“Caution light sensitivity” discussion

12345679»

Comments

  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Corkscrew said:

    I can see both sides of this argument. If Psychoman is the only instance in this game of flashing lights causing a problem then Kabam can just remove/alter the animation so it is no longer a problem and going forward run each animation past an expert. For those that say, removing it will affect their enjoyment of the game... you seemed to enjoy the game perfectly fine for 6 years without Psychoman's animations, why is it a problem now?

    However, if it is a general problem with the game and Psychoman just happens to be the worst case then it seems like the game is the equivalent of "do not get on this ride if you are pregnant or prone to seizures".

    The problem is how do we deal with other characters and their effects on photosensitive individuals. We can't go through every character and change them for everyone so that they no longer bother photosensitive individuals. As you said, 1 character isn't a big deal when it comes to changing animations. However, multiple characters? That just doesn't make sense.

    "For those that say, removing it will affect their enjoyment of the game... you seemed to enjoy the game perfectly fine for 6 years without Psychoman's animations, why is it a problem now?"

    If Kabam removed CGR from the game and refunded all the materials used to rank/level him, wouldn't people argue that would "affect" their enjoyment of the game? Why is that scenario any different than altering Psycho Man's animations, or removing them completely?
    Altering something is different from completely removing.

    If I changed my zipper to a button fly, I don't lose the whole piece of clothing.
    Okay, that analogy wasn't good. Here's another one. If someone pours brown paint on my white shoes, it affects the aesthetic value of the shoe, thereby affecting my enjoyment of wearing my shoes. I was not worried about the aesthetic value of my shoes before I had purchased them, but now that they're no longer aesthetically pleasing, they have impacted me in a negative way.

    Changing Psycho Man's animations in a less aesthetically-valued way would ultimately impact one's enjoyment of using the character. We can infer that people value aesthetics when discussing animations of characters, hence why people are calling for changes to animations of the original champions. By altering Psycho Man's animations in a way that would result in the new animation being of lesser value, it would affect people negatively. Again, no one was worried about the aesthetic value of PM's animations before he was released, but now that he has been released and his animations aren't visually as great, it will have an impact on the player base.
    We've had other character alterations, including their animations. Not one person complained about that.

    Also changing the brightness and luminosity isn't an animation change. He will still move exactly the same. It just won't be as bright. Again there's a difference between toning down overly bright flashes, and removing or changing the entire animation.
    I may be wrong, but I don't think we've had any animation change that decreased the animation in aesthetic value.

    Again, changing brightness and luminosity is an aesthetic change. Bright light and dim light have different aesthetic effects.
    Aesthetic value is subjective and can't be quantified in an objective manner.

    Subjectively I preferred Colossus to have his old SP1. No one can objectively say which was better because it's all based on opinion.

    Luminosity can be changed on a percentage, to a safer level, and the majority of people will never notice the difference, especially with all the other movement going on. People who say they will notice are either being pedantic, or scrutinising the detail. The average person would never notice. This isn't the difference between something like 30fps gaming 60fps, where you can noticeably tell the difference between two things.
    Aesthetic value is subjective, I agree, but why is it that most people would rather stare at a rose than a pile of dog excrement? It's because the rose has more aesthetic value, therefore we can say that some aesthetics are more valuable than others to the majority of people.

    Furthermore, some people in the comments above had said that they experienced discomfort with bright lights so they have to turn their phone display lighting all the way down when playing the game. The difference between a fully bright phone and a fully dimmed one is about 800 nits. That means if developers are going to change the brightness of animations, it would still be noticeable.

    Furthermore, seizures can trigger due to flashing lights. By removing flashing animations, it decreases the overall value of the animation and enjoyment.

    The final point is that I'm all for allowing individuals with light sensitivity or seizure risks to be able to play the game safely, but not in a way that would affect my enjoyment.
    While most people would prefer the rose, not all people. Again subjectivity has no place in objective reasoning. I hate to use the phrase, but facts do not care about feelings.

    And again. Brightness is not the same as luminosity or luminance. They exist individually. You can adjust one without adjusting the other. Most people without issues would never be able to tell the difference unless under close scrutiny if luminance was reduced, yet the people affected with photosensitivity would.

    Again. Flashing animations wouldn't need to be removed if they changed the luminance, which as I've stated many times, people without issues would never notice. The reason flashing and strobing cause issues is due to the vivid nature of their effects. No animation would need to be changed.

    Tone down the luminosity/luminance, no animation change. People with issues get to play. People without issues will likely not notice. Win/Win.
    Brightness is not the same as luminosity. It's my fault that I have been using the wrong word this whole time. The only difference between brightness and luminosity is that one is measurable and the other one isn't. Luminosity is what I'm referring to when I talk about phone displays. Since the luminosity of an object also affects its brightness (no, they are not independent), by changing the luminosity of an animation, you also change the brightness that it is perceived as. Unless the range at which the change is made is small (we can notice nit values changes of less than 100 nits), the change in luminosity, animation-wise, will be noticeable.
    Luminosity and brightness of light being projected is different from luminosity and brightness within graphic design.

    You are talking about hardware. I am talking about software. There is a difference.
    Altering luminosity/saturation/intensity in software would still be noticeable, no?
    It wouldn't be as noticeable as you think, especially when things are in motion.

    It's like when watching a fast paced cartoon or anime, there are plenty of key frames that you don't notice that leave a messy blurred image. Unless you're specifically looking for them, you'll rarely notice it.
    Hmmm, IDK, I'm not too sure, but wouldn't the animations have to be tuned to the new threshold of the affected individuals, and wouldn't that result in a noticeable change?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if seizures can be induced by flashing lights, wouldn't changing the numerical values of the animations to no longer "flash" be noticeable since you're taking something that once flashes visibly to something that no longer flashes?
    The flashes could still exist without causing someone to have a seizure. That's where the luminance on the software side comes into play. Reducing that specific part would mean the animation remains the same, but would be out of the "trigger zone" for lack of a better term.

    Animations stay the same. Luminance goes down by a bit that would be unnoticeable by most.
    People with epilepsy could still experience seizures from the flashes even if luminance was lowered. Should we just eliminate flashes for them as well?
    It could, you're right. But some change that could help is better than saying "Nah no change, tough luck".

    It's better to try and to fail, than to never have tried at all.
    But should we have to accommodate every disability? At what point do we stop?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 26,989 ★★★★★
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Pulyaman said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Corkscrew said:

    I can see both sides of this argument. If Psychoman is the only instance in this game of flashing lights causing a problem then Kabam can just remove/alter the animation so it is no longer a problem and going forward run each animation past an expert. For those that say, removing it will affect their enjoyment of the game... you seemed to enjoy the game perfectly fine for 6 years without Psychoman's animations, why is it a problem now?

    However, if it is a general problem with the game and Psychoman just happens to be the worst case then it seems like the game is the equivalent of "do not get on this ride if you are pregnant or prone to seizures".

    The problem is how do we deal with other characters and their effects on photosensitive individuals. We can't go through every character and change them for everyone so that they no longer bother photosensitive individuals. As you said, 1 character isn't a big deal when it comes to changing animations. However, multiple characters? That just doesn't make sense.

    "For those that say, removing it will affect their enjoyment of the game... you seemed to enjoy the game perfectly fine for 6 years without Psychoman's animations, why is it a problem now?"

    If Kabam removed CGR from the game and refunded all the materials used to rank/level him, wouldn't people argue that would "affect" their enjoyment of the game? Why is that scenario any different than altering Psycho Man's animations, or removing them completely?
    Altering something is different from completely removing.

    If I changed my zipper to a button fly, I don't lose the whole piece of clothing.
    Okay, that analogy wasn't good. Here's another one. If someone pours brown paint on my white shoes, it affects the aesthetic value of the shoe, thereby affecting my enjoyment of wearing my shoes. I was not worried about the aesthetic value of my shoes before I had purchased them, but now that they're no longer aesthetically pleasing, they have impacted me in a negative way.

    Changing Psycho Man's animations in a less aesthetically-valued way would ultimately impact one's enjoyment of using the character. We can infer that people value aesthetics when discussing animations of characters, hence why people are calling for changes to animations of the original champions. By altering Psycho Man's animations in a way that would result in the new animation being of lesser value, it would affect people negatively. Again, no one was worried about the aesthetic value of PM's animations before he was released, but now that he has been released and his animations aren't visually as great, it will have an impact on the player base.
    We've had other character alterations, including their animations. Not one person complained about that.

    Also changing the brightness and luminosity isn't an animation change. He will still move exactly the same. It just won't be as bright. Again there's a difference between toning down overly bright flashes, and removing or changing the entire animation.
    I may be wrong, but I don't think we've had any animation change that decreased the animation in aesthetic value.

    Again, changing brightness and luminosity is an aesthetic change. Bright light and dim light have different aesthetic effects.
    Aesthetic value is subjective and can't be quantified in an objective manner.

    Subjectively I preferred Colossus to have his old SP1. No one can objectively say which was better because it's all based on opinion.

    Luminosity can be changed on a percentage, to a safer level, and the majority of people will never notice the difference, especially with all the other movement going on. People who say they will notice are either being pedantic, or scrutinising the detail. The average person would never notice. This isn't the difference between something like 30fps gaming 60fps, where you can noticeably tell the difference between two things.
    Aesthetic value is subjective, I agree, but why is it that most people would rather stare at a rose than a pile of dog excrement? It's because the rose has more aesthetic value, therefore we can say that some aesthetics are more valuable than others to the majority of people.

    Furthermore, some people in the comments above had said that they experienced discomfort with bright lights so they have to turn their phone display lighting all the way down when playing the game. The difference between a fully bright phone and a fully dimmed one is about 800 nits. That means if developers are going to change the brightness of animations, it would still be noticeable.

    Furthermore, seizures can trigger due to flashing lights. By removing flashing animations, it decreases the overall value of the animation and enjoyment.

    The final point is that I'm all for allowing individuals with light sensitivity or seizure risks to be able to play the game safely, but not in a way that would affect my enjoyment.
    The difference here is it is not a rose and a dog poop. Its a red flower and a slightly lesser red one, the flower is the same. Will most notice the difference? No. Will it make the game accessible to everyone? Yes.

    I am not saying aesthetic is not important, I don't think anyone will. It is not as important that we think it is. Also, do you really play a character because of animations? That would mean ebony maw and air walker should be played a hell of a lot more.
    Would you still be playing if the game didn't have amazing animations and graphics? It's part-and-parcel. The design aspect is just as important as the game play, and it represents hours of work and someone's job(s).
    Yes most people would continue to play. And there are plenty of other games that have worse graphics and are still enjoyed by far more people than those that play this game. The animations, again, will not change. The way things move, will not change. That is animation. It is movement. They are two different things and are not intrinsically linked.

    The person doing the design also isn't going to lose their job because they adjust some of the graphics. The industry isn't that fickle.
    It's part of the game. You may think I don't have as much game experience as you, but I do have my own experiences. I can tell you a game loses interest if the graphics and animations are sub-par, or average. Unless it's part of a nostalgic storyline, or some kind of throwback, it affects the interest. We're also playing on phones that become more and more vivid and acute, and the luminosity is something that can be controlled on the phone. To say the design doesn't matter as much makes me wonder if you actually do work in games or not.
    Games don't lose interest if the graphics and animations are sub par. A lot of indie games are wildly successful and don't have the best of either of those aspects, so that's a false statement.

    And again, I've mentioned before that it doesn't matter how good the phones and tablets get, eventually they will hit a limitation because of the graphics engine that runs the game, not because of the hardware within the devices. The engine used is over 6 years old at this point, I would guess closer to 7 or 8 years depending on what they used as their base. Theres only so much code you can slap ontop to improve fidelity before a new engine is needed altogether, and that stage will come sooner than you think.

    Design is the gift wrapping of games. It can make the gift look wonderful and amazing, but the inside, the gift, could be terrible. Great graphics and bad gameplay make a bad game. Where as bad design can be saved by great gameplay.

    And if you need confirmation that I've worked in the games industry, feel free to download Total War Rome, or Total War Medieval 2 and go to the credits. You'll find a "Damien" listed at the end in the Steam Rework section. Unfortunately I can't give you any more evidence than that since most of the time QA testers aren't given credits in the games I've worked on, that's usually given to the QA managers, or I didn't work on the specific project long enough to be given credit.
    I don't need confirmation. I said it makes me wonder. I take you at your word. However, if you think it's an afterthought, I'm not sure you're aware of the average consumer.
    For those of us that have been playing for years, we're rooted in the game for our own reasons. I love Marvel, I love the extensiveness of it, I love the P2C fighting, etc. However, we also live in an instant gratification society, and having visual appeal is just as important. It's the difference between between great game and a "meh" game. The experience is a total experience. Not just icing on the cake.
    I didn't state it was an afterthought. Most consumers see something they like and will play it. Again, if it looks good but plays bad, most consumers will drop it. Look at Square Enixs Avengers game. Looks great, plays bad, now only a few thousand people play it, less than 500 played it on PC in the last 24 hours, where you can really crank the graphics to the max.

    The majority of people don't care about graphics being the absolute best they can possibly be. They care whether the gameplay is good, and whether that gameplay is fun. That's what brings people to a game.
    It's actually the very first thing that draws people in. If you have a dozen fighting games on the market, you're going to pick the one that looks the best.
    That's another completely inaccurate statement.

    You can draw people in when things look nice, but people won't stay if it plays bad.

    Super Smash Bros Melee looks bad by todays standard, and is still wildly popular, and general consensus within that community is that it is better than Smash Ultimate which is on the Switch with better graphics.

    To use Notsavages own analogy in a way.

    If it looks like a rose, but smells like poop, people will walk away.

    If it looks like a weed, but smells like freshly baked bread, people will stay.
    See, that's the part where I'm genuinely confused about your argument. The visuals are part of the total experience. If what you say is true, people wouldn't care if we were playing with stick men, and that's not at all accurate. It's a part of the total experience. Not just trivial.
    Super Smash Bros. has a nostalgia, as with most things Nintendo. I've already pointed that out.
    Here's an example. I love escape games. I hate anything low-rent. One of my favorite Series is The Room. Of course it's the fact that it's intricate and compelling, but it's also the visuals that allow you to be immersed in the experience. The puzzles are in detail, and allow you to rotate, zoom in, and investigate accurately. The design has been well-thought out. It's part of the overall experience.
    There are a plethora of escape room games I wouldn't touch because they're basic AF.
  • dark_king_hyperiondark_king_hyperion Posts: 284
    edited February 9
    wasn't this resolved?!? we got a mail telling us "caution light sensitivity"
    IM NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE IN THE PARAGRAPH BELOW

    I mean people with epilepsy should be responsible and know not to play these games or get 1 of those blue light glasses or something I mean if I had a condition saying "I can only go on the iPad/tablet for 2 hours" the company shouldn't say "oh this person can only go on the tablet/iPad for 2 hours lets make every single tablet/iPad shut down after 2 hours" no, I think that people with epilepsy should be responsible for what they do. because what makes most of the experience fun is flashing lights.
    MY CONCLUSION

    Anyway, I think that the best thing that would make everyone happy is a setting that says "turn of flashing lights" so the people that do get dizzy or that kind of stuff can turn this on so the people that don't mind flashing lights can keep it flashing lights on
    it who agrees that there should be a setting for that,
This discussion has been closed.