top of page

Alanah Tries To Clarify "Disabilities"

Alanah Pearce's Follow-Up Video: A Missed Opportunity for Genuine Engagement on Disability in Gaming

I liked Alanah, I really did, but this road she's traveling down has been changing my opinion on her...


In a recent follow-up video, Alanah Pearce, gives us some insight on her role as a disability consultant in the video game industry. She attempted to clarify her previous comments on disability and gaming, but this one, once again, misses the mark.

From the outset, Pearce painfully tries to establish her credentials and professional focus, emphasizing her expertise and role within the industry. This introduction goes hard at setting a tone that I perceived as ...a bit condescending, as she uses this time to establish a position for herself above her audience.

As opposed to the initial video, Pearce wore glasses this time, a subtle but not unnoticed choice that I took as an attempt to project intelligence to the viewer. However, this visual cue did little to fortify her arguments which, unfortunately, fall short of addressing the core issues at hand.


"Disability... I did not invent this term this term has been around for a long time"

Instead of reflecting on her previous statements with accountability, Pearce spends a significant portion of the video suggesting that the misunderstanding lies with the audience, AKA you, and not with her communication or viewpoints. It's a bold strategy, Cotton.

Pearce defends the necessity of her role by highlighting the importance of accessibility in gaming, a point that few would argue against. She discusses her personal challenges with tendinitis and advocates for alternatives like a 'hold' option for Quick Time Events to accommodate similar disabilities.


While this is a reasonable suggestion on the surface and shows strong values of inclusive gaming design... it also highlights a broader problem about how such features could affect game mechanics fundamentally down the road. The example she gave is one of choice, but one has to wonder the slippery slope developers get sent down in order to 'accommodate', and how far it goes to impact 'choice' during the game, and potentially how disability options become the norm part of gameplay.

The core of Pearce’s argument—that her position and by extension, her perspectives, are essential in the industry—is overshadowed by her approach. She references a Microsoft chart to reinforce her views on temporary disabilities, such as those experienced by children, but her explanation does little to clarify her stance that created discontent for her previous comments in her initial video.

She's more than welcome to take this stance, of course - it's just one that I wasn't the biggest fan of. It came across as 'someone who just 'gets it' more than you and you don't live in that world so you wouldn't understand'. While there are definitely points to highlight that were great strides for players with disabilities, this take by Alanah here... Just wasn't it.

She tries to bring it all back at the very end to put a bow on it saying "if you're upset about the terms I'm not going to tell you you're wrong", but she spends the entire video up to that point stating otherwise, so... it ultimately felt a bit like a contradiction.


Pearce could have taken a more friendly approach in her follow-up video by acknowledging not all situations classified as disabilities should impact gaming design decisions. It would have been nice for her to recognize that while accessibility in gaming is important, there is a distinction between accommodating permanent or long-term disabilities and adjusting game mechanics for temporary conditions that do not primarily affect one's gaming abilities. Acknowledging this distinction would have helped clarify her stance, emphasizing that while gaming is an important aspect of life for many, it ultimately does not take precedence over other life priorities and situations that temporarily affect one's ability to play.


This would have created a far more "inclusive" discussion about the scope of accessibility in gaming, aligning better with the community's diverse perspectives and experiences... But no. It was a huge swing and miss.


Ultimately, Pearce's video seems to miss a crucial opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Instead of using the feedback as a springboard for deeper understanding or admitting potential oversights, she doubles down, leaving viewers to question not just the statements made but the necessity of her position in the gaming industry. This response could potentially alienate those who are directly affected by the issues she discusses, turning what could have been a productive discussion into a divisive monologue.


~Smash

4 comentários


Can any one else here say that this woman is a crazy whiner that's Dumb as Dogshit

Curtir

Chuck Sneed
Chuck Sneed
04 de jul.

Ahh yes, the same woman who was heavily involved with the Khalils, the same one who helped the Open Hand Foundation steal money from people.

Curtir

Grromasz
Grromasz
04 de jul.

I think sacrificing some game integrity and mechanics by adding accessibility options (that are not turned on by default) to allow people with severe medical conditions to be able to play at all is worth the price.

Curtir

ScoobyDouche
ScoobyDouche
04 de jul.

Looked into it and situational disability is usually combined with temporary disability being a newly parent has nothing to do with any of these by what I've looked at even AI says it's not and it also goes into disabilities as a spectrum abit but that's a whole other thing it has been a term used since the 80s by what I've seen but gained traction in the 2000s. Overall this whole situation is kinda dumb certain things shouldn't be called a "situational disability" it's more of a personal responsibility and not a responsibility on others IMHO

Curtir
bottom of page