Video games have come a long way and now the technology is very developed, as we can see how hyper-realistic the graphics are and how incredibly intelligent the AIs are. Putting aside people who develop games and who game for a living, I wonder if video games as a sheer form of entertainment actually provide any important values to a heavy gamer’s life–by heavy gamer I mean someone who spend most of their time gaming not for profit or work. Also, in this context, I’m referring to non-educational games, so not the games that is meant to educate kids, but games that is meant to entertain, such as DOTA, Far Cry, Infamous Son, Counter Strike etc. Take Counter-Strike: Global Offensive for example, some kids play it night and day, and all they do is shooting people. One could argue that such time can be spent on reading, an activity that provides not only entertainment, but also important values.
Just for the sake of bouncing off ideas with people, another argument I could think of is that, even though some games might have educational values, they probably don’t improve things like literacy as much as reading a book does. I also keep thinking that if a person play violin 24/7, they would become a virtuoso, where as if they play games 24/7, no matter how educational the game is, I doubt they would obtain any actual skills.
Now before you think I’m an anti-gamer, I want to clarify that I’m not. I have played lots of games. I just wanted to occupy one side of argument so that it might be easier for other people to take another (or agree on my side).
This topic sometimes occurs to my mind when I see people just play games 24/7 (again, excluding professional gamers and game developers); they don’t care about other things other than their games. It sometimes seems to be like an addictive mind drug. Such things don’t really happen to people who enjoy other forms of entertainment (music, movies, sports etc), which is what makes the games a different kinds of entertainment than those, in my opinion.
Take away video games from one’s life, I would tend to think it wouldn’t do much harm to a person (assuming that they are not addicted already), but if you take away other arts from someone’s life, I think that would actually do some sort of damage to them. So how valuable is gaming to one’s life? Is gaming just pretty much wasting time? If you were a heavy gamer, how would you justify all your time spent on gaming?
Do you want to focus on extreme gamers (i.e. the 24/7 gamers you described above) or just gamers in general, even the casual ones? I've been playing video games nearly my whole life and have successfully finished many. While I'm not what you might consider addicted (on average I'll play at most 4 hours of a game in a day, but I'll stop gaming for months if I have a heavy school load), I think I'd definitely lose something if they were taken away. I love gaming for the immersion it gives me into a new world, like a book or a movie - I love the escape of it. If you took away my movies or books, I'd be very angry for the same reasons. If you want to think of games as wasting time, then what about books with bad writing/fluffy or meaningless stories, or movies that are just action-packed with zero plot? Every medium has its flaws/problematic culture and I think by just looking at a violent game like Counter-Strike as an example of video games being a waste of time, you lose the games that are actually educational (there are games geared just for children after all), that operate much like books or movies by showing people a brand new world and offering them an escape, or that are just a really fun way to waste time. Wasting time is not, after all, always a bad thing. – karebear71 month ago
Is there a way that you could narrow this topic down? It is really interesting. It just seems like a monuments task, and almost like a research project. I would concur with the above comment on focusing on specific gamers like extreme gamers, or it can be a comparison with casual gamers. – AbeRamirez1 month ago
Get Ready! Nintendo is about to launch its first mobile game on December 15th. This game is Super Mario Run, a platform specifically built with mobile controls in mind. The game will start out free to play, but at some point, you will need to spend $10 to buy the entire game. This is a extremely different business model than games like Candy Crush and Pokémon Go, which have micro transactions built into the game, which you can spend as much or as little on the game as you want to. These micro transactions will shape how fast and effectively you progress in a mobile game. Super Mario Run’s business model flies in the face of what is the norm in mobile gaming. My question is this: is a $10 charge too much to pay for a mobile game? And is this one time fee a more fair business model for consumers than the Free to Play, Pay to Win model that has dominated mobile?
This would be a good topic to write about as the game is releasing. It highlights a key component of the game at a time when the game will have the attention of the mobile market.
I like the idea of the game. I would want to have a test trial to be able to decide if I think the game is worth spending $10. Through the free trial period I would make my decision. I do think that is expensive, but I think its reasonable comparing to other options from other mobile games. I'm iffy about it. I guess it'd have to be a really good game, for myself to pay $10. - Nads – Nads431 month ago
I personally think $10 is tooooo much – Haruskie21 month ago
Could explain why you think $10 is too much. It might help however ends up writing about this topic to get a clearer insight into how people perceive this product. – SeanGadus1 month ago
Could you explain why you think $10 is too much. It might help however ends up writing about this topic to get a clearer insight into how people perceive this product.Sorry for the spelling errors in the message above... – SeanGadus1 month ago
With the announcement of The Last of Us: Part 2, there’s been a spur of excitement in the gaming world. This topic would explore the differences and similarities between The Last of Us and other survival-horror/zombie games, and what aspects made it become such a household title among gamers. What did it do differently, what didn’t it change, and how did the narrative affect audiences and players? In essence, what made The Last of Us so memorable to players, and what new avenues did it open for its genre? (The author who takes this topic may even wait for Part 2 to release and add a comparative section between both games, adding to how Part 2 affected the gaming community as well as its predecessor).
The Last of Us is a game that has touched so many people, and can definitely make the case as to why video games should be considered an art form. You should explore why The Last of Us does that, and explain how the second can improve on the first one. – cbo10942 months ago
Many companies are seizing the opportunities presented by the growth and accessibility of virtual reality technology. The pornography industry is producing immersive experiences and violent games will feel more real than ever before. What are the limits of these technologies, especially for commercial use? Are we disconnecting people from the ethics of their society by immersing them in social constructs designed around amoral decisions?
Another interesting angle the writer could pursue: is there any psychological evidence that links immersive simulations like this with a decrease in sensitivity? I.E., does shooting a person or raping a person in a VR make a person more less psychologically disposed to committing those crimes? Might participating in this kind of play change the way they subconsciously view these crimes in society, or empathize with victims of these crimes. Basically, will we need to be screening for VR hobbies in our jurors in the near future? – ealohr3 months ago
In light of the underwhelming flop that was No Man’s Sky, we have to start asking ourselves; "Are we putting too much faith in indie games?". For half a decade we’ve seen indie games skyrocket in popularity. However many gamers tend to forget that simplicity is always a recipe for a successful game.
I think No Man's Sky was a game with a lot of confusion around not just the game itself, how it was marketed, and how it was presented to consumers.This being said, I don't necessarily think that No Man's Sky's controversy and issues represents a lot of the indie game industry.Also, I'm not sure how your comment about "simplicity" related to indie games. I think many indie games use very smart formulas to succeed, for example, Shovel Knight was designed as a love letter to retro games. So I think your topic needs a little more tweaking or clarifying prior someone writing about it. – SeanGadus3 months ago
You have a good point Sean I think I'm having a little difficulty putting my point into words. What I mean to say is that just because indie games are made with more love doesn't mean they're always good. – JacksonAP3 months ago
That is a great point, look at mighty number 9 that game was supposed to be the next mega man and instead was a huge disaster according to most critics and fans. – SeanGadus3 months ago
On the one hand you have NMS which did use false marketing. On the other, you have Rimworld which has seen massive praise. Just an idea you could make it about how games in general have been plagued by false promises with crowdfunding failing to deliver on developers promises on gamer's expectations. You could analyze how much of the problem is consumer expectation versus failure to deliver by devs. – NickC2 months ago
Does DLC have the power to change the way that a game is perceived ? During my initial play-though of vanilla Dark Souls II, I felt severely underwhelmed by the base game and disappointed with the bosses. However, as the Dark Souls II DLC began to trickle out, my overall perception of the game became more positive due to the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed playing through the newer areas. Now that Dark Souls III is about to release its first DLC in about two weeks, is it possible that it can change the way that the base game is looked at or presented?
Yes, because in today;s society the DLC is something that is a must for all die hard gamers in a video games experience. Many people might not agree to this, but many games such as Call of Duty, Destiny, Minecraft, and GTA 5, would be boring to jump on to every day and play the same thing day in and day out, without the addition to any new content. – dff50882 months ago
Hyper Light Drifter’s game experience is inspired by the developer’s heart disease and his fear of meeting death at any moment. Death is constantly looming throughout the game as the protagonist continues to cough up blood. Players empathize with the fragile hero and the creator effectively shares his struggle
How effective is this channeling of personal fear in Hyper Light Drifter, and what other examples are in other games?
The title and article do not correspond. I suggest you either remove art from the title--the simpler revision--or include art in your topic. As it stands there is no aesthetic representation in your topic, though there are an infinite number of examples to choose from if you decide to include one, or more. – danielle5775 months ago
In The Legend of Zelda, the player character of Link can take a lot of damage. Being frozen solid, burning in fire or lava, surviving numerous types of melee weapons. The only armor he bears is a cloth tunic, with a chain-mail suit underneath and some pieces leather armor. If Link were in another game, how long would his green tunic last before he had to upgrade his armor?
This argument would mean little to nothing in a video game world where the female characters' armor consists of next to nothing, so it would probably be best to look at games with armor stats or ranks of armor. Is there a Nintendo game of this sort that could be looked at comparatively or would someone need to venture into other consoles and game types to analyze Link's armor? – Slaidey1 year ago