Submitted 10 months ago by ViscloReader@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
I’m talking about something like setting starting percentages on smash bros.
Things that put you (or your foes) at disadvantage for a more fair game with your friends.
What do you think about it? What are some good/bad implementations?
I think it would be hard to argue that having more accessibility options would be bad.
It is all to easy to miss the immense benefits of accommodating accessibility for those of us who don’t need them though.
Most people would generally agree that NASA working on the hard problems of going into space has benefited a wide variety of industries and sciences that aren’t directly related to space travel. Most people would generally agree that athletes competing at the absolute top of a competitive sport benefits everyone who plays the sport both from developing better form and techniques and from the technology and science related to the sport becoming more competitive over time. Those benefits often extend far beyond the sport. A sports doctor being focused on getting you rehabilitated from an injury so that you can specifically play sports again might be a much more effective doctor at returning your body to health than a normal doctor who just wants to get you relatively mobile again so you can get make it into work. That sports doctor is likely using science and methodology that was developed at least partially to help professional athletes rehabilitate their injuries.
I hope we get to a point soon where most people would generally agree that accommodating accessibility needs for people with relatively “uncommon” disabilities benefits a similarly wide range of people and things. If a restaurant has to make their door wheelchair accessible, when someone has a medical emergency inside the restaurant and EMTs are trying to wheel the patient out the door as quick as possible to save their life, the effort that went into making it so someone can get into the restaurant who is in a wheelchair all of a sudden spontaneously improves the life of the victim by helping them get to the hospital faster.
This isn’t a narrative that will just happen, we have to keep pointing it out to give it life.
They’re great, means I don’t have to artificially adjust my play style to play with someone less experienced
I love them. I remember quake 3 had something similar too. It lets you challenge yourself a bit more, and in the case of Smash play equitably with players of different skill levels, so that everyone experiences a fun challenge.
Basically solves the problem of being “too good” to play with your friends
Being able to manipulate scores before the game starts is related to accessibility, and is always an optional feature. It helps balance the game or session for those who need it, or might spice up a game for those who enjoy it.
Aside from Mario multiplayer games (like Mario Party) and just sports games in general I don’t know of any games that utilise this.
There are games that give you something OP it you fail a lot though. A lot of Nintendo games work like this when they notice you failing a lot and ask if you need a hand. There was another game I can’t remember that makes you start with a power up if you die too many times, but I’ll have to edit this post when I find it.
Nintendo started doing that a lot around the Wii. New Super Mario Bros series, Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc… also on other games regular messages to let you know that you could lower the difficulty. And Skyward Sword’s Fi being unable to let you play more than 2 seconds without trying to “help”.
Honestly I did not like it much. I didn’t mind that it was an option, but I did mind that it was a shiny, blinking thing making shrieking sounds at you as soon as you’d start facing a bit of challenge.
Super Mario Bros Wonder’s way of doing this is way better IMO, with the beginner characters and some of the badges that you can activate to make the game easier when you need it.
Strategy games also tend to implicitly have it, in that you can team up the weaker player with a strong AI player.
Or sometimes there’s also fun options, like a map where you can place the strong player into the fortified center and they have to defend against three weaker players at the same time. That can serve as a handicap, but the asymmetry also just means that it’s less obvious and therefore less frustrating, who’s better.
Generally, I’m in favor of having such handicap features, of course, but I feel like it’s even better when the game’s design is just naturally less brutally competitive.
For example, in Gang Beasts, yes, you’re competing with each other, but the weirdo controls mean that it’s never entirely your own fault when you lose, and of course, everything is just less serious in general.
Ultimately, such handicap features will break competition, too, because rather than the weirdo controls or your stupid AI buddy, you can then blame the handicap. I guess, it also helps to not take games too serious in the first place…
Lastly, I’d like to throw in the objectively best handicap: Having to play cooperatively with the weak player.
Just don’t compete with each other, but rather tackle a challenge together.
When playing with friends/alone? Great! Customization is never a bad thing, and it enables groups with varied skill levels to still enjoy the game. Online multiplayer? Hate it hate it hate it.
One example: a lot of fps games are cross-platform these days, and I’ve never felt good about the things they do to balance mouse vs controller. I get why they attempt it, but it feels less like “balance” and more like they’ve created two different classes of players, controller being the close quarter players and mouse being the mid/long range flick shooters.
Another is any game that adjusts comeback mechanics during the course of a match, because I’ve never understood punishing someone for playing well
Another is any game that adjusts comeback mechanics during the course of a match, because I’ve never understood punishing someone for playing well
The idea behind it is aiming for a close ending for a variety of skill sets by trying to balance things as the last minute, but it certainly feels like punishing anyone who does well early on.
Some implementations are kinda fun when they seem like actual balancing, but only if they are early enough for the winning team/person to be able to address and not some unstoppable surprise on the last lap/few seconds of a match like a blue shell in Mario Kart.
They are a great idea as long as they are optional and hopefully clear about what the settings do.
Don’t really see it much because it’s either single player game and thus it only matters to me. Or its a multiplayer game in which case it’s just a new option for a group to agree on, on what is good.
Fwiw I’ve only really seen it in smash bros that I think of, and I think it’s a great option. Let’s me try out when a friend is toooo good and we give them less lives and stuff
MrPoopyButthole@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I think accessibility options in games are fantastic and as long as they’re optional you can do no wrong.
I think the best thing, that’s still not as common yet, is the ability to custom map game controls within its settings. Steam’s own software can do this pretty well, but there should be support for that in every game up front.
Not only does it make it easier for people missing limbs or dexterity to play games, but it makes it easier for any person to tweak the controls for their play style.
I really hope we see more support for features like this because they can be so useful to everybody.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Wrong kind of handicap. You are absolutely right in everything you said above, but it seems OP was referring to PvP games where one player has the option to have more health or do more damage than their opponent. It’s intended to even the playing field when ones pair is more skilled than the other.
wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 10 months ago
Pretty sure they are well aware, and are bringing up a different accessability feature they also support