Dear Static,

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion on the meaning of accessibility. Evaluating game accessibility examines aspects of a game that hinder or prevent people with disabilities from playing a game, or that enable people with disabilities to play a game.

Words and the overall them of a game, no matter how offensive they may be, do not render a game inaccessible. As one example, the theme and content of Custer's Revenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer's_Revenge), one of the single most offensive games ever created, would not make it inaccessible to the disabled, even though it is likely repulsive to anyone with a pulse. The gameplay and game mechanics (i.e. joystick motions, button pressing, use of colors, lack of subtitles, etc.) could make it inaccessible.

Perhaps more than anyone else here, I understand how slurs develop and evolve; I studied sociolinguistic s extensively with a particular emphasis on identifying prejudice and gender bias in language, and still read extensively in the subject. I understand how common phrases like "rule of thumb" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb, once thought to be a measurement in English law of the size of a stick a man could beat his wife with) reflect privilege in language. I also contributed to a well-known and widely-respecte d mental health blog on the intersection of psychiatric medication and chronic pain treatment, so I have a bit of experience in that area as well. As a gamer, I have returned games to stores because they didn't allow my little girl to create a female character so that she could play a game with a character of her gender so I'm sensitive to that as well.

With that in mind, I will point out that, while my understanding is that mentally ill is the preferred terminology when discussing the subject, U.S. courts still allow a defendant to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Considering the U.S. legal system allows people to claim they were insane, even temporarily, to explain their actions, it seems that insanity is, in fact, the appropriate word to use when describing a rogue artificial intelligence which is determined to kill people.

So, just to recap, offensive does not mean inaccessible. While a game may feel EMOTIONALLY inaccessible to people due to language or content, if someone is PHYSICALLY capable of playing it then that game is accessible, regardless of how mindnumbingly bad, offensive, repulsive, etc. it may be to some groups of people or even the entire human race.

Be well.

i think you're ignoring how slurs develop and why they hurt people as a result.

i'm low on energy at the moment, and i don't wish to spiral the comments into an argument. but i'll give a couple of links that addresses the issue:

http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/05/17/guest-post-from-rmj-ableist-word-profile-crazy/
http://www.raisingmyboychick.com/2010/09/on-the-ubiquitous-use-of-crazy/

(i'm aware that the links use 'crazy' as their example, but the point is the same and the two terms are generally synonymous)

and yes, i acknowledge that the names of games cannot be changed by those reviewing them, as they have no control over that component. they do, however, have a level of control over what they review and how they choose to do it. and i'd like to think that accessibility matters for those with mental disabilities as well.

Would you object if the game was titled "Evil Rogue AI" or "Terminator"?