Hey, this is modern America - I take an arrow to the knee, I’ll just roll around in a wheelchair with my helmet and shout at people.
Don’t forget to wave your cane at people. Damn kids! :mad:
Stupid kids! Wabbajack ! Wabbajack! Wabbajack!
The latest strip of Penny Arcade says everything I think needs to be said here.
Dammit, Smapti, I was gonna post that.
Shooter games - as in first-person perspective shooter games - yes. The assertion being, the vast majority of these games focus on one thing and one thing alone: the target and the means by which to kill / destroy / dispatch it.
‘FPS’ games largely and inherently have very little environmental interaction (due to the player’s restricted vantage). Character actions per se (beyond the cocking / firing / reloading of a weapon by anonymous hands), even the ability use cover - a natural part of gun play, one would think - is unwieldy due, again, to the perspective. This conspires to make a game that revolves around little more than an aiming reticule and weapon through which to enact violence.
Moreover, this simplistic game design makes this genre very accessible; thus being very appealing to more ‘casual’ (read: young) gamers. This is evidenced by titles like Call Of Duty, which continually garner exorbitant sales numbers. Also, the sidebar of all FPS games being largely the same thing in a different skin since their inception (thus serving to dumb down players, removing one of very few redeeming aspect of the pastime–cognitive exercise), should not be lost either.
Third-person perspective games that involve the use of firearm weaponry in combat tend to have more strings to their bow, however. That is, environmental interaction is staple; character actions themselves are potentially unlimited; other modes of play (like driving, flying etc) are de rigueur… But, most off all, what this different play perspective offers is a feeling that the person is playing a video game; nay sitting in a ‘kill simulator booth’. No amount of gore can convince a person that something like Mortal Kombat is real or that what takes place in-game can be replicated IRL. This cannot be said categorically for FPS games that do little more than put a gun in players’ hands and task them with a head to line up (assuming the game does not do that for you–something not uncommon in this casual pandering genre) and explode.
First-person perspective shooter video game restrictions should be considered. This particular genre of game offers very few redeeming qualities as a video gaming experience and, at its core, it’s hard to view this ilk of gaming as anything more the murder simulation. At most; you curb adolescent / young person gun violence. At least; you help rebalance an industry and pastime that’s become skewed so far over to the game type in question, that nowadays it’s barely recognisable from military training.
NB:
I’m a gamer of more than 20 years, was reared in the 90s arcade era of video gaming and still play regularly (albeit largely socially). I.e., I’m not some sexagenarian wowser.
As opposed to games such Solitaire and Tetris? Past a certain point, all solo-play video games are interactive screensavers. If you’re still convinced that
and you believe that providing murder simulations leads to murder, you’re going to have to provide some serious numbers explaining how all the hundreds of millions of games out there are inspiring people to murder.
Wait… your argument is “FPS games are crap, therefore we should ban FPS games because even if they’re not bad for the youth of America at least they’re out of my hair!”?
Should we start banning bad platforming games too? Final Fantasy XIII was pretty dumbed down, ban Final Fantasy? Hell, the plot of that game was basically overthrowing the government anyway, we can’t have that.
ETA: In response to Synapse, not Ethilrist of course.
The fact that there are now people who are high school graduates who had not yet been born when Doom was released, and that there are still people who think FPS games are going to turn our children into mass murderers, simply boggles the mind.
And remember how birth control was going to cause the downfall of American civilization? Whatever happened with that? Was it just like the metric system, where we went along with it for a while, and then all the big businesses said “wow, we’re gonna lose a lot of money if this continues” and they all just gave up on it?
LOL … this is ludicrous. As I said upthread, I’ve designed several first-person shooters and nothing you said in this paragraph is true. First-person shooters make use of environmental interaction just like third-person shooters do. There’s more to these games other than just blasting mindlessly away at helpless targets, and indeed, just blasting mindlessly away at helpless targets gets pretty boring.
I’ve never met anyone who had any trouble distinguishing between actions onscreen and actions in real life, regardless of the perspective of the avatar. Do people who play Portal think they can really survive 100’ falls just because they did so in first-person?
Years ago I was involved with discussions with the military to re-purpose the first-person shooters I worked on as military training tools. The officers I talked to agreed that the games were useless for training people how to shoot. They were interested in them mostly as team-building exercises and as ways to train soldiers on how to read terrain and tactical situations.
I’ve read a lot of arguments about why video games are bad, but this is the first time I’ve heard the idea that its specifically the position of the camera that was mentally damaging.
Camera matrices aren’t just linear algebra, they’re black magic.
People who like to shoot guns should be encouraged to let it all out in video games. The way to keep society safe is to take away access to real guns.
I thought “casual games” were characterized by low complexity, low skill requirements, and correspondingly low investment of time by the user; things like Minesweeper or pretty much everything made by Popcap In other words, stuff played by grandma, not adolescents.
Are FPS games now considered casual games as well?
No, they’re not. In fact, FPS games are considered “hardcore” by most gaming folks and are rarely played by people younger than 13.
there are plenty of gamers who only play the latest FPS and have no interest in videogaming as a whole, they are usually thought of as “casual gamers” who just get the latest mainstream FPS title, but you are right that when people say “casual games” they are talking about low-complexity pop-cap stuff usually.
Most of those latest-and-greatest FPS games that the casual gamers play have tons of complexity to play them well. So Call of Duty is accessible but not really a true casual game.
This is not true in any way, shape, or form.
No, a casual gamer is someone who plays FarmVille for fifteen minutes on their lunch break. Anyone who spends a significant amount of time playing triple-A shooters is not a caual gamer in common usage of the term.
Don’t we have an obligation as a society to ban FarmVille? You’re an active participant in the game. You’re actively stalking your corn. I can only imagine what disturbed people think of all this graphic agriculture.