Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy

Dakuna wrote:

Devil's Advocate here, are you saying we need a way to ease children into high-violence games, because putting them in full-force might traumatise them?

I think "traumatizing" a child through violent media varies from kid to kid and at what age. My sister had no problem watching Bones in front of my niece, and thus the child got used to seeing (fake) decomposed bodies without having a problem. But when she was four or five years old we were channel flipping one day and someone stopped on Twelve Monkeys. It happened to be an emotionally violent scene of Bruce Willis dragging a guy into a bathroom, locking him in there, violent things happening with people screaming and loud music, and while we were able to channel flip before anything too bad happened, she started crying. The way it was delivered and the nature of it had different emotional impacts on her.

To me, I'd be more concerned about my niece seeing a headshot and thinking "Wow! Cool!", though I also acknowledge that taking the blood away from violence simply makes it more cartoony.

In the end, up to the parents' discretion, and some kids are just going to find gore awesome while others find it gross (I myself had to be eased into R rated movies, but I also willingly closed my eyes or walked out of the room when I expected blood or nudity when I was a kid). Hence why I like the idea of options better, or in terms of tone, felt Tomb Raider could have been available to a wider audience than it was if they took out a few things. Some parents will see that M and will stay away, others don't care. However, there's certainly the concern of maturity. Will a kid think it's horrifying to see Lara Croft die so painfully, or will they see how many different ways she can die because "it's so awesome"? Then again, whose to say their reasons for doing so would differ from an adult doing the same thing?

TLDR: Really all depends on the parents, but again, I think options are no problem.

hbi2k wrote:

You get what I'm saying, though?

I do, although from my perspective it's largely theoretical since violence is treated so casually by most video games. I don't care how gruesome they make the death scenes, if you have to kill hundreds or thousands of dudes those graphics really won't have much emotional impact on me.

Nobody actually finds realistic violence awesome - or at least no one that I've ever known to have witnessed it. If I ever had the misfortune of being in the presence of such a psychopath, I would probably distance myself from them post haste. Realistic violence done to humans is so generally distressing that it is often a point of separation in the medical arts. Some people simply can't tolerate even the controlled and relatively gentle violence of surgical interventions. They vomit, they faint, and some even suffer lasting psychological or emotional aftereffects. No video game actually depicts human depcapitation or dismemberment realistically. I could link video, but I don't think it would be kind to any of you.

I strongly believe in the need to instruct children in the real nature of violence. It is terrible and it often has permanent results. Thus, I am against cartoon violence. The more disturbing it is, the better, IMO. No game is more dangerous than the one that teaches children that implements of violence are merely toys.

gore wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

You get what I'm saying, though?

I do, although from my perspective it's largely theoretical since violence is treated so casually by most video games. I don't care how gruesome they make the death scenes, if you have to kill hundreds or thousands of dudes those graphics really won't have much emotional impact on me.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. Why is it the presence or absence of realistic (or semi-realistic, depending on graphics technology; Uncanny Valley can definitely happen even today) the tipping point? Shouldn't it be the IDEA of gunning down people en masse that's disturbing or not?

Don't get me wrong, I'm approaching this from a largely academic standpoint. Not judging anyone. I play "gun 'em down" shooters just like the next guy (Borderlands 2 being my current one). I just think it's curious why I feel this way.

Resurrecting this thread because I have a confession to make...

I play Simpsons: Tapped out.

I started playing because my wife played and I spent 3 months away from her for an internship... It was one tiny way for us to connect. Now I can't stop. It's totally not the type of game I ever enjoy. But I play it.

There. I said it.

We'll send a wood panelled station wagon over right away!

I haven't touched my gaming PC in over two weeks. Because my wife found my (once thought lost) 3DS and I have been hooked on Zelda: Link Between Worlds.

I've lost virtually all desire for AAA gaming.

During late 2013 Steam sales, I've picked up Dishonored, Tomb Raider, Alan Wake, BioShock: Infinite, Batman: AC, Metro 2033, etc. etc. because I couldn't resist the fire-sale prices. Yet I haven't touched a single one of them.

Instead I find myself consumed by dumb low-budget, niche vehicle simulators (Farming Sim 2013, ETS2, Car Mechanic Simulator 2014, Train Simulator 2014, Kerbal, etc.), strategy titles (Crusader Kings II, EUIV, Civ V), and indie darlings (Gone Home, Papers Please, Gunpoint, etc.).

It's not a problem, per say. It just feels strange to hear excited buzz talk online over upcoming releases like Titanfall, inFamous:SS, Watch Dogs, Dark Souls 2, et al and dismissively think, "Oh yeah, those things." before shifting my focus back to the other genres noted above. It’s odd to feel so emotionally divorced from a pool of titles that have brought me so much joy over the years and decades.

Now I fear that Fallout 4 or Elder Scrolls VI might be the only games that bring me back! :p

Maybe it’s just a phase or something.

Aaron D. wrote:

I've lost virtually all desire for AAA gaming.

During late 2013 Steam sales, I've picked up Dishonored, Tomb Raider, Alan Wake, BioShock: Infinite, Batman: AC, Metro 2033, etc. etc. because I couldn't resist the fire-sale prices. Yet I haven't touched a single one of them.

Instead I find myself consumed by dumb low-budget, niche vehicle simulators (Farming Sim 2013, ETS2, Car Mechanic Simulator 2014, Train Simulator 2014, Kerbal, etc.), strategy titles (Crusader Kings II, EUIV, Civ V), and indie darlings (Gone Home, Papers Please, Gunpoint, etc.).

It's not a problem, per say. It just feels strange to hear excited buzz talk online over upcoming releases like Titanfall, inFamous:SS, Watch Dogs, Dark Souls 2, et al and dismissively think, "Oh yeah, those things." before shifting my focus back to the other genres noted above. It’s odd to feel so emotionally divorced from a pool of titles that have brought me so much joy over the years and decades.

Now I fear that Fallout 4 or Elder Scrolls VI might be the only games that bring me back! :p

Maybe it’s just a phase or something.

3 of those are the latest AAA games I've played and a link between worlds,other than that its all been small Indy rougelikes and other random stuff.

Aaron D. wrote:

I've lost virtually all desire for AAA gaming.

I haven't lost all interest, but I definitely have reduced my "intake". Of your entire list, I played the only two I was actually interested in; Tomb Raider reboot and Arkham City. Both "console games" as I see them (and actually played on console).

It's not that I'm picker--I think--I rather have a very clear schedule for gaming; a few early hours during the weekend, and maybe a few hours throughout the week when the wife will be doing something on her own.

I don't feel like spending those hours grinding levels, or managing inventory.
Maybe Dishonored and Bioshock:Infinite; but as I posted before in this thread; there's something about FPS that no longer clicks with how I enjoy games.

Maybe I am getting pickier.

Agreed on nearly all counts. You're in very good company -- innovation in the PC gaming industry is arguably being done almost entirely by the indies, and gamers are noticing. And voting with their dollars. The industry is healthier for it, and we can play better games.

(Although I should point out that Dishonored is absolutely extraordinary. Please play it if you can; "low chaos".)

Also: You're probably not a fourteen-year-old boy with power fantasies, which is the entire target demographic of AAA gaming.

Archangel wrote:

(Although I should point out that Dishonored is absolutely extraordinary. Please play it if you can; "low chaos", of course.)

I second this. Anyone who doesn't play dishonored is missing out on a great game. I don't know if I agree with the low chaos bit. It is still a lot of fun with high chaos.

Hobbes2099 brings up an interesting point about scheduling game time.

One of the things I'm finding refreshing about the titles I currently have in rotation is that they're incredibly flexible in the time commitment dept. Most of the games I listed have a sandbox nature where I'm free to set my own goals at any moment, offering fluid game session lengths. I can dip in and out of a Farming Simulator session in just minutes, focusing on a micro-goal. Or I can play for hours if I want have the disposable time. Either way I don't need to be bothered with picking up the trail of some narrative I'm not likely to be engaged with anyway (agree with Archangel about the teen power fantasy hook inexorably linked with most modern AAA productions).

Anyway, I hope that doesn't come off as snobbish or judgmental as this is not my intent. I'm rather reflecting on my changing tastes as I get older and explore the more mundane end of the gaming pool. I’ve always heard it said that PC Simulators and Strat titles are for old folks with failing hand-eye coordination and reflexes. I’m now fiddling with the idea that I might just be shifting into this demographic at the age of 45, but for slightly different reasons (though I’ll be the first to admit that my hyper-reflex days of Ikaruga are well behind me).

Archangel wrote:

(Although I should point out that Dishonored is absolutely extraordinary. Please play it if you can; "low chaos".)

I think the key to having fun with Dishonored is playing however you want, not how anyone thinks you should.

I still love my AAA games, but I rarely get very far in them. I spend far more time in sports games and poker. So I get distracted and lose the narrative of the big games. Then a new shiny comes and I jump to that.

In the meantime I play seasons of hockey, baseball and football. I love the strategy and big picture versus micro managing of sports I like to watch. At some point I stopped viewing sports games as getting in my way of other games, but rather what I liked most to do.

So I try to buy fewer AAA games, and wait for sales. But I still really like the big bombast of a good AAA title. I just don't concern myself with finishing games, since most of my time is spent elsewhere..

What has fallen off are strategy games like Civ. I really want to get into EU and Crusader Kings, but managing sports sims scratches that itch well enough to forgo them. I guess if I didn't like sports I would play them more.

It's really funny to me that I didn't much care for JRPGs when I started the JRPG Catch-All. I kinda only did it so people would stop saying that there really ought to be a JRPG catch-all. Now, they're most of what I play.

Blind_Evil wrote:
Archangel wrote:

(Although I should point out that Dishonored is absolutely extraordinary. Please play it if you can; "low chaos".)

I think the key to having fun with Dishonored is playing however you want, not how anyone thinks you should.

The key having fun in Dishonored is to play something other than Dishonored.

OHHHHHHHHH BLASPHEMY SNAP!

CptDomano wrote:

OHHHHHHHHH BLASPHEMY SNAP!

I'm going to jump on the Dishonored bandwagon. It was my #1 in 2013. And I have similar issues with scheduling game time (husband, work, toddler, commute, etc), but Dishonored is extremely flexible when it comes to saving your game when and where you wish (at least on the PC, I read in the thread it's not so simple on the console).
I really, really recommend Dishonored.

Incidentally, it was the only AAA game on my list, I've yet to play BS:I and Tomb Raider. I pretty much played indie games exclusively in 2013.

CptDomano, it's already been established you have bad taste in games.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

CptDomano, it's already been established you have bad taste in games.

I can't believe I agree with Qunitin. But there you have it.

Also Dishonored plays great no matter how you approach it. But "low chaos" is for sissies who don't like to get their hands dirty.

tboon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

CptDomano, it's already been established you have bad taste in games.

I can't believe I agree with Qunitin. But there you have it

Bah, if not liking one game out of the multitudes of other games GWJ fancies (CK2 and OOTP for example) means I have bad taste in games... Well then I have bad taste

I just never connected with anything in that game. Sure, I could wipe everyone out, but there was about as much reason to do that as there was to not kill everyone. I just never cared enough to go either route. And when I did try to play the way I wanted to play (sneaking around), I'd fail and just wipe everyone out anyway. Even the combat never amounted to more than "Press X to annihilate" for me so there wasn't even a challenge.

Ah well though, other people enjoyed it and that is good enough for me.

You hear that, tboon? He doesn't even like CK2!!

tboon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

CptDomano, it's already been established you have bad taste in games.

I can't believe I agree with Qunitin. But there you have it.

Also Dishonored plays great no matter how you approach it. But "low chaos" is for sissies who don't like to get their hands dirty. :)

Psh, high chaos is for bloodthirsty monsters with no skills.

Demosthenes wrote:
tboon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

CptDomano, it's already been established you have bad taste in games.

I can't believe I agree with Qunitin. But there you have it.

Also Dishonored plays great no matter how you approach it. But "low chaos" is for sissies who don't like to get their hands dirty. :)

Psh, high chaos is for bloodthirsty monsters with no skills.

Possibly also true. Does not invalidate my first point.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

You hear that, tboon? He doesn't even like CK2!!

Yeah, he's a monster alright.

I am the best kind of monster, though.

I still think one of the best games I have ever played was Adventure on my Atari 2600.

For those who need a refresher...
(Select RESET to start)

Man, Adventure really was something special, wasn't it?

I'm trying to figure out the math, but I can't remember if Adventure was the first "multi-screen" (i.e. the action didn't take place on a single, static screen) game I played or if it was Superman 2600.

Either way, both hold a special place in my heart as some of my earliest mind-blowing gaming experiences.

I used to love Superman where you would start the game as Clark Kent, walk out to where the bridge explodes and position yourself about 1/8 into the screen. Pause the game and let it cycle until the phone booth touches Clark and turns him into Superman. Unpause the game and the bridge combines back together. Then you can catch the bad guys in about 2 minutes and the game is done.

Ha!

One of the earliest tricks I remember was being able to glitch Space Invaders 2600 by repeatedly flicking the power switch on the console. If you did it just right, every time you fired your gun you got double shots.