Why do we love it? What, if any, are the consequences of living in virtual or "fantasy" world in which we indulge fantasies of violence and murder?
First-person shooters aren't the only culprits, if you will, of indulging violent fantasies. I would argue, even, that the first-person shooter is actually less harmful than others, for the fact that most first-person shooters are military based, and the targets are (usually) enemy soldiers that engage in combat with you. For those reasons I wouldn't call it murder. Compare that to Grand Theft Auto, a traditionally third-person sandbox experience, where you can murder anyone on the street. There are certainly consequences that can and should be addressed in first-person shooters, but I can't say I agree with the ones you specified. – nsnow9 years ago
This is a really interesting topic- lots of debate has been held on this issue. Many studies have suggested that these kind of games influence moral values, but there are just as many that refute this opinion entirely with valid reasoning. The gamer's perspective of these games is one thing, but the public's general opinions may be completely different. Perhaps maybe the writer could look into how the general public views these games as well. – James Smith9 years ago
I would make sure not to swing too heavily in one direction with this one. The topic is so hotly contested that a bias would be detrimental to any argument being made. – TineBeag9 years ago
First of all, not all first-person games are murder simulators. play some Portal 2. exercise those brain muscles over some pretty creative puzzles and laugh out loud dialogue. Second of all, it's not just FPS games that are violent. Gears of War? Hitman? Third, there are other genres of video games. Puzzle games, Platformers, RPGs, sports/ racing games. Fourth, sometimes people play a game because- dare I say it- it's fun, regardless of content. – effingjay9 years ago
Why are horror games such as Until Dawn becoming so popular? How have they changed from indie pc horror games? Why are we so fascinated by them now?
This subject will likely need to explore the history of horror games, and even a little of horror stories and films, in order to answer why the genre has grown in video-game form. I also think it's clear that a big turning point was the premiere of "Amnesia: The Dark Descent." But there are surely other games that helped build up the credibility of the genre, at least as far as "good horror" goes. There's still plenty of weak, "jump-scare" ridden horror out there, as there has been for years. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Time of the year has a big influence. It's nearly Halloween. – Ylatten9 years ago
I think the fascination of being scared excites a lot of people, and recently viewers have turned to more immersive types of media instead of just watching a movie. Plus the the explosion of "let's plays" on YouTube has added to this excitement because viewers love seeing their favorite commentator get the sh*t scared out of them. – AustinDrozin9 years ago
I think people are becoming more intrigued by the graphics and stories of games. I also agree with what Ylatten said, halloween is right around the corner. But that only comes with Until Dawn. My main point would be people are becoming more and more interested in stories. Until Dawn is hardly a game in my point. Most of the time you are watching videos and just choosing how the story will play out. As virtual reality headsets start becoming more popular, so will Horror Games. – Chris R.9 years ago
Analyze how Sony's attempt to give the world another great handheld console initially failed. Then illustrate how indie developers have kept it alive, while no AAA games are being made.
As the new gaming consoles (PS4, XBOX 1) become more popular and common to see in your friends' living rooms, where will console entertainment go from here? Nintendo is already planning the release of its new console next year, Steam has created its own brand of PC gaming devices, and virtual reality is slowly becoming more of a marketable product. Yet, can classic companies like Microsoft, Sony, even Apple, manage to compete and adapt with new innovations to gaming. Or will the next Sony device be an upgraded console with stronger hardware? Has gaming reached its technological peak and are we forever doomed to a future of CPU driven console devices, which lack interactive innovation. Or could we see Netflix on the next Microsoft device being broadcast as a hologram right in your room. Could we see a future of virtual reality devices, which take gamers into the actual game. Where do gaming consoles go from here?
Its important that the writter discusses what consoles can do over PCs. Nintendo has local play, sony and microsoft have perifferals that change the way people can play. – Cojo9 years ago
With the rise of many YouTube gaming personalities such as PewDiePie, Markiplier and Jacksepticeye, the idea of not have to personally purchase a game appeals to millions of people. Sitting down and watching someone else play a game, for many, is an ideal way to see what the current gaming scene is like, and a way to keep themselves occupied and entertained. My question is, are gamers a groundbreaking new form of entertainment as a new set of entertainers? They contrast with in-person comedians and live shows in that their work can be replayed and still be exactly the same, but this form of entertainment is different than the traditional idea. Are these gamers the new face of entertainment?
As Games have evolved, they become more and more cinematic. Cutscenes that are directed using filmaking knowledge, and interactive series such as 'The Walking Dead' and 'The Wolf Among Us' are essentially interactive choose-your-own-adventure films. So my question is this- as Films yearn to draw the audience in more and more through interactivity, will they start to become much like games- or is the age of games over? Is the future of CoD an interactive action film with occasional quick-time segments?
Awesome topic. You should use the game Night Trap to show how games and movies can interact. – TheTylerHudson9 years ago
I've actually thought about this myself. It's almost like both, film and games, are missing something. In games, we are slightly deprived of a filmmaker's vision, but that vision or voice can sometimes steer people away. On the flip side, some viewers are intrigued by a filmmaker's vision more than they the film's subject matter. In film, we are unable to physically interact. Being able to physically interact versus a filmmaker drawing you into his/her film might be an interesting angle. It almost seems like there is no reason why we, the viewer, aren't granted the opportunity to be a part of a film. Having that interaction might be what gives the viewer a true connection with a film and its subject matter. Further, games aren't as linear as they once were. Some games have multiple endings, while others have no defined ending. – MDanielewski9 years ago
This is an incredibly interesting topic. Games and films are both consistently in the eye of society, and the both of them can be seen as partners of the other. So many of these things can slide seamlessly into the other, which could spark a pretty decent debate. Personally, I think the majority of society likes the idea of seeing a game follow a film, because then they can live with and as the characters they fell in love with during the movie. – briannahardy9 years ago
This is an interesting topic and I would say that games might outlive films. Cinematic displays and the filmmakers vision are constantly being incorporated into games; Halo and Final Fantasy are excellent examples of this. It's interesting because both fields are dynamic, yet games seem more likely to wither than film, as film seems to be a constant staple of popular culture. Yet, if gaming integrates more elements of film into its production, it almost seems desirable that people could choose to interact with cinematic games more in the long run, whereas film is not interactive. If anything a merger of the two mediums could be interesting, such as Scorsese directing the new Halo. – JamesNeff9 years ago
The release of Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection marks yet another addition to the long line-up of video games that are undergoing the remaster/HD collection trend that started all the way back in 2009 with the God of War Collection. Since then, more developers have pushed towards remastering games from the last generation with current generation technology.
On one hand, these old games can be experienced with improved resolution and performance, and can also be played by gamers who may have missed out on them the first time. On the other hand, the frequency of these remasters have become a source of criticism, either for their lack of value compared to HD collections with only one remastered game sold at a high price, or for only offering mild upgrades that do not offer much of a benefit to those who have already played the original game.
With so many franchises getting the remaster treatment, I think it would be a good idea to detail the history of these remasters – the good and the bad – and explore what makes a good remaster.
Console limitations may also come into play here. I'm thinking particularly of the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection for the Xbox 360. The controller lacks the pressure sensitive buttons of the Playstation 2 controller, meaning the developers had to come up with a new, clunkier way of being able to put down a weapon while aiming. – ODude9 years ago
I think remasters also have a lot to do with cashing in on a franchise. Final Fantasy X/X-2 (which I love, by the way) can only be remastered so much. It has now been remastered three times, and people have been rolling their eyes. I personally don't mind remasters because they usually have some kind of bonus content (i.e. the Kingdom Hearts HD Remixes), and I also like having as many of my games as possible on the same console. But I do have to admit that the frequency of remasters can be annoying because it is an obvious cash-in, and it also means we have to wait that much longer for a new, original title. – Christina9 years ago
As someone who has never been able to play first person games they have always fascinated me and have made me wonder; in what way does the players perception change with the medium? First person games feature a visual perspective as if the player was physically doing the actions; these are particularly popular in shooting games. Third person on the other hand displays a character completely and as such the player is viewing their actions as they would view another person's. This perspective can be seen in various puzzle games such as any Mario or Zelda game. How does the perspective that the player is shown influence the perception of the player? Would Mario be as entertaining if it was in the first person? Or is there something unique about a genre that leads its games to be in a certain perspective?
This COULD be a very interesting topic, but you need to explain what you mean by "first person" or "third person" in relation to video games. It will be hard to expand this topic into a full-length post unless you explain it a bit more. Also, "mario" should be capitalized and "In" should be lowercase. – Dominic Sceski10 years ago
I made some adjustments! Hopefully that helps clarify the question and expand upon its meaning. – jonavitua10 years ago
Games like Skyrim and Fallout (I'm specifically thinking 3 and New Vegas as they're the two I've played) should be mentioned, because at the press of a button you can change from that first person perspective to third person. i think this may actually be true of GTA V too and is definitely true of driving games.
First person I think is meant to immerse yourself into that game, or in other words, the gamer and the character are one. These games also probably give the gamer more options with dialogue and actions.
Third person as you already said gives you a complete display of a character and I would say this is used with more fleshed out characters and a strict narrative structure. – Jamie White9 years ago
Like Jamie said, first person is a lot more personal in that YOU are the player/character, whereas in third person you simply operate the character. However, I would also argue that it goes even deeper than that. Either first- or third-person can be even more unique. In the Bioshock series, for example, you play as Jack in the first Bioshock game and the only time he speaks is in the opening cutscene. In Bioshock: Infinite, however, Booker regularly speaks, either to other people or aloud to himself. I think that dynamic can alter the way a player experiences the game. – Christina9 years ago
I don't know if this will be a worthwhile notation, but I experience a frequent physical limitation to first person games, and I'm not the only one. A number of us have to take motion sickness pills or sit down with a bottle of Ginger Ale anytime a video game (or movie) is in this form. Could that be creating a barrier for consumers? – Piper CJ9 years ago
