Why we kill (in games)

[dsheinem]

I find them to be terribly dull

That's a very different kind of critique, though, and one I wouldn't attempt to quibble with.

[Menegrothx]

Except that plenty of people play the game on PC or PS3, not everyone who plays the game on any of those platforms simply plays casually or in random matchmaking games, and there is indeed a competitive online community around the games - much more than almost any other title, in fact.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail this thread with COD defending, but too many folks on here seem to dismiss the game (and most in the genre) for reasons rarely related to the actual experience of playing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic ... orts_games

If you check "Professional leagues" you can see that Australian Cyber League is the only one which includes a COD game (Modern Warfare 3). World Cyber Games has never had COD in their line up.

The whole "call games you don't like and their communities casual" thing reminds me a lot of the "you're not a real geek" discussion.

If you don't like something that otherwise gets a lot of praise it's likely because it wasn't made for people like you.

So COD games aren't made for young males who enjoy playing FPS games? Well that explains a lot. I had around 480-500 hours of played time in COD4, MW2 and Black Ops (combined) in Steam and I've briefly tried MW3. Are you saying that is not a big enough time investment to give me the right to judge the gameplay mechanics of the recent Call of Duty games?

[dsheinem]

I had around 480-500 hours of played time in COD4, MW2 and Black Ops (combined)

Wait, and you don't think the gameplay is solid? I suppose you at least think its fun, right? If not, why would you spend so much time with the series?

[J T]

Interesting article, though I still don't feel satisified with the explanation of why we enjoy violent content; nor do I feel like I clearly understand what makes things cross the line from entertaining violence to repugnant violence.

Here's an additional bit of interesting commentary about violent videogames that suggests the main reason games are violent is because what they do best is spatial simulation, so of course gameplay isn't about communication or other things that we don't have decent methods of modeling yet:

[MrPopo]

Interesting aritcle, though I still don't feel satisified with the explanation of why we enjoy violent content; nor do I feel like I clearly understand what makes things cross the line from entertaining violence to repugnant violence.

Here's an addition bit of interesting commentary about violent videogames that suggests the main reason games are violent is because what they do best is spatial simulation, so of course gameplay isn't about communication or other things that we don't have decent methods of modeling yet:

My suspicion is that we secretly want to bring back mortal combat in the style of Roman gladiatorial games, but the official stance of society is that we are "above such things". So we push it into the digital realm.

[Menegrothx]

I had around 480-500 hours of played time in COD4, MW2 and Black Ops (combined)

Wait, and you don't think the gameplay is solid? I suppose you at least think its fun, right? If not, why would you spend so much time with the series?

The game is fun to play casually. Gun porn+leveling up system->addictive combination that keeps you playing.

In the world of highly competitive gaming even the tiniest nuances in the game design can give the game a whole new additional layer of depth even if majority of players don't even notice things like that. Some games have a much higher "skill cap" and offer a lot more variety, strategy and depth at top level than others (making them vastly more intresting and e-Sport worthy). Two games of the same genre might superficially seem very similiar but play completely differently because of the way they were designed. Even if the average gamer cant tell the difference between 2 same looking FPS, 2D fighter or RTS games, it can still be a night and day for pro gamers.

[MrPopo]

Everything you just said is true, but that also doesn't invalid Dsh's point that the gameplay is solid and that drives the sales. Professional players do not drive sales; they can't, their numbers are too small.

[Erik_Twice]

Have to say that I found that article to be an excercise in padding. I don't know what it's trying to tell me, it just...goes along, I guess.

I'm firmly on the camp that many games are "violent" because it's a reasonable thematic backdrop for the most basic gameplay concepts. Making an obstacle go away must only slighty more advanced that moving a pixel on a screen.

[o.pwuaioc]

My suspicion is that we secretly want to bring back mortal combat in the style of Roman gladiatorial games, but the official stance of society is that we are "above such things". So we push it into the digital realm.

Which is a real shame. This should definitely be allowed.

[J T]

Can't we have one thread about violence on this forum without it devolving into a discussion about the politics and social mores of the Roman empire.