Controversial opinions

[Nammu Archag]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game and everything else does not exist to serve the gameplay. I see this parroted by game reviewers and similar talking heads a lot.

[Emphyrio]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game

then what is

[Oyster Sauce]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game

then what is

Soul

[Nammu Archag]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game

then what is

Making something coherent. I don't think there's a single most important aspect, but I do know that many of the most well-acclaimed or popular games have serviceable gameplay at best (when I say gameplay, I am talking about base mechanics ie your direct manipulation of the medium. In an FPS this would be shooting and moving mechanics etc. I know some definitions are broader). The gameplay could be super fluid and great, but if it fails to serve a role in the greater cohesion of the work, the game will still fail, maybe being a fad at best.

[Emphyrio]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game

then what is

Soul

i assume soul in this context means the vision of one auteur, uncompromised

[Red7]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game

then what is

Soul

game, just like vagina, does not need to have soul to be appealing. but it better be swollen in all the right places.

[rusty_shackleford]

All the data we have on whether violent video games cause violence in children points towards 'yes' but because the video game industry is still treated like a small startup rather than the world's biggest entertainment behemoth that would go to great lengths to protect the sales of call of doody we all pretend it isn't heavily astroturfed. Also, most people who play video games have been repeatedly told this is false and/or assume this being true is an attack on them therefore they refuse to consider the opposite position.
I was firmly on the "video games don't cause violence" side until I began researching it and realized that the data simply doesn't not support it.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394371/

The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790562/

These findings support the framework of GAM and indicate that moral disengagement, anger, and hostility may be the factors that increase the risk of a higher level of aggression following repeated exposure to violent video games.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227415/

Our findings indicate that there is an association between daily exposure to violent video games and number of depressive symptoms among preadolescent youth

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18161877/

After the active participation of actually playing the violent video game, boys behaved more aggressively than did the boys in the passive game condition. For girls, game condition was not related to aggression. These findings indicate that, specifically for boys, playing a violent video game should lead to more aggression than watching television violence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151190/

Among those who play video games, playing MRRG games was associated with increases in all measures of behavioral deviance. Mediational models support the hypothesis that these effects are in part a consequence of the effects of such gameplay on sensation seeking and rebelliousness, attitudes toward deviant behavior in oneself and others, and affiliation with deviant peers. Effects were similar for males and females, and strongest for those who reported heavy play of mature-rated games and games that involved protagonists who represent non-normative and anti-social values.

https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2018/10 ... aggression

Analysis Links Violent Video Games to Increased Aggression
Dartmouth researchers analyzed 24 studies of game play’s effect on children and teens.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075

The findings were released by the American Psychological Association.
It set up a taskforce that reviewed hundreds of studies and papers published between 2005 and 2013.
The American Psychological Association concluded while there was "no single risk factor" to blame for aggression, violent video games did contribute.

---

And before you disagree, what's your position on games being pozzed to turn kids gay? If video games can be used as propaganda for social issues, why wouldn't they affect violence aswell?

[Vergil]

Thousands of years of human history people have been inspired by stories and media they consume and trillions have been spent into using those means as propaganda to influence people but retards think once it's put into a video game it has no influential effect on people.

[Emphyrio]

All the data we have on whether violent video games cause violence in children points towards 'yes' but because the video game industry is still treated like a small startup rather than the world's biggest entertainment behemoth that would go to great lengths to protect the sales of call of doody we all pretend it isn't heavily astroturfed. Also, most people who play video games have been repeatedly told this is false and/or assume this being true is an attack on them therefore they refuse to consider the opposite position.
I was firmly on the "video games don't cause violence" side until I began researching it and realized that the data simply doesn't not support it.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394371/

The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790562/

These findings support the framework of GAM and indicate that moral disengagement, anger, and hostility may be the factors that increase the risk of a higher level of aggression following repeated exposure to violent video games.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227415/

Our findings indicate that there is an association between daily exposure to violent video games and number of depressive symptoms among preadolescent youth

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18161877/

After the active participation of actually playing the violent video game, boys behaved more aggressively than did the boys in the passive game condition. For girls, game condition was not related to aggression. These findings indicate that, specifically for boys, playing a violent video game should lead to more aggression than watching television violence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151190/

Among those who play video games, playing MRRG games was associated with increases in all measures of behavioral deviance. Mediational models support the hypothesis that these effects are in part a consequence of the effects of such gameplay on sensation seeking and rebelliousness, attitudes toward deviant behavior in oneself and others, and affiliation with deviant peers. Effects were similar for males and females, and strongest for those who reported heavy play of mature-rated games and games that involved protagonists who represent non-normative and anti-social values.

https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2018/10 ... aggression

Analysis Links Violent Video Games to Increased Aggression
Dartmouth researchers analyzed 24 studies of game play’s effect on children and teens.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075

The findings were released by the American Psychological Association.
It set up a taskforce that reviewed hundreds of studies and papers published between 2005 and 2013.
The American Psychological Association concluded while there was "no single risk factor" to blame for aggression, violent video games did contribute.

---

And before you disagree, what's your position on games being pozzed to turn kids gay? If video games can be used as propaganda for social issues, why wouldn't they affect violence aswell?

boys being violent is a good thing actually

[maidenhaver]

Influence can't be argued against, but causing or significantly contributing to violence across the population? I don't know about that. Games are derrived from war games and such, though.

[rusty_shackleford]

Thousands of years of human history people have been inspired by stories and media they consume and trillions have been spent into using those means as propaganda to influence people but retards think once it's put into a video game it has no influential effect on people.

You can't even state it as a matter of fact, not stating your opinion on whether it's good or bad, without a significant portion of gamers getting upset for stating it. It's a conditioned response.

[Segata]

Violent games pacified me

[rusty_shackleford]

Influence can't be argued against, but causing or significantly contributing to violence across the population?

I don't know. Do you?
The fact that the data seems to suggest, and commonsense should suggest, that it's true yet the overwhelming consensus says it's false makes me wonder.

To phrase it another way, do you think a 16 year old black teenager who just got done shooting up a bunch of people on his favorite video game is more or less likely to pull out his blicky when his brother's mother's baby daddy yells at him for skipping school?

[RK-9]

Pineapple on pizza is fucking amazing!

[Xenich]

I do dislike the "can only use x fireballs, y stinking clouds" etc. in D&D. Feels unnatural that a well-versed mage would only be able to use a SET number of each spell. Sorcerer feels more apt where they can use a number of spells of each tier, but it's their choice on WHAT to use. I'd also be ok with each spell being assigned a number (mana), so say you get 10 mana points (variable) for a tier, fireball is 3, stinking cloud is 2, missiles is 1 (pretend they're all on the same tier as I cba), it's then up to you whether you use 3 fireballs & 1 missile, or 2 fireballs, 4 missiles, or 2 fireballs, 1 stinking cloud, 1 missile etc.

But it has an actual explanation given. They memorize how to cast the spell, and the nature of magic in D&D is that casting a spell causes you to forget how to cast it so it must be memorized again.

I don't think I've ever seen a good one for mana pools.

Yeah, it was logical and it made sense in its progression as well which tied in with attributes and numerous other gaming features of play. The system was very well thought out and reasoned to its existence. Mana pools always seemed more of an arcade solution to branching the complexities of AD&D and fast paced action gaming.

I remember reading Brad McQuaid talking about how they were trying to translate that over into an MMO setting and found they had to move to mana pools and resting over time with regen as a balance. DDO did a pretty good job I thought with their resting shrines mimicking camping and changing spells out to which they used careful placement to keep the dungeon balanced.

It seems to me that a lot of the systems between magic/melee/ranged are just base templates with name changes to give them the appearance of being different systems. I guess that is why many games to me seem to be so mundane, generic and repetitious regardless of the classes you choose.

[Xenich]

Influence can't be argued against, but causing or significantly contributing to violence across the population?

I don't know. Do you?
The fact that the data seems to suggest, and commonsense should suggest, that it's true yet the overwhelming consensus says it's false makes me wonder.

To phrase it another way, do you think a 16 year old black teenager who just got done shooting up a bunch of people on his favorite video game is more or less likely to pull out his blicky when his brother's mother's baby daddy yells at him for skipping school?

I would say it is also contingent on base development as well. If the child already has had a base concept of morality established, understands the concept of real and make believe, and what is moral behavior and what is not, then it's influence may exist to an extent, but would not drive their actions in reality.

I also think basic intelligence is a factor to this as well. People who are of low intelligence often lack self control when it concerns interactions within social environments.

The black teen easily translating their experience into becoming a killing thug like the game they played who lacks moral structure and contains a low IQ is much more likely to be influenced by such interaction.

Though I know for myself, I never enjoyed games like GTA and the like. The idea of acting like a complete rampant low IQ thug even in game play never seemed interesting to me, though this may have been due to my upbringing.

[rusty_shackleford]

This discussion reminds me of Musk saying he couldn't play GTAV because it required him to kill cops and being made fun of for it.

[maidenhaver]

Influence can't be argued against, but causing or significantly contributing to violence across the population?

I don't know. Do you?
The fact that the data seems to suggest, and commonsense should suggest, that it's true yet the overwhelming consensus says it's false makes me wonder.

To phrase it another way, do you think a 16 year old black teenager who just got done shooting up a bunch of people on his favorite video game is more or less likely to pull out his blicky when his brother's mother's baby daddy yells at him for skipping school?

That's why I say influence is inarguable, because in other groups or annecdotes, the father (who is increasingly missing), the church (also), family (also gone), teachers (more untrustworthy than ever), military (lol), etc would moderate or guide that destructive behavior toward something else, like an outside enemy, evil, work, studies, or deers. With all of that gone, and no one to define what being a White Man is, or Christian Man, then the little shit and everyone around him thinks waving a loaded gun around and eating tide pods is funny.

[Xenich]

This discussion reminds me of Musk saying he couldn't play GTAV because it required him to kill cops and being made fun of for it.

It is something to consider, though I never had that level of aversion to it. I could play an evil character in a D&D setting (or in some games, Mobsters for instance), but it also had to be focused to a more productive means (ie not just random chaotic violence and maliciousness) where the goal was "reasoned" to an intelligent and purposeful goal or perspective.

Running around doing hookers, shooting random people, or basically playing the general pointless chaotic criminal element just didn't appeal to me. For instance, I could never take a game like Postal seriously. It is just about random senseless killing for kicks, though playing the part of a criminal who robs a bank, must plan it out, and strategical see it to fruition was something I could see as interesting, even if part of the play involved dealing with the law in various ways.

Yet if the content is satanic, sexual, or focuses on cruel or malicious behavior, I don't care how interesting the game play, it just doesn't sit well with me.

[Oyster Sauce]

IIRC the US Army had and probably still has an issue with getting soldiers to actually shoot people, and the simple solution of switching to paper targets in the shape of enemy soldiers during training made a massive difference.
And here's why that's a good thing

[rusty_shackleford]

Anecdotally, I quit playing Assassin's Creed Valhalla for, among other reasons, because I wasn't comfortable ransacking and looting monasteries.

[Emphyrio]

IIRC the US Army had and probably still has an issue with getting soldiers to actually shoot people, and the simple solution of switching to paper targets in the shape of enemy soldiers during training made a massive difference.
And here's why that's a good thing

dubious

[Vergil]

This discussion reminds me of Musk saying he couldn't play GTAV because it required him to kill cops and being made fun of for it.

This is different and worth ridicule because firing on american cops is morally good.

[rusty_shackleford]

IIRC the US Army had and probably still has an issue with getting soldiers to actually shoot people, and the simple solution of switching to paper targets in the shape of enemy soldiers during training made a massive difference.
And here's why that's a good thing

You'd think the US military paying for a simulator that ends up being pretty much a call of duty reskin would have some people think on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army

[WhiteShark]

IIRC the US Army had and probably still has an issue with getting soldiers to actually shoot people,

I'm certain it's still an issue. I read an older military text a while back that talked about how the vast majority of soldiers will, at best, only shoot in the general direction of enemies—without aiming—and at worst, will simply lie down behind cover and wait for the battle to be over. The minority are the 'bold men' who will charge enemy positions, shoot to kill, and in general do all the actual fighting, but these die much quicker and need frequent replacements.

[rusty_shackleford]

Gameplay is not the most important aspect of a video game and everything else does not exist to serve the gameplay. I see this parroted by game reviewers and similar talking heads a lot.

Putting gameplay above all else leads to games where the narrative is disjoint from the game which quickly causes me to lose interest.
This is directly related to the vancian magic discussion we just had a page or couple back or wherever. It directly ties game mechanics to the narrative therefore I find it much more fascinating than vague mana pools.

[Anon]

This discussion reminds me of Musk saying he couldn't play GTAV because it required him to kill cops and being made fun of for it.

Elon sometimes is like a right-wing troon

[Oyster Sauce]

IIRC the US Army had and probably still has an issue with getting soldiers to actually shoot people, and the simple solution of switching to paper targets in the shape of enemy soldiers during training made a massive difference.
And here's why that's a good thing

You'd think the US military paying for a simulator that ends up being pretty much a call of duty reskin would have some people think on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army

I remember spending hours doing the medic training where you apply tourniquets, sew up bulletholes, and do CPR thinking it would somehow be a part of the gameplay in multiplayer

[rusty_shackleford]

Elon sometimes is like a right-wing troon

I think people often forget that Musk is in his 50s. He's on the younger end there, but cops used to be much more respectable in USA before they cut all the standards and switched to shoot first.
We'd know if they were coming to arrest someone by whether they had their gloves on because they might get into a struggle, now they'd just shoot you. And I'm not even as old as he is.

[Emphyrio]

IIRC the US Army had and probably still has an issue with getting soldiers to actually shoot people,

I'm certain it's still an issue. I read an older military text a while back that talked about how the vast majority of soldiers will, at best, only shoot in the general direction of enemies—without aiming—and at worst, will simply lie down behind cover and wait for the battle to be over. The minority are the 'bold men' who will charge enemy positions, shoot to kill, and in general do all the actual fighting, but these die much quicker and need frequent replacements.

Yes but bad aim because "I don't want to get shot" (real) is different from bad aim because "I don't want to shoot people"(mostly fake)