For the Stencyl project, my group mates and I decided to make a game based on accessibility. The game has the player play as a bee traversing through different environments until it finally reaches its hive at the end. The game contains no enemies and it is impossible to die. The only thing the player has to worry about is maneuvering to the end point that takes them to the next level. Also, there are coins in each level that the player can collect for fun and a counter in the corner of the screen that keeps track of how many coins the player has collected. As the player goes along they will see pretty flowers as well as cute critters. Our controller of choice was a stuffed flower whose stem you could wrap around your arm for easy comfort. Overall, regardless of one’s gaming experience, it is pretty easy to traverse and beat. This, plus other comments made in class about the accessibility of games, made me wonder what truly made a game enjoyable.
The biggest pro is obviously that a wide range of people can play the game. No matter what system one is on, or whether or not they have ever used that system and its controller before, they can still enjoy a game that is beginner friendly. This way, a game can be relaxing and fun without being frustrating. However, I believe that this aspect of making a game accessible can also be a major con. What has always made a game enjoyable to me was the sense of satisfaction granted after I completed a particularly difficult challenge or boss. Those hours of frustration were more than made up for by the pure happiness I felt when I finally accomplished my goal. What makes a game that doesn’t challenge its players, and rewards them for completing those challenges, a game? What makes it enjoyable? The fact that it is relaxing and enjoyable? If so, would scrolling through Tumblr or shopping online also be considered “games”? I think what I appreciate most about my Stencyl group and project are the questions they brought to my mind.