What Video Games Have you Been Playing?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by dauer

17th,

Either way. There are certainly people who are not looking for violence in games.

Dauer

Yes, that would be called, 'the minority'. kthx.

[dauer]

17th,

I think you're probably wrong about that. When you consider the number of people who prefer rpgs, or driving sims, or sports sims, or strategy games, or puzzle games, or mmogs, or any of the other types of games not based primarily in violence, I think you'll find that each single one does not have the majority, but add them all together and I'll bet they make up more of the market than games whose primary selling point is violence.

Dauer

[Prober]

Some of my favorites are:

Civilization
Sim Earth
Genghis Khan (I'm dating myself)
Hot Shots Golf
Tiger Woods
Sims
and, I have to admit, GTA - San Andreas

I like RPGs, Strategy / Simulation and, of course, GOLF!

I'm mostly playing Tiger Woods. GTA is for stress relief!

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by dauer

17th,

I think you're probably wrong about that. When you consider the number of people who prefer rpgs, or driving sims, or sports sims, or strategy games, or puzzle games, or mmogs, or any of the other types of games not based primarily in violence, I think you'll find that each single one does not have the majority, but add them all together and I'll bet they make up more of the market than games whose primary selling point is violence.

Dauer

Ok so the final fantasy range.... There is no violence in that? There is no violence in any RPG? I know driving games with violence and strategy games aaaand sports games... Then you can add the shooters and sci-fis and horrors and gangster games and random criminal games such as GTA and so on... I would quite happily place that bet with you. Gears of War? Oh whats that? It sold over 4 million copies world wide? Oh its only been out since November? lar plz, kthx.

[dauer]

17th,

Ok so the final fantasy range.... There is no violence in that? There is no violence in any RPG?

The focus of the game is not violence, as I'm sure you're aware.

I know driving games with violence and strategy games aaaand sports games...

Same as above.

Your case was that people are looking for violence in games. If violence is not the focus of a game, then you cannot reasonably say that it is targetted at people looking for violence. I own GTA: San Andreas and that most certainly is a game targetted at people looking for action, and even some degree of realism. However I also own most of the ff series, and those are not games whose focus is violence, even though they do all include battles.

Dauer

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by dauer

Your case was that people are looking for violence in games. If violence is not the focus of a game, then you cannot reasonably say that it is targetted at people looking for violence. I own GTA: San Andreas and that most certainly is a game targetted at people looking for action, and even some degree of realism. However I also own most of the ff series, and those are not games whose focus is violence, even though they do all include battles.

Take away the battles from your ff series... Remove the swords and other insanely over sized weapons Still a good game? ;\ a degree of realism in gta? lol... I see people running down the road firing rocket launchers and car jackings without a struggle all the time ;\

[dauer]

17th,

Take away the battles from your ff series... Remove the swords and other insanely over sized weapons Still a good game?

Rpgs have many facets to them. I'm sure the fighting could be removed if it was replaced with more puzzle-oriented gameplay. And I'm sure you're quite aware that random battles (the majority of battling in any formulaic rpg) are widely considered to be annoying and tedious, so much so that they've spawned multiple flash cartoons about how dull and tedious they are. If the fighting was limited, and different ways of levelling up were added, like the puzzles I suggested, that variety (and the reduction of battling) would probably improve the games in the eyes of many rpgers. In my experience the central aspect of any rpg is its story, and with some rpgs taking upwards of even 30 minutes just for fairly non-interactive story sequences (think the chrono- series post trigger) it would be hard to argue otherwise. They're essentially interactive epic novels, now with an added twist due to the fact that speech can be done in the games, instead of requiring actual reading of the entire game.

a degree of realism in gta? lol... I see people running down the road firing rocket launchers and car jackings without a struggle all the time ;\

I think now you're just looking for silly reasons to be argumentative. When I mentioned realism I was not referring to the gameplay, but to what the media has also pointed to: the game takes place in a place that's supposed to resemble real world cities where most of the people are merely civilians, (the others also with realworld counterparts; gangs, mafia, or police) who react in ways one would expect (and with graphics that were enough to make it more controversial) to being assaulted with various sharp and blunt objects, as well as explosives and projectiles. It's not a war simulation. It's a game where you can go into an ordinary looking neighborhood and commit mass homicide, with the gasps, screams, running men and women etc, one would expect. I don't know how you could infer a suggestion the game is some sort of sim based on my statement it has "some degree of realism."

Dauer

[Zagreus]

Mostly I just can't seem to pull myself away from World of Warcraft - hands-down *the* most addictive video game I have ever played! Seven million in number of subscriptions as I understand it, and definitely an entire digital *world*, online!!!

I hear that Oblivion (Elder Scrolls) is equally huge, but I walked around in some village for hours and hours and never could get anywhere.

Something about single-player just doesn't hold it for me anymore. I wanna team up, go into a dungeon and even if we don't truly RP we can at least see the balance between characters, races, classes, etc. Teamwork. Plus it's wonderful to game with people on 3 or 4 different continents, and learn funny Aussie terms like "chockas." lol

All-time favorite video game: System Shock, and System Shock II (using the Thief engine). Old by today's standards, but during a time when Doom was all the rage (I'll never forget seeing that for the first time), SS was light years ahead ... Cyberpunk genre. Nowadays, Doom III and HalfLife 2 are still cool, but I miss the excitement of System Shock! Perhaps BioShock will live up to the innovative tradition.

I also have Secrets of Atlantis installed, which is great fun if you like the idea of mythological civilizations and the occult. Starts you out on the Hindenburg in WWII, takes you to the Empire State Bldg, and now I'm stuck at a puzzle in China.

Along these lines, Drowned God is quite wonderful, involving UFOs, the Kabbalah, Knights Templar, and Arthurian Legend. Again, old-school and single-player, but if Myst was your thing, these kinda games should interest. Also, if you haven't seen PYST, try it out - should be obtainable somewhere, it was shareware. Quite funny take-off on Myst.

I have Need for Speed Carbon installed, and Titan Quest, Neverwinter Nights 2 and others waiting around, but they'll probably never get played. WoW just tends to be so much for fun for me, with the multiplayer. Guild Wars was prettier along these lines, but hasn't nearly the playability as WoW.

Still, I see the graphics in some of these games, and note that there is some kind of *physics* engine card out there now - an add-on card, totally separate from the the video card, for "real-world effects" (Aegeia or something?). I mean, kids drop $750 for a video card sometimes, $500 for one of these, and a quadcore processor plus 2 sticks of RAM is not even that. Storage at a quarter a gig, or 50 cents if you buy the 750gb drives.

Then again, if ET is getting here from across the galaxy, he ain't exactly doing it in the space shuttle, is he? I'd give a gold mine to see their computers.

~Zag

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by dauer

Rpgs have many facets to them. I'm sure the fighting could be removed if it was replaced with more puzzle-oriented gameplay.

And I'm sure you're quite aware that random battles (the majority of battling in any formulaic rpg) are widely considered to be annoying and tedious, so much so that they've spawned multiple flash cartoons about how dull and tedious they are.

If the fighting was limited, and different ways of levelling up were added, like the puzzles I suggested, that variety (and the reduction of battling) would probably improve the games in the eyes of many rpgers. In my experience the central aspect of any rpg is its story.


I think now you're just looking for silly reasons to be argumentative.

When I mentioned realism I was not referring to the gameplay, but to what the media has also pointed to: the game takes place in a place that's supposed to resemble real world cities where most of the people are merely civilians, (the others also with realworld counterparts; gangs, mafia, or police) who react in ways one would expect (and with graphics that were enough to make it more controversial) to being assaulted with various sharp and blunt objects, as well as explosives and projectiles. It's not a war simulation. It's a game where you can go into an ordinary looking neighborhood and commit mass homicide, with the gasps, screams, running men and women etc, one would expect. I don't know how you could infer a suggestion the game is some sort of sim based on my statement it has "some degree of realism."

Dauer

Could be, would be, if they did this, if they did that... But they won't Fighting sells darnit! Indeed the random fights can get a abit tedious...

Looking for reasons? lol.

Indeed... You can just walk around all nice and normal... Infact, just like you do in the real world... I know that's why I buy GTA based games. To simply walk around the pavements and think "wow this looks like a city." People play these type of games because they can execute hate and rage upon the people in these cities as you said..

[dauer]

Could be, would be, if they did this, if they did that... But they won't Fighting sells darnit!

Asserting your view is not in itself an argument. And they have indeed played with the formula. For example in FFX which I'm playing right now there are puzzle sequences at all of the Temples, nevermind the amount of time dedicated to story. The fighting in rpgs is generally a means of progressing the story, part of which includes level building.

Indeed the random fights can get a abit tedious...

So then you agree. Fighting is not the key element of rpgs. It's something formulaic that's been essentially canonized, and could be reduced to make room for more entertaining types of gameplay. So you can't then call rpgs fighting games and say that fighting is what sells em if that's an element of the game that's both annoying and secondary.

Indeed... You can just walk around all nice and normal... Infact, just like you do in the real world... I know that's why I buy GTA based games. To simply walk around the pavements and think "wow this looks like a city."

You didn't understand my point or, as I suggested before, you're being intentionally difficult and just looking for reasons to argue instead of paying attention to what I'm saying. It's not that you can walk around these places that are like the real world. It's that you can walk around these places that are like the real world and commit acts of mass homicide. If you go back and check the posts, I brought up San Andreas as an example of a violent game. I never used San Andreas to show violent games are unpopular or anything else, just as an example of a violent game. You took issue with my saying it has "some degree of realism" and yet now you are agreeing with me that indeed, the enticing factor is the realism I was referring to.

People play these type of games because they can execute hate and rage upon the people in these cities as you said..

Then what is your point? In your previous post you agreed with me on both of the points of mine you brought up (one of which was only a non sequiter from when you took issue with something I said that you later agreed with), while still asserting without further presentation that you're right. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Dauer

[dauer]

Could be, would be, if they did this, if they did that... But they won't Fighting sells darnit!

Asserting your view is not in itself an argument. And they have indeed played with the formula. For example in FFX which I'm playing right now there are puzzle sequences at all of the Temples, nevermind the amount of time dedicated to story. The fighting in rpgs is generally a means of progressing the story, part of which includes level building.

Indeed the random fights can get a abit tedious...

So then you agree. Fighting is not the key element of rpgs. It's something formulaic that's been essentially canonized, and could be reduced to make room for more entertaining types of gameplay. So you can't then call rpgs fighting games and say that fighting is what sells em if that's an element of the game that's both annoying and secondary.

Indeed... You can just walk around all nice and normal... Infact, just like you do in the real world... I know that's why I buy GTA based games. To simply walk around the pavements and think "wow this looks like a city."

You didn't understand my point or, as I suggested before, you're being intentionally difficult and just looking for reasons to argue instead of paying attention to what I'm saying. It's not that you can walk around these places that are like the real world. It's that you can walk around these places that are like the real world and commit acts of mass homicide. If you go back and check the posts, I brought up San Andreas as an example of a violent game. I never used San Andreas to show violent games are unpopular or anything else, just as an example of a violent game. You took issue with my saying it has "some degree of realism" and yet now you are agreeing with me that indeed, the enticing factor is the realism I was referring to.

People play these type of games because they can execute hate and rage upon the people in these cities as you said..

Then what is your point? In your previous post you agreed with me on both of the points of mine you brought up (one of which was only a non sequiter from when you took issue with something I said that you later agreed with), while still asserting without further presentation that you're right. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Dauer

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by dauer

as I suggested before, you're being intentionally difficult

lol... Me?

[dauer]

lol... Me?

[17th Angel]

We, were getting quite worked up were we not dauer? My bad ;\

[Nattering Nabob]

Wii Sports, Halo 2...