skulgirls is accessible out of the box

Hang on though, what are criteria for accessibility, black ops 3 is most definitely not accessible in my book. I think we need criteria laid out to make suggestions, because you might change that to playable, but that's rather subjective, I can't play black ops for sure, but I'm not saying others also cannot. SO I think we need some guidelines.

Code 7 and Skullgirls are the only games on Steam that I know of that actually use voicing. Code 7 uses Sapi and Skullgirls works with your screen reader.

MKX has very good audio and sound design which makes it a good choice. I could not get that same feeling with Injustice, the original, could never win fights no matter how much I tried, though only ever played with another person against them in MP. I haven't tried the second Injustice though. Oh, Way of the Passive Fist, if that's on steam, not sure if it is or not but I caught Liam streaming it.

@Post 3: Killer Instinct is on steam.

How on earth is black ops 3 playable? Mainstream fps games by their very nature are the complete opposite of playable.

@8 as ironcross32 says, different people are good at different things. There are blind gamers who play FPS games and black ops three in particular has some nice things in that help, from audio cue gear to being able to set your vertical sensitivity way down really low. Sure it could easily be more accessible than it is, but that doesn't mean that it is the complete opposite of playable.

I can definitely agree that post 8 is most definitely incorrect. We all go on and on about how game x and y isn't "playable" or "accessible". There's one huge problem though: the terms "playable" and "accessible" are subjective terms -- there's no absolutely correct definition! For example, if you look up accessible in the QSeek dictionary, you get "capable of being reached," "capable of being read with comprehension," "easily obtained," and "easy to get along with or talk to; friendly"; and if you look up "playable" in the QSeek dictionary you get "capable of or suitable for being played or played on." Look up those terms in the urban dictionary and you'll get many other definitions. But dictionary impreciseness is not the only problem here. The problem is that each person has their own idea of what is accessible and/or playable and what is and/or is not. Take me, for example: I'm not willing to immediately discard a game (I hate the term of mainstream game, because audio games are really just toys or experiments compared to games) on someone elses opinion on whether its "playable" or "accessible" or not; I'm willing to actually try it. And that's the huge problem with blind people and the gaming industry. The thing about the gaming industry is that there is no true opinion on a game. Someone might tell you that a game sucks ass, but you can't just take that at face value -- you actually need to try the game and formulate your own opinion. Never, ever take a gamers opinion of any game, no matter the game, at face value; actually try the game your curious about and make your own opinion. Share your opinions, yes; but don't expect anyone to take your opinion at face value. If you do that you'll never play any mainstream games at all, because every gamer will have a varying (and wildly different) opinion about gameg -- or even multiple games. So, really, this topic should not be about whether a game is "accessible" or "playable", as that is subjective; but should be on opinions on various games on Steam, because that's a much more apt and accurate title of this topic, because everything about a particular game in this topic is subjective and heavily opinionated. If I tell you that You'll pick up Halo very quickly, because Halo is awesome, you shouldn't just accept my opinion, but rather boot up your Xbox, download it, and try it for yourself. Have someone help you, but actually try it. If you don't do that, you most likely won't be a very good gamer, and will definitely be ridiculed and will be known as that guy who never actually tries anything.

@13, agreed. It seems like everyone wants "accessible games." Let's take your definition of accessible games in post eleven. You say that "a game is accessible if a blind person can completely play it." That, too, though, is subjective. My definition is almost opposite to yours: if I can play it enough to learn the game, I consider that playable -- accessibility is far less of a concern for me. And, honestly, I could care less. I'm willing to put up with the inaccessibility of something, because that's life. And life isn't fair. Accessibility isn't fair. You don't like it? Then you might as well, yihnow, cease to exist, cause that unfairness of accessibility is probably never going to go away. Ever.

@14

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Here's where my Philosophy minor is showing:

Premise 1: There are two completely normal blind people

Premise 2: One of them is able to play a game relitively independently.

Conclusion: Therefore the second blind person will be able to play that game.

Everything else comes down to skill.

Basically, I agree with you in that an accessible game, in my opinion, is one that is playable, not one that is specifically designed from the ground up for blind people.

@15

Feel free to hit me up on Twitter if you have any questions. I also stream frequently on Mixer, so you're always welcome to ask me questions there directly.

Hi all.
This is an interesting discussion.
I'm wondering now if I should change the subject of the post to playable games instead of accessible games.
Also, I'm going to add more games to the list and The topic will be about games that are playable on the pc not just steam.

@19

First off, I never said you should play these sorts of games, merely that you are able. I can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do, nor do I want to. Next to no information? Yeah, you're clearly not bias at all. You haven't even played the game and you say it has no information you can use. If you don't want to take the time to learn it, that's completely understandable, but don't assume that people who do play these sorts of games are acting elitist over anyone else. I don't expect you to play these games either lol. I'm just drawing the distinction between putting time into a game to learn it, versus magically being better at something than someone else like you seem to think.

@21, that's how it is for you, you mean. If you have nothing to show for it, fine. But that doesn't mean its drudgery or repetitiveness for everyone. Learning a game is nothing like learning an audio toy. Learning a game is taking the time to sit down and spend a few hours figuring a part of it out, and going back to that game over and over. Lots and lots of gamers do that, they have to. And, also, there are guides and walkthroughs available online if you know what to search for.

@21

Well, at this point, I feel like it comes down to personal belief. For example, I believe that if you want to get good at something, you have to put as much time as necessary until you reach that point. That's okay if you don't believe that, but that's just what I believe. Also, we are not acting like condescending dicks. If you can't help but to get butthurt whenever someone doesn't agree with you, then I"m sorry. Honestly man, I've seen your posts on here and your mentions on Twitter. Instead of being so pessimistic saying that this isn't accessible or this annoys me, just try to give people the benefit of the doubt before you knock it without trying it.