Well, a lot of them are opt-in. It’s not that I’m annoyed when a game automatically plays music or anything like that. Rather, it’s that the multimedia usually isn’t integrated into the gameplay to the degree I’d prefer.
In fact, if multimedia elements are not opt-in, and are instead mandatory, that can be a good sign! Then they’re more likely to be “ludonarratively” significant.
It’s not like I seriously ding games for having multimedia, though. It just draws my attention, when it’s not well implemented, to the cracks and seams in the design. So slapping AI-generated “candy” onto a game probably won’t dazzle me into rewarding a higher score in a comp.
My thoughts on multimedia like images and sound depend on two qualities:
Are they intrusive?
Are they specific?
“Intrusive” would mean I feel like it detracts from the main text and storyline. A fancy border around some paragraphs, occasional short sound effects, or a non-distracting background image can set the tone well and I will usually appreciate these touches. But I don’t tend to like games that feel too heavy on the images over the actual text, nor ones that have the images and music not fit with what’s happening in the game (such as a portrait of a smiling character when they’re supposed to be angry, or intense music playing during a calm scene). I do usually like to have my own music playing, but I won’t mute a game if it’s using minor SFX over playing an entire soundtrack.
“Specific” would be, does this multimedia fit the game and enhance the vibe it’s going for? A nice floral background might be unassuming, but if the game is about a submarine adventure, it’ll come off as out of place. Similarly, games that use mostly generic-sounding stock music will more often just make the experience less memorable and I’m inclined to turn it off.
I do like when games such as Brain Guzzlers from Beyond and Death on the Stormrider provide images of what the characters look like: it helps you visualize the story more clearly and shows extra effort on the author’s part. I’ll also always play through games with original composed soundtracks with the sound on.
If they’re non-essential, then they’re non-essential. That means the game has an extraneous piece that can be removed, and the game wouldn’t change very much. If it were up to me, I’d probably just remove the extraneous piece! But as I said, I’m more of a stickler about this stuff than the average player.
I was literally thinking this. We are often directed to include nothing in images or sound that isn’t already conveyed in the text. This ensures that someone who can’t hear or see doesn’t miss out on anything. That also means that the imagery and sound end up being intentionally redundant and non-essential by design.
That’s definitely a sticking point! There are certain art forms that certain people just can’t experience. Movies. Music. You can summarize the sights and sounds with words, but it’s not the same. And if a text game actually integrates multimedia meaningfully, certain people won’t be able to play it.
Another reason, in my opinion, not to charge ahead with AI-candy and sprinkle it everywhere. It can lead to disharmony in the design. Text games are atypically accessible, but the field of IF might start tipping the other way if multimedia becomes easier to plug into games. If it’s also redundant when it gets plugged in, well, this isn’t a future application of AI that excites me. Which was the whole reason I even said anything. More multimedia =/= bonus points. Not for me. And I imagine not for plenty of other people. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see a candified game sweeping awards.
I wasn’t suggesting you were, to be clear. Integrated experiences where the audio and images are additive are going to be a better experience for many than those with redundant elements. It’s just that this enhanced experience will be restricted to fully abled folks. My first game was an unintentional crime against accessibility and I don’t wish to repeat that. So, completely separate from the AI discussion entirely, the choices I feel comfortable with, personally, are either text-only, or redundant audio/images. Either option is going to disappoint some. With that said, I’d rather not leave folks out altogether.
I wouldn’t use the words “enhanced” or “additive.” This suggests that effective multimedia would be some other thing, which serves as an enhancement to the core thing, rather than being the core thing itself. Multimedia, meaningfully integrated, would simply be the experience, not an addition to the experience.
This is rarely the case. It usually is an enhancement. I’d consider something like the node map in SPY INTRIGUE to be a good example of meaningful multimedia, but you don’t find that kind of gameplay very often.
We are veering into another discussion, in any case!
I completely agree, and half of this exchange probably has to do with an imprecise choice of words and a lax grasp of semantics of my end, not yours. Whether or not “meaningfully integrated” is a more appropriate descriptor than “additive,” it still leads to an incomplete experience for those unable to see or hear it.
Agreed. If anyway wants to continue this, we should probably split into a new topic. It was a pleasure discussing this with you, either way.
Perhaps another thread entirely? The “Designing for Accessibility” thread states: This thread is about deliberately making accessible games and technologies. It doesn’t seem like it would be appropriate to discuss the merits of multimedia-heavy games in such a thread.
I’m also somewhat concerned, due to the movement of the conversation into that thread in particular, that people are misreading my posts as an argument against designing accessible games, which isn’t my intent at all.
I’m not sure where the discussion of multimedia came from, but I would have to say I was confused when, after reading the first few posts and realizing it was a thread that’s over a year old and finding the latest bump.
Also, don’t know if it was mentioned since I didn’t bother reading the whole thread, but since one of IF’s strengths is most of the popular engines are a compile once, run it on any system with a compatible interpreter affair, there really isn’t such a thing as a cross platform screen reader as tight integration into OS specific APIs is essential for screen readers to function. Windows has Narrator, NVDA, and JAWS, Linux has Orca and numerous console screenreaders, OSX has Voiceover, Android has Talkback, and iOS has Voiceover that is completely different from the OSx Voiceover… and all I can really say is espeakup works well with Frotz and glulxe in the Linux console.