I agree, as I've said in many posts, that gaming needs to move beyond its current state of a childish, dorky, and commercially driven hobby and embrace its true function as a valid entertainment medium.  Violence and sex have an enormous role to play in such a transformation, and we should protect and encourage developers to use violence and sex when their games require those elements.

I'm sick of seeing plumbers jump around mushroom patches for reasons only a 5-15 year old could appreciate or derive entertainment from.  I want to see games grow to embrace and articulate any idea a paticular developer might have.

I am sick of childish morality being used to denounce the use of violence in a video game where violence is a logical and acceptable aspect of gameplay.  I'm sick of the cult of parenting crying over the thought of little Jimmy accidently getting his hands on a game that is explicitly designed and marketed around adults. 

Unfortunately, we still live in a day and age dominated by superstition.  I consider this blight upon human thought to be ten times as damaging and dangerous as violent video games.  Adults should be free to play and chose a violent game if it provides them with a level of entertainment, and we should not hold these games in contempt for containing violence.  If you don't like the game -- DON'T PLAY THE GAME.  Stop shoving ridiculous, superficial, and completely subjective "morals" down the throats of people who simply want to have a fun time playing a game.

I think the problem with gaming is that game companies cater too much to children and teenagers in games.  We need violence and sex in games -- in many contexts, violence and sex are very vivid and powerful tools that help tell a story or provide a warrant for the gameplay. 

And remember, Mario artifically inflates the value of a game anywhere between 1-3 points.  In actuality, the score is somewhere between a 3.0-4.0, if the game is even worth scoring in the first place.

Could someone tell me why Western gamers always want to turn every single game into either

A. A Linear/Multiplayer Shooter with online

or

B. A Oblivion or a World of Warcraft clone

 

No seriously someone tell me why?

Dencore

Can someone tell me whey Japanese developers believe that they have the right to tie a noose around the consumer's neck, shovel worthless content down his or her throat in the most disgusting and linear fashion, while encorporating more tired and pointless teenage-market cliches than the average person can count without the aid of a TI-83?

Yeah, games were limited in scope and depth back when processors could barely show an 8-bit Mario jumping around a small level.  It doesn't make sense in a day with 2GiG RAM, multiprocessors, cell processors, monster GPU's, motion sensing controls, etc.

I absoletely hate the idea of "trophies and achivements" in video games.  I play games for entertainment, not to compete against sort of meaningless and functionless standard that a developer sets.  I find both concepts paticuarly disgusting because they artifically stretch the re-playability of a game.  People become so immersed in "scoring X points" that they do not realize that the actual content at hand could be better in both quality and quantity.

Want to set a ton of silly and artifical goals that tell you how to play video games?  Do it yourself.  Developers should not waste valuable time, or structure elements of their game, around something as silly, functionless, and pointless as achivements and trophies.

[QUOTE="videogamer456"]Both are terribly uninteresting.slinky6

Honestly, they both annoy me and are boring. 

Why are they annoying and boring?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlRMCtKz9y0

"Kirk my old friend, you're still alive?"

"Still...  old friend?  You've managed to kill just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target."

"Perhaps I no longer need to try, Admiral...  I've done far more than kill you.  I've hurt you.  And I wish to go on... hurting you.  I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her, marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet... buried alive..."

"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!"

"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!"

Star Trek is really funny, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXPOU2bZrT8

I enjoy Star Trek much more.

It's about twenty times as intellectually intresting and crazy.  It grapples with so many complex issues.

Star Wars follows a, "FIGHT TEH ULTIMATEZ EVIL EMPIREZZZ, ROFLZ!!!," black vs. white plot that, quite frankly, bores me.  And don't tell me that Star Wars movies are better than Trek movies.

The Wrath of Khan puts Star Wars movies to shame, =P.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kAfLXKp8Ec

There is more dramatic tension, acting, and quality in that one scene than in the entire Star Wars triology.  Star Wars simply crams action down your throat until you walk away with the illusion that it was intresting or engaging, =/.

And, why do people consider either of these great works of fictional drama "nerdy" or "suck?"