (TLDR)
I've wanted to make this thread for some time because it relates to many discussions I see taking place on Restera and other gaming forums. I think that some of the conversations that we're having surrounding games and accessibility are a little limited and I wanted to use this thread to open up a wider discussion about inclusive game design.
An area of discussion that I think I important, but under explored in conversation on communities like this, is the distinction between accessibility and enablement, and particularly what that means in the context of games.
Games as a distinct inclusivity challenge
The first thing I think that is important to highlight is that games offer a distinct challenge for inclusivity because they often have many purposes. Historically, a lot of work has focused on areas like web accessibility where the users goals are pragmatic, they need to get x information out of the system and the designers will try to provide accessibility tools to help the player accomplish those experiences.
However in games, alongside those pragmatic (functional) goals, games most frequently feature hedonic (enjoyment) and eudemonic (meaning) elements.
Games require players understand the systems and are able to get information out of them but they also intend to deliver an experience that elicits a sense of pleasure for players. And many games also seek to have long-term meaning, with content like video game narratives seeking to change the way players think and feel about particular topics, and resonate with players in the long-term.
So in order for a game to be truly inclusive, video game players need to be provided with both access so that they can theoretically use the systems featured in the game, but also enabled so that these players are able to realise the games experiential goals (which may be hedonic and or eudemonic).
Enablement vs Access in Context
In real terms, this means if games really want to be inclusive, playable by everyone, then they need to go beyond features that only provide access to the system, and include features which enable players to accomplish their hedonic goals. As an example I want to use Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuelled.
Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuelled is a an arcade racer targeting a wide range of audiences, and the original game is one of my favourite childhood titles. Yet, it's a game that I don't feel is very inclusive, both for reasons of accessibility, and enablement too.
On the access side of things, Crash Team Racing Nitro Fuelled lacks features like custom control remapping. Custom button remapping means that some players simply won't be able to play, for instance a player who only has control of one half of the controller due to disability, won't be able to steer and accelerate at the same time.
But on the enablement side of its design, you also have some very punishing track design which can make the game difficult to enjoy if you're not able to operate the game as quickly or efficiently as other players.
To provide an explicit example, Hotair Skyway (pictured above) is not a track we can enjoy when I play Crash Team Racing with my mum. She can't stay on the track, she can't keep up with the AI. Even when the AI is placed on easy mode the game isn't successful in enabling her to have the same hedonic experiences that my sister and I have when playing the game. The experience isn't inclusive.
The Mario Kart series actually tackles this issue in a number of ways. Engine classes let you modify the overall race speed, making turns approach you less quickly and becoming more manageable. While a driving assist option gives players a little bit of assistance in staying on the track.
Another example that I quite like is the bowling alley scenario. This too is a game, but a real world one. Bowling alleys often offer 'gutter guards' so that players can experience the game in a positive way even if they'll don't have enough power to throw the ball. Does it make the game easier and significantly alter it's design? Absolutely, but it doesn't detract from the experience of anyone that is playing without the guards and it provides a means in which players who can't aim the ball in a straight line (due to a motor disability, a cognitive impairment, or any other reason) can have an experience of bowling that isn't absolutely terrible.
If you're interested in reading more about accessibility, enablement and inclusion there's a neat HCI paper that centres on this discussion on the link below.
https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~pcairns/pubs/Power_ThirdWave_18.pdf
Options are optional
I think this is where the discussion can become a little bit stunted, because it's easy to see how a feature like Mario kart's driving assist affects the overall design of the game. It's not just about providing access, but changing how players interact with the game, how it is played, the challenge it poses, even the routes the player can take on the track.
However if you backtrack to the experience that the designers want players to get from the game, the feelings they want players to feel during play, these features enable someone like my mother to have an experience of the game that's much more closely aligned with that of my sister and I, she can experience the whole race from start to finish, and she gets to have a fair chance at beating at least some of the AI.
Additionally, to provide a brief note about options, the inclusion of options and features that enable inclusive player experiences does not take away from the experience of any other player. My mum playing Uncharted 4 on the easiest difficulty with all of the accessibility options enabled does not take anything away from me for completing the game on the hardest setting. I love that she has been able to get an experience of that game that's somewhat close to my own.
Disability as a social construct
I think something that's important to bear in mind when opening the space for this conversation is that disability is widely considered a social construct. People aren't inherently disabled, instead the disability manifests from the result of a mismatch between the users capability and the expected interaction.
Broadly speaking, I do not consider myself disabled, but when playing standing VR games my untreated scoliosis can make the game experience quite painful after a little while. Plus, I'm not quite as flexible as everyone else so the speed and range of movement expected in some titles inherently makes things more difficult. In those experiences, the presence of difficulty options enables me to re-align the games expectations of the user (me) in such a way that I can have the types of experiences expected by the games designers. Difficulty options (and many other techniques that adjust the games design) help enable players and therefore, create inclusive player experiences.
This idea of disability as a social construct emphasises why I think that inclusive design is so important within games, because within this space we have an opportunity to ensure that as many as possible can share our experiences.
Key points and guidance for discussion (TLDR)
- I think when thinking about inclusive design, we should also be thinking about both accessibility, but enablement too. It's often the case that I see users talk about inclusive design as if it's only limited to surface level access, but I think within the context of games we have to go beyond that to enable players to have similar experiences (see discussion above).
- Feel free talk about any nice features that you've seen in games that you think 'enable players. I think more recent titles like The Last of Us Part 2 and Assassins Creed Valhala have some especially good options.
- I think it's important to think of disability as a social construct, and when framed in that way, games are a powerful opportunity to make people less commonly disabled, through inclusive design.
- In my opinion, we should have an inclusive design OT of some kind, where players can openly talk about accessibility issues and ask others about those elements of the games. I think having more and more players drive discussions about these subjects helps remind developers that inclusive design is important to players. I would think this would serve a similar purpose to the threads about representation in games.
- For this discussion, I would like to avoid talking about Dark Souls. It feels every accessibility discussion gravitates to that, but there are so many more games out there that also need to improve.
Last edited: