Asklemmy

44171 readers

1825 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What discussion you know you are on the wrong side of? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 weeks ago by lorty@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

159 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Maybe you haven't been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don't want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don't think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don't have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren't actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can't really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn't actually be playing the same game after all...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The point I'm making is that you need not alter the painting. Adding an option to a game does not alter it for those that do not select it.

You're arguing for letting perfect be the enemy of good. The fact that a blind person can't perceive the visual aspect of an experience doesn't mean that they should be excluded entirely.

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

perfect be the enemy of good

Even worse, deciding that perfect is the enemy of good on behalf of another person.

Given the person has no access to "the perfect", this is basically exclusion on ableist grounds.

Adding an option to a game

(or an alternative modality like audio description)

Mona Lisa is not a good example here because it is a single work. Games are mass-producible. If you steal Mona Lisa no-one can experience any more. If you add a story mode to the game, nothing at all is reduced from other modes of the game.

Additionally, if you consider strictly simulation games, their difficulty is just a configuration of different amounts and pacing of things happening in the game. There is no foundation on which number configurations are more correct than others.

By extension, all games simulate a real or imaginary world, and these numbers' configuration are in the control of the designer. Again, no one of the possible worlds is inherently more privileged than others.