Getting bored with gaming

[zinfamous]

Again, this is all a nonsensical straw man, since I doubt you can find a single "study" which evaluates an actual strategy game against any of the things you listed. What you're condescendingly throwing out are comparisons of social activities vs FPS and whatever the popular game-of-the-moment is. No one is arguing that the majority of those types of games are stimulating, but your assertion that in-depth strategy games are inferior to a game of chess or "pool" is quite simply laughable.



Yes, because "Head Shot!" and "Time to teabag the noob!" are so applicable to Europa Universalis, and everybody plays The Operational Art of War for "the pretty colors!".
Again, statements like that pretty much prove you've never played anything more in-depth than a Sid Meier strategy game, and simply don;t understand what you're talking about.

head shot and the like is definitely and FPS thing--I hate FPS>

as I said, several times, I much prefer strategy and RTS and the like.

I don't think you've actually read a single one of my points--it's a simple issue of graphics--the comparison between TV and reading--books that allow your brain to fill in the gaps (visual pictures of the subject), and TV that does all of that for you.

Simply--it depends far less of your brain when such gratuitous visual stimulation is involved.

Unless your seriously complex PC strategy games are completely text-based, then you have yet to address a single one of my arguments.

straw man? lol, hardly.

 

[Sulaco]

I don't think you've actually read a single one of my points--it's a simple issue of graphics--the comparison between TV and reading--books that allow your brain to fill in the gaps (visual pictures of the subject), and TV that does all of that for you.

Simply--it depends far less of your brain when such gratuitous visual stimulation is involved.

Unless your seriously complex PC strategy games are completely text-based, then you have yet to address a single one of my arguments.

straw man? lol, hardly.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

To you, a strategy game cannot be as mentally stimulating or challenging because it relies on a GUI that, again to you, reduces the "work" your brain has to do, and passes it off to the game.
This quote I think sums that up, no?

Simply--it depends far less of your brain when such gratuitous visual stimulation is involved.

Quite simply, this. is. horeshit.
You have absolutely no evidence or proof of any of that to begin with, and while it might sound good or relevant for the majority of fast-paced shooters or "no-thinking" games, it's totally without merit or evidence when anything with actual depth is involved.

...look at all that "gratuitous visual stimulation"

I'm sorry, but that point is nonsense. To argue that because a PC strategy game necessarily cannot be as stimulating or in-depth as a board game (or whatever) because it relies on a graphical representation is laughable. IF ANYTHING, you could argue that because the VASTLY greater amount of information able to be displayed and relayed to the user, it requires FAR MORE brain activity and mental stimulation, as you are FORCED to read and understand all the information that is being presented to you, process it, and base your decisions and "strategies" on it.
Right now, I get the feeling you're just arguing to argue. But surely this must make sense to you:
How the different info boxes or simple graphical representations of units and markers somehow is "less stimulating", despite the fact that there is infinitely more information that must be passed on, processed, understood and acted upon by the user's brain, is beyond me.

I guess by this logic, any of those "3D Battle Chess games" is a total brain clusterfuck, right? I mean, afterall, it uses graphics and visuals. Nevermind the actual rules and tactics are the same.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

The only thing remotely enjoyable about real life is sex, alcohol, and a nice cigar.

What's the polygon count on that?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Let me see if I've got this correct:

To you, a strategy game cannot be as mentally stimulating or challenging because it relies on a GUI that, again to you, reduces the "work" your brain has to do, and passes it off to the game.
This quote I think sums that up, no?



Quite simply, this. is. horeshit.
You have absolutely no evidence or proof of any of that to begin with, and while it might sound good or relevant for the majority of fast-paced shooters or "no-thinking" games, it's totally without merit or evidence when anything with actual depth is involved.


...look at all that "gratuitous visual stimulation"

I'm sorry, but that point is nonsense. To argue that because a PC strategy game necessarily cannot be as stimulating or in-depth as a board game (or whatever) because it relies on a graphical representation is laughable. IF ANYTHING, you could argue that because the VASTLY greater amount of information able to be displayed and relayed to the user, it requires FAR MORE brain activity and mental stimulation, as you are FORCED to read and understand all the information that is being presented to you, process it, and base your decisions and "strategies" on it.
Right now, I get the feeling you're just arguing to argue. But surely this must make sense to you:
How the different info boxes or simple graphical representations of units and markers somehow is "less stimulating", despite the fact that there is infinitely more information that must be passed on, processed, understood and acted upon by the user's brain, is beyond me.

I guess by this logic, any of those "3D Battle Chess games" is a total brain clusterfuck, right? I mean, afterall, it uses graphics and visuals. Nevermind the actual rules and tactics are the same.

Said it better than I could. This argument is kinda confusing me. Not sure you're arguing the same thing? I don't see how any strategy game can be less mentally stimulating/challenging than TV, board games or even a book. What if we compare reading about WWII strategy, or actually executing it?

I don't think the game has to be that complicated either. I'd say that even playing COD can be more of a mental challenge than watching Jersey shore, at least you have to decide whether to turn left or right etc. Starcraft forces you to process input and multi-task several decisions per second, and in a Civ game you have to weigh economy vs production vs growth etc. How is this not using my brain?

If we only consider mental stimuli/exercise/whatever as "visualizing something in my head" as it seems zinfamous is, then yes a book is "better". (I don't quite see how TV is better though; the visuals are the same level as games and there is no interaction). But there are lots of other levels to it, as Sulaco points out. Processing information, reacting, predicting outcomes, even clicking the right buttons require coordination.

 

[Dankk]

I'd say that even playing COD can be more of a mental challenge than watching Jersey shore, at least you have to decide whether to turn left or right etc.

Every entertainment medium has it's own flavor of stupid. Jersey Shore is certainly a good example of trashy TV. Books as well; yes, despite what some people may think, there are plenty of trashy books out there too.

 

[yumi28]

huh?! getting bored with gaming??? Anytime I never felt more boring in the game because it gives me comfort in time to be sad and very much enjoy if you play with your friends.

 

[kittyN]

huh?! getting bored with gaming??? Anytime I never felt more boring in the game because it gives me comfort in time to be sad and very much enjoy if you play with your friends.

I agree that should not be boring to play.:thumbsup: