I kind of want to tackle all the topics that have been thrown around here in one unified post, but I'm going to start that address with the observation that I think the subject has rather detoured away from Ryok's intent, which was to make a list of games, be they "accessible" or "playable".
On the subject of the list of games, I do think it would be more accurate to label the topic as playable rather than accessible, since "accessible" classically means that the game can be fully operated by an individual without any external assistance. In this way, while Street Fighter V and even Mortal Kombat X are playable, they are not strictly accessible. Case in point, I needed to get my girlfriend Ashley to go through the MKX menus with me in order to create the MKX menu guide. I think in this way, such games become playable, fully enjoyable, but not classically accessible.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed, it just means that their inclusion should come with an awareness of their caveats. Skullgirls, for instance, could definitely be listed as accessible, as no external assistance is required to operate any portion of it -- you don't need help making sure your screen resolution is set to the right setting, to make sure motion blur is either on or off, or to check whether or not the brightness is set to a certain level. All these settings, combo data, tutorials, etc are all available through Skullgirls' implementation of Tolk, so I believe that game could be listed as classically accessible.
On the debate about Black Ops 3: I do think this all just stemmed from the tone of post 7. I think it just came across as the slightest bit dismissive of those who might not have endeavoured to try playing game X or Y. Furthermore, later posts by other contributors seem to be hammering in the nail on the coffin that if you won't try game X or Y, then you'll probably be considered subpar and below consideration. Whether or not it was by design, that tone would probably put people on the defensive, since it does seem to state that gamers who haven't tried to play Star Ocean 3 just aren't as good as those who have.
The problem here isn't necessarily that people aren't willing or able, but perhaps more that they're not cognizant of the possibility. I myself see Black Ops and think it isn't worth the time to learn, simply because I always think sighted players will have a significant advantage by virtue of their being able to see the screen. By this assumption, I therefore automatically dismiss it as a viable game.
It's by this same token, for example, that I've yet to try Bloodborn, Dark Souls, God of War, World of Warcraft, and any number of other titles -- I will just automatically assume they're unplayable. Worst yet, in some cases these titles cost money to play them, offering little room to experiment to find out whether or not they are manageable. A blind player cannot be faulted, in my opinion, if they're unwilling to buy Diablo 3 to try and learn it, if they've heard that it's likely inaccessible and very difficulty to play without vision.
I make these arguments to express the fact that I think a bit of understanding might be in order. I think it's great that you guys want to encourage people to play these games, of course, but you can catch many more flies with honey.
Kai
Spill chuck you spots!
