PGHammer, on 02 March 2013 - 16:29, said:
And thus we are actually HELPING make Crytek's point for them. What has been getting the video-game industry in hot water (and especially shooters - the most violent video games) is single-player-by design - basically isolated gameplay by design. Why is social play (in or out of computer or console gaming) something to be reviled and rejected? Whether we realize it or not, the increased DEMAND for isolated gameplay as a design, and the increased rise in antisocial behavior in general (and especially antisocial criminal behavior - such as mass shootings) is having everyone+dog looking for ways to avoid contributing to it. (Yes - that includes the same developers currently in the societal crosshairs, such as Crytek.) Oh no - we want what we want and everyone else can go YKW up a rope.
Crytek is making such comments because they want to remain relevant as a company - and especially a company that wants to EXPAND. (In case we haven't noticed, they are not alone in calling for more connected gaming - practically EVERY developer is doing so.) Crysis 3 may well be the last PERMITTED single-player shooter - and as much as I wish I were kidding, look at the societal outrage over shooters. Crytek is making these comments basically to save itself from being lynched.
Are we THAT disconnecvted from today's headlines that we aren't aware of that?
I don't know if you're supporting the argument people are making or just mentioning it, but ...
But non-social isn't anti-social. You cite a concern with loners playing violent shooters, but playing single-player Civilization or SimCity is like doing gardening in your backyard or enjoying model building. And playing a single-player story-driven role-playing game like Skyrim is like reading a novel in your spare time. Some people look at gaming as a hobby, pastime, or personal enjoyment, not as a sport. Even with these single-player games, the gamers are often social, going on forums and entering discussions, just like model hobbyists and book readers discuss their hobbies and books with others.
But this really has nothing to do with people actually being anti-social or being violently anti-social. There is a long standing bias in our culture against people being non-social, the suggestion is that killers are always loners. This isn't true. Charles Manson wasn't a loner. The Columbine killers were two friends, so a social relationship. Lanza's personal life seemed to involve his mother smothering him, not him intentionally being asocial.
If violent shooters are the problem in these killings, which is another argument entirely (which I'm not going to argue for or against here), I don't think it matters if they're social games or not. Stormfront is a very popular social site for a limited group of people, White Nationalists. DailyKos is full of hateful comments every day. Socializing doesn't stop people from being anti-social. They just act anti-social in groups. Anonymous is a group that's anti-social.