Yeah, it will be funny if Far Cry 3, not even nominated by Gamespot editors, becomes the winner of People's Choice. I think there's a lesson to be learned...
Far Cry 3 is by far the best of this list. Also, Max Payne 3, despite being a linear shooter, was one of the most entertaining games of the year. The whole section on the "favela" is a must play for any hardcore action gamer.
@capper64 Absolutely. Imagine I would go to my 12 year old nephew's anniversary and offer him The Exorcist. It would be unacceptable. Now imagine I would offer him the latest edition of Mortal Kombat. Most likely he would be allowed to play it. Parents need to understand and follow what their children are doing, what games they play, what movies they watch, what they do online, at school, etc. You can't neglect your children and then blame these things for the fact that your son has become violent or abusive.
This is a great topic that I feel is often addressed slightly off the mark.
We talk about violence in video games and we usually focus on its violent content, in a descriptive manner, instead of considering how violent the "experience" of the game is.
The reason why this dissociation happens is because most of the academic community is not involved with gaming culture to make that distinction.
What I mean is: violent content is one thing, a violent video game experience is another.
Here's an example.
Take a look at GTA IV and compare it with, for example, BioShock. If you focus on content, no doubt GTA IV is the most violent game. You can rob cars, hit civilians, drive through them, shoot them, shoot cops, prostitutes, etc. You can commit all forms of digital murder.
Let me say this. GTA's game mechanic doesn't actually reward these practices. If you do those things, your "wanted meter" will rise, meaning you'll be hunted by the police to the point where your game progression will become impossible – you will die (or fail).
But the game is indeed open to that. It provides you the freedom to do those things. In fact, it’s part of its advertising power. And that gets the attention of the media, which in turn will talk about the game as a cop killer simulator, which it isn’t.
But the most important thing is this. Despite featuring all kinds of violent content, the experience of the game itself isn’t that violent. It’s too exaggerated, almost cartoony. It’s not a realistic portrayal of life. And playing the game doesn’t mean you are in a violent state. It doesn’t mean that you’re angry or stressed. In fact, you can be having a lot of fun playing GTA IV – and not be doing any of those things I described above.
With that in mind, we should consider that playing a game like BioShock, or Dead Space, can be much more violent. These are games that are emotionally powerful, that provide a subjective experience that is dark and claustrophobic, that is immersed in horror.
But even more importantly, the experience of online first person shooters for hours on end can be very violent, especially for younger audiences, teenagers.
So it’s not all about the content – “you can do these violent acts, therefore this is a violent game” – but its more about the experience that you have, the emotional state you’re brought into, and for how long you’re exposed to it.
This is what I think people who are studying this phenomenon should focus on, because I really think it’s the key to understand how people respond to these experiences, outside the game world.
And, of course, once you go into that territory, of what triggers violence, all sorts of factors come into place, like social context, family background and dynamics, culture, psychology, education and so on.
In that regard, I don’t think games are any different from other visual forms of media. You can watch horror movies and be a perfectly balanced person. And you can be obsessed with horror movies, watch them every day, multiple times, and have a life of obsession, immersed in horror. And that could be a path to a dysfunctional engagement with real life.
The same is true for games. It’s not just about how violent they are, but how you approach them in the context of your own life, and if you are having a balanced life experience. I’m not saying games can’t be bad for you. They can. But so can television, the internet, movies, news media, comics, etc. But to blame these, individually, as an explanation for violence, is to disregard many complex factors that really build up the fabric of life in the real world.
This is all terribly sad. I was disappointed with DA2 and basically crushed with ME3, but I still retain all the love and awesome times I spent in the past playing BioWare games. I hope they get back on track with DA3, and in a few years bring back the Mass Effect series to its rightful place as one of the greatest sci-fi sagas of this generation.
As for EA, yeah, they suck, those guys reveal no love for games, it's all about monetizing strategies and marketing bs.
Yes, video games are an artform. So what? Just because cinema, painting or literature are art forms doesn't mean that every film, painting or book ever written is a work of art. It certainly doesn't mean they can't be questioned or criticized by the audience, viewer or reader.
The "artistic argument" is being used as a "get out of jail free card". Gamers have a right to express their views and developer's have the right to do whatever they want with that feedback - and face the consequences of their decisions.
Mass Effect 3 is a tragic example of how some trends in the industry are being detrimental to single-player story based genres. I'm not saying the gaming industry is in a bad moment - in fact I believe quite the contrary. But ME3 is a tragic example of everything that can go wrong when you loose focus from what made your series great in the first place.
Here's what you have: important characters/squadmates discarded to minor roles (all the ME2 crew), reduced dialog options (minimal "paragade/neutral" options), no explorable hub worlds (besides the Citadel), no vehicle based missions, eavesdrop sidequests that rely simply on planet scanning (nothing but filler), confusing and disorganized mission inventory.
Also, lets not forget day-one DLC (unlocking content already on the game disc), the usage of a stock photo to depict one of the series most important characters (Tali), or the fact that BioWare connected single-player story outcome with the need to play multi-player.
Wrap it all up with a disappointing nonsensical ending and you have a recipe for disaster, no matter how much production value and whipped cream you put on top of it. You can't just feed your audience with PR talk such as "75 perfect scores", expect them to buy the game and shut up because heaven forbid gamers start having opinions on the games they pay for. It would be so bad for the industry...
Also, regarding this editorial, it is poorly argumented. The two references aren't comparable and the implications presented are laughable - putting Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch on par with Nicolas Cage says it all. Quite frankly, after reading that, I find your authority on talking about art rather questionable.
DannyC_pt's comments