3 ms·

> She didn't like that there is a snake that can kill you. It's not that it is too hard, it's that she is deeply uninterested in being attacked in a game. I th

> She didn't like that there is a snake that can kill you. It's not that it is too hard, it's that she is deeply uninterested in being attacked in a game. I think this hints at a big part of the problem. When we frame something as a game, we tend to evoke the concepts of winning and losing. The most brutal and obvious (lazy?) way of implementing that is to turn it into "kill or be killed". And that brutal, obvious, violent metaphor underpins the vast majority of the mainstream game industry. That's why something like Undertale is seen as fresh and subversive. That's probably even a big part of why Tetris sold so many Game Boys. But too many of us can't or won't see it. The author is probably right: those of us who have been immersed in this culture for 20+ years are like fish who too easily forget that not everyone likes to get wet.

jplayer01 10y ago
20 years of gaming here and honestly, the industry needs to get over its fetishization of violence and it's reliance on it as a crutch. Games can be so much more than mainstream gaming has allowed them to become.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  OTOH, until NLP is a thing, social mechanics will always feel lacking. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try: there are plenty of interesting mechanics left unexplored. Besides, sometimes you just want to shoot sombody with an absurd weapon.
- __david__ 10y ago
  No, it really doesn't. Games sell like gangbusters as they are now. That doesn't mean there isn't room for non-violent games, and if you can come up with one that that's really fun to play you'll make a mint. Until then, don't decry an entire industry because you don't see the appeal.
mercer 10y ago
Part of the problem is that it's easier to implement a competition/kill/survive mechanism than to add realistic interpersonal social dynamics. If you want to avoid competition or at least killing things, you'll have to be a lot more creative. It's (relatively) much easier to find an audience for a film or book that is focused on dialogue, social interactions, and whatnot, than it is to do so for a game. I applaud efforts in this area, but I can see how it's easier to go for kill/win/compete style games.
- gohrt 10y ago
  Tetris was a blockbuster hit without realistic interpersonal dynamics.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Yes. Yes it was.

jplayer01 10y ago

20 years of gaming here and honestly, the industry needs to get over its fetishization of violence and it's reliance on it as a crutch. Games can be so much more than mainstream gaming has allowed them to become.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
OTOH, until NLP is a thing, social mechanics will always feel lacking. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try: there are plenty of interesting mechanics left unexplored. Besides, sometimes you just want to shoot sombody with an absurd weapon.
__david__ 10y ago
No, it really doesn't. Games sell like gangbusters as they are now. That doesn't mean there isn't room for non-violent games, and if you can come up with one that that's really fun to play you'll make a mint. Until then, don't decry an entire industry because you don't see the appeal.

mercer 10y ago

Part of the problem is that it's easier to implement a competition/kill/survive mechanism than to add realistic interpersonal social dynamics. If you want to avoid competition or at least killing things, you'll have to be a lot more creative. It's (relatively) much easier to find an audience for a film or book that is focused on dialogue, social interactions, and whatnot, than it is to do so for a game. I applaud efforts in this area, but I can see how it's easier to go for kill/win/compete style games.

gohrt 10y ago
Tetris was a blockbuster hit without realistic interpersonal dynamics.
- mercer 10y ago
  Yes. Yes it was.