Re: [blind-gamers] Differences Between Types of Games

[Rynhardt Kruger]

I've found the best mudding experience on Android to be with the Termux
environment, Tintin++, and the TDSR screen reader. I was even able to get
some soundpacks to work.
It requires some setting up though, I'll be happy to post instructions on
here, or assist anyone willing to try this approach.
One drawback is that TDSR can't (to my knowledge) talk to the Android
speech system, so one has to use something like Espeak in Termux (perhaps
RHVoice would work as well, though I haven't tried it).

Regards,

Rynhardt

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, 21:17 Heather Seaman,  wrote:

> What are the differences between a MUD, a MUSH, and a MOO in gaming? Can
> you use a single client for all types or not? I wish Android had accessible
> clients, meaning ones that allow use of a physical keyboard rather than
> assuming EVERYONE wants to use a touchscreen. Anyway, just curious. Thanks
> for answering crazy questions like mine.
>
> Heather
>
> 
>
>
>


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#124176): https://groups.io/g/blind-gamers/message/124176
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/86422847/21656
Group Owner: blind-gamers+ow...@groups.io
Unsubscribe: 
https://groups.io/g/blind-gamers/leave/607459/21656/1071380848/xyzzy 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [blind-gamers] accessible game engine

[Rynhardt Kruger]

The BGT argument is one I have scene a few times on this list now. It seams
what we need then is all the functions of BGT wrapped up in a nice platform
independent library. It could be written in something like portable C, with
all the platform dependent stuff in platform specific modules, and bindings
for different languages generated with Swig or something. Swig is quite
good at generating bindings for many programming languages.

Note: I'm not volunteering to write it, just want to get the debate going.
Thoughts?

Rynhardt

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Damien Garwood  wrote:

> Hi,
> BGT might come with many conveniences. But it also lacks many others. It
> also isn’t indicative of real world programming. Once you realise BGT’s
> limitations and want to move away from it, it’s much harder to do so
> because you end up relying on it. Especially if you’re a programming newbie
> and don’t have a clue how to write audio engines, let alone audio engines
> that can play multiple file types, whether packed or on disk, whether
> encrypted or open. Not to mention keyboard, mouse, joystick support,
> screenreader and SAPI support, timers, pathfinders, combination generators
> and calendars. The way I see it, scripting with something like BGT is like
> having an overprotective clingy parent that just won’t let go, whereas
> programming something like C++ or Python wants you to bend down and kiss
> its furry rosy smelling derriere before you can get it to work.
> Talking from experience here.
> Cheers.
> Damien.
>
> *From:* Josh Kennedy 
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 2:54 PM
> *To:* blind-gamers@groups.io
> *Subject:* Re: [blind-gamers] accessible game engine
>
> You could use BGT blind game maker toolkit, from BlastBay studios. It's
> free.
> 
>
>