The first part surprises me. I would have thought action gamers would be better at following the random movement as well. I think the gamers showed better pattern recognition, not better hand-eye.
I can think of some other benefits of games, apart from the enjoyment. Simulations are obviously useful for training people for real tasks. Action and timed puzzle games require players to make many rapid decisions with high accuracy. And strategy games require us to make complex decisions and balance short- and long-term considerations.
All games (apart from games of chance) give us skills. Some are more applicable to real life than others.
@ziqi92 @DeltaMike90 Of course it's a subjective opinion, what other kind is there? If you want justification, here is my view of the various generations of Pokemon: to begin with, it was a very cool idea and 1st gen had a good range of creatures. 2nd gen had some good additions, but some recycled ones too. Since then just about every new creature has either been recycled from a previous one or been completely abstract. I know there have been a few new mechanics introduced, but to me the new Pokemon seem pretty dull and characterless compared to the originals.
Whatever. I'm not really a Pokemon fan, and I don't want to get into an argument about what merit there is in these games. It just concerns me that a lot of these franchises seem to be going on and on forever, at the expense of new ideas. It's happening in all media right now, and I think we're poorer for it.
@SheiktheGeek @DeltaMike90 I didn't say it should die, I just can't understand why people buy the same things over and over again just because they have different names.
DeltaMike90's comments