5 ms·

i don't get the point - but entertaining read. i don't think we have violent games dominating for some random fluke of what was made first and what the creator

by jheriko 12y ago

i don't get the point - but entertaining read. i don't think we have violent games dominating for some random fluke of what was made first and what the creators wanted. its just supply and demand. although this is also why other, much more popular, casual games have completely eclipsed the 'core gamer' focused 'AAA' industry with their reach and money making power... now that computing has become ubiquitous demand is coming from everywhere and not just the traditional early adopters.

hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
I'm sure the author is being sarcastic.
- cwyers 12y ago
  I'm sure it's sarcasm. I just have a hard time understanding what the point it's trying to make is.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened.
  - hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
    I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells. Note the sarcasm here: > In a sense, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know how to make games about the human heart, but struggle to deal with fists, swords, and guns.
  - cwyers 12y ago
    And the two responses to my comment so far perfectly illustrate my confusion, I think: > I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells. AND > All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened. Is the author's premise that games focused on social dynamics are just as easy to make as games focused on violence, and that we have to back-fit justifications to fit it? Or is it that games focused on social dynamics really are harder?

by jheriko 12y ago

hcarvalhoalves 12y ago

I'm sure the author is being sarcastic.

cwyers 12y ago
I'm sure it's sarcasm. I just have a hard time understanding what the point it's trying to make is.
- saraid216 12y ago
  All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened.
- hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
  I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells. Note the sarcasm here: > In a sense, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know how to make games about the human heart, but struggle to deal with fists, swords, and guns.
- cwyers 12y ago
  And the two responses to my comment so far perfectly illustrate my confusion, I think: > I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells. AND > All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened. Is the author's premise that games focused on social dynamics are just as easy to make as games focused on violence, and that we have to back-fit justifications to fit it? Or is it that games focused on social dynamics really are harder?