[mscottmcbee]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder how much of the problem is a result of the games themselves. A majority of games, and almost all "real games" (as categorized by people who identify themselves as gamers), are not only violent, but portray violence as the most straight forward way to resolve conflict.

If someone is truly engrossed in a medium where the default interpersonal resolution method is to "defeat" the opposing party by whatever rules are deemed legal by the system, it's not hard to see why every time that person is provided with an alternate viewpoint it would be met with toxic hostility.

If the only tool you have is a gun or sword, everything looks like a target or monster.

[sukuriant]

As a side note, I've been finding puzzle and adventure games much more appealing as of late because it's not all about killing other people.

I get that a lot of games aren't about such things, even if weapons and shooting are their medium; but it seems like a few choice games recently have been about that and it's really awkward. The new Killzone is about two racist factions where you basically play the bad guys, for example.

On the other hand, games like League of Legends and Counter Strike may have death, but they have about as much impact as getting shot with a paintball round. It's a way to say 'tag' in an effective way (Counter Strike) , or to push someone out so you can complete your objective (League of Legends), and those are just normal sporting activities.

I don't know. Pardon me while I wave my cane and yell loudly to get off my lawn, but I agree with you about these sorts of issues in recent games.

[thenmar]

I agree, but there are problems with dressing up a game of "tag" like Counter-Strike in the clothes of violent conflict. The other day a contractor came to my house as I was playing CS:S. He asked if I was in Baghdad. He translated the Arabic on the walls. I realized he might find this game incredibly offensive. Racially ambiguous terrorists fight whiteish police in often middle eastern locales (dust2...?). The game itself is normalizing or maybe is just an example of normalized, simplistic, xenophobic ideas. It is a game of tag and strategy that you might compare to american football in some ways, but its stylized to attract people interested in participating in this "world" of us vs. them, all conflicts are solved by violence fantasy land that has none of the nuance of real life. Is that a problem? Is it a symptom of some of the attitudes the author talks about re. insecurity and fear in "gamers"?

[mscottmcbee]

I see it less being an issue of violence, and more of an issue of conflict being the only means of resolution. It's become so pervasive, that a game where you don't fight or compete against SOMETHING is considered very weird.

As for puzzle and adventure games, have you tried Antichamber or Gone Home? Those two are among my favorite games to have come out this year.

[sukuriant]

I'm working through Gone Home right now. I had no idea what the story was going to be about when I bought it. I thought it was a horror game. It's good so far, to say the least.

I shall continue playing it in the coming days / weeks.

[flocial]

One perspective is that this "real gaming" is like a sport with the physical component completely removed and the players completely segregated. There's zero stress to your cardiovascular system and zero possibility of physical injury due to contact. In other words you're free to run your mouth while enjoying the hormonal surges of high competition in an anonymous setting. I don't think that makes a trash talker a maladjusted social misfit though.

[ps4fanboy]

The majority of games are an evolution of sales, if people wanted other games in the majority they would exist in the majority already.