Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Did the article use that word? "True" gamers? I missed it if it did, but I doubt it. The reference is to hardcore gamers, but that implies no superiority. It's just a way of distinguishing the many thousands of casual players from those whose primary entertainment is gaming and all-things game related.
More like saying that most Xtreme athletes would enjoy parachuting from buildings. |
Why are all sports so dangerous? Sure, many people hike and go to the gym, but almost all of extreme sports are extremely dangerous. I want more safe sports, there are no safe choices for me and I'm turning into a slob.
|
It would be nice to see more games that have more to do than just killing stuff. It seems like these days games are a lot better in terms of graphics and interface, but they're all the same in terms of gameplay. Back in the arcade days there were a lot more differences between individual games because the gameplay was pretty much the only thing they had going for them. So they had no choice but to be creative. As a result, you have all these old games that aren't really similar to each other, but there's no way to really categorize them other than as simply "arcade games." I'd like to see some more of that creativity in today's games.
I would disagree with you on one point, though, remixor. In the article you seem to just reject out of hand the notion that violent video games could possibly make people more aggressive. I'm not saying it does or it doesn't. I'm just saying there's really not enough evidence to prove the effects of video game violence one way or the other, so we shouldn't simply assume that there is no effect just because we happen to like games. I've written all about my views on this in some articles I wrote earlier this year (The Dark Side of Gaming, Parts I and II). mag |
No, I didn't use the word "true" anywhere. I did use "hardcore", and I tried best I could to qualify what games fall into that category. Essentially I ended up with the genres of games that are essentially character- or story-driven, even if the characters and story aren't particularly brilliant.
Mag: I understand where you're coming from. For my part, though, I'm holding a view of "innocent until proven guilty" until further research presents itself. |
Quote:
mag |
Remixor:
Royal Fool posted some quotes from an interview with Tim Schafer, some are quite relevant to your article. here's the link http://forums.adventuregamers.com/sh...9&page=4&pp=20 Hope Royal Fool doesn't mind me linking to the post |
I read the interview when it came out, thanks for the heads up though :)
|
Games are still rather young. We still use easy solutions in them. However, they are constantly getting more complex. Think about the original Doom. Hordes of enemies get killed, find key, open door, kill more. It was enough back then. However, the new Doom 3 has a plot, characters and even some innovation (I haven't seen manipulation of ingame computers like that before). Think about all the new FPSs that are coming. Half-life 2. Very character and story driven. Vampire: Bloodlines even more so. When did you last see a pure kill 'em all FPS? A game without some sort of story just doesn't cut it nowadays.
Someone said games should be more like in the 80s. Think about violence in 80s hits. Space Invaders. Endless killing and rampage without pause. Only the graphics didn't show it too well :P The reason 80s games are considered less violent is because they didn't have the technology to show violence. |
Quote:
But you're still right. These games aren't the norm anymore. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ah, I see. My bad. Man, another case for the horrible names thread. When #2 is really #3. :rolleyes:
As much as I liked the mindless action of Serious Sam, I'm kinda hoping Croteam will go the extra mile with |
Quote:
I think a big part of the reason we have so many violent games is because it's easy. Shooting things provides a very simple action that everybody can understand. Making fun non-violent games requires a lot more thought. Back in the 80s it was a lot easier to be that creative because the gameplay was pretty much the only thing the game had going for it. Now a lot of publishers would rather play it safe and use the same gameplay as everybody else just with newer graphics. mag |
Don't know if this has been said...but I think as technology has moved along, it has given developers the chance to be more realistic and therefore violent. I think that if the creaters of space invaders or joust could have, they would have made things as realistic as possible. Those games have violence at thier core...but thier crude graphics lead us to believe otherwise.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Well, as you can see in my signature, I'm currently playing a totally non-violent arcade game - Ballance, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
In this (2004) game you have to guide a ball through 12 different puzzles. It's 3D and with a good physics engine. The thing that gets you addicted is the fact that by playing it you end up identifying yourself with the ball, and when the ball falls you can feel it in your stomach (at least I do). As for FPS's, sure HL2, Doom 3 and others are great when it comes to graphics and physics, but Deus Ex 1 's perfect story-gameplay combination won't be matched. After all, these two games are still kill'em all games, while in DX you actually have a CHOICE. Hitman can also be mentioned, but by some reason I couldn't play those games. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Design & Logo Copyright ©1998 - 2017, Adventure Gamers®.
All posts by users and Adventure Gamers staff members are property of their original author and don't necessarily represent the opinion or editorial stance of Adventure Gamers.