Nope, consumer is just a customer who pays for its entertainment.
I forgot that it doesn't take 7.5 million idiots buying Black Ops 2 in a month for publishers and developers to think it's a good money making prospect. All of them share the blame equally and it's naïve to assume that the customer doesn't make shitty decisions at least occasionally.
Also, Remember Me could have been really cool but it just ended up being a loud, wet fart. I'm really glad I didn't have to buy it to find that out.
It's amazing how in it's quest to repair the mistakes of it's senior, Elsword get's so many things done right. I'd only wish the dungeons were more innovative in gameplay since they cover most of it
- Some items can only be obtained with credits purchased with real money - Credits earned through gameplay and purchased credit cannot be swapped - Each purchase only lasts for one level
Why did Microsoft bothered to slapped such poor microtransactions in Halo: Spartan Assault?
It's amazing how only lingering in the company of pro players can inspire you to become better. First time ever that I had a premium cash item gifted to me
Uninstalled League of Legends without ever having actually played the game because I'm pretty sure if I had no interest after having it on my system for two months I'd never be interested in it.
I forgot that it doesn't take 7.5 million idiots buying Black Ops 2 in a month for publishers and developers to think it's a good money making prospect. All of them share the blame equally and it's naïve to assume that the customer doesn't make shitty decisions at least occasionally.
Exactly, that's why I'm calling developers stupid for following a customer's preference (high graphics, war, football YAY), they're supposed to be the creative ones not a clueless consumer who's using a wallet for random hollywood releases.
QUOTE(radixius @ Aug 7 2013, 05:49)
Also, Remember Me could have been really cool but it just ended up being a loud, wet fart. I'm really glad I didn't have to buy it to find that out.
Remember Me? Doesn't ring a bell, my interest focuses for more creative games such as Gravity Rush.
Exactly, that's why I'm calling developers stupid for following a customer's preference (high graphics, war, football YAY), they're supposed to be the creative ones not a clueless consumer who's using a wallet for random hollywood releases.
Eh, they're businesses, so they have to take the whole loss aversion tactic seriously. It's completely cyclical, if stupid people keep buying stupid things, then lazy developers and publishers are going to pander to them to keep making stupid things for the stupid people to buy and fill their coffers for no reason other than to make shareholders happy.
Not to mention that, on the rare occasion that a decent idea does come down the pipe, consumers seem to ignore it because it's not like everything else out there, or they decry it for being too different, or it's not different enough, or it isn't supported by a decent marketing campaign from the publisher, what benefit is there for the developer to rock the boat? The problem is, making games isn't an artistic medium at the moment, it's a money medium, and it's not going to change as long as there's this static, gross atmosphere permeating throughout.
The deep, underlying problem with the current state of the video game industry is apathy. And ain't nothing in the world but another crash going to stop that.
The problem is, making games isn't an artistic medium at the moment, it's a money medium, and it's not going to change as long as there's this static, gross atmosphere permeating throughout.
The deep, underlying problem with the current state of the video game industry is apathy. And ain't nothing in the world but another crash going to stop that.
Sadly true, a profitable business ruins the artistic sense. When the day comes that all upcoming games are turning into productive overrated crap (than creative) it's the day I'll stop supporting the game industry.
Is the killings in movies as bad as killings in real life as well?
Of course not, it's intrinsically different to people that don't know any better. In fact, I'd wager that video game violence and filmic violence has a massive psychological difference as well simply because of the fundamental differences between the mediums, especially with the advent of the Xbox controller's trigger buttons being literally shaped like gun triggers, rather than just regular ol' buttons. That distinction and the interactive aspect of the video game medium, in addition o the prevalence of first person shooter games, specifically on consoles, is the closest most people are going to come to looking at a person, aiming a gun at them and shooting someone in their life.
Some of the separation probably comes from using your middle finger to depress those triggers rather than your index finger Whenever you play a game that has these firefighting segments in them, what you are doing, mentally, is targeting a human shaped thing and extinguishing them with the intent of destruction. Now, granted, it's a virtual person so it has no impact on the real space we live in, but by comparison, your movie viewing experience is entirely passive. There is nothing you can do to change the events that have been put in place on a TV show or movie. Stopping a movie from playing doesn't change the fact that the series of events contained within that data will always be there, it will always be the same. The only thing that separates the act of murder, "[ . . . ] the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human," and what you do in shooty-type games, is the virtual aspect of the world that it takes place in. But if you can separate that, that's all well and good.
But think about this: A video game, during the actual gameplay segments, those are your actions, and if you turn the game off and don't pick it up again, and assuming that the game world isn't something like The Sims or Animal Crossing where things happen while the game is off, nothing is ever going to happen in that game again. Ever. It ceases to be. Without you... that world, that you've either helped create or destroy is...
Is the killings in movies as bad as killings in real life as well? He should lecture Hollywood about that too. :/
I am going to say sort of but mainly not. Current research shows a small correlation between playing violent video games as young children <6 years old and lower impulse control years later. Its kind of parenting fail to let young children play MA15+ and R18+ games. For children younger than 12 there can be a socialising effect from the poor attitudes and language displayed in certain games online, again its a parenting fail letting little kids play MA15+ games for too many hours a day.
After 12 children are easily able to start distinguishing between right and wrong, game and reality, though not fully developed until 18-21 years of age. There were studies that had people in an uproar for a while showing a neurological impact of the games, where adults and teenagers playing a violent game had increased hormone levels associated with aggression after playing. Though the increase wasn't that great, there were potentially implications for long term exposure though I don't believe any research has found that yet. Later research found that by artificially increasing certain hormones with an injection you could greatly increase violent and aggressive behavior after playing violent games, which was quite a stir until a second study showed you could illicit the same response from people using a placebo.
Currently there is little evidence except for potential impacts on very young children which is a parenting fail. Most research that comes out finding that video games make people violent were probably trying to find any sort of result to begin with and the actual effect is usually quite low.
General Gaming Chat
Aug 7 2013, 04:49
