RADNEN'S PROFILE

I think Sagitar has made many valid points for games as they don't pertain to escapism (the actual warrant of the debate; do not talk of art here that merits a different warrant (I'd warn all those who did do this)). From my time seeing and reading (online) debates, things tend to fall flat after the first disagreements or ad hominems. Here they do not. The "health" of debate is the "strength" of debate. There is some proof in this kind of strength. Usually in this kind of circumstance, those who totally disagree or agree have narrowed the warrant down to black/white, when an obvious gray zone is present (or has, let's say, presented itself).

I personally believe it can be seen as both escapism and not. Unlike conventional media (books, movies, and plays), video games are far more varied. I can't buy the argument that all games can pr can't be derived from escapism, but I can agree that some indeed are.

@Sagitar: I see what you mean when you say that video games invoke a sense of responsibility that can indeed affect real life. I've seen students at highschool who would fret over their WoW character, all because they can't play as that avatar at that point in time. While in that building they are stuck in the real world. If their guild needed them during the hours of their schooling, then they start to panic about raids they would have missed. One can only imagine as to why some would end up not going to school, or missing class for that day.

But for some games, particularly social games like Harvest Moon or Rune Factory, while they invoke some responsibility, they do so only while the game is on. There is no need to feel an obligation to the game world since it deactivates when the console is off. You're responsibilities are frozen with your saved game. I have a Harvest Moon game I never touched for a long time, but its responsibility is completely gone. For games like WoW, offline actions would be affected by online interactions.

A good example: The weeds that grew in Animal Crossing. Holy crap man, when the game world was off stuff happened. Suddenly the game didn't feel like an escape because the chores were real regardless if the console was off. People would end up leaving the village, those weeds would grow and those who stayed would get kinda pissed at you ("Where have you been!?"). So there are indeed consequences here. To this day I still feel bad for having weeds devour the entirety of the game world. :(

But not all games have this, or have to be that way.

author=Mr.Nemo
As a simple example; I cast a water-spell on my enemy, causing damage and him to get the "drenched" status. I then proceed to cast an ice spell, causing further damage but also almost automatically freezes him. I then have my sturdy fighter to simply hit him with his big hammer, shattering the adversary. Other combos might involve water (drench) into thunder (stun) into a reckless attack with low to hit % (but massive damage), since he can't avoid when being stunned. And so on - if properly implemented, it encourages experimenting in combat and could prevent 1-skill spamming (only combo-spamming, which is 3-skill spamming)

That's a lot like how Dragon Age combat works if you string together the right combos. The only con is the extra attention you'd need to balance it, or otherwise it'd be easily exploitable. Picture doing that to a boss monster, okay suppose they are exempt, then what about a champion-level monster? Then you've got to figure in resistances.

It's a great system when done right though.

author=ubermax
I agree with a lot of what Einander said (excellently written, btw), but I don't like the idea of getting rid of your lower level spells. Yes, it does clutter up your spell list when you have to scroll through "Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3", etc, but I think the failing isn't that you have them, it's that there aren't enough opportunities to use your lower level spells once you get the next level up. This, I think, is a mistake on the part of the game creator. I like my options to be open in a fight, and until someone figures out a sliding power indicator that lets me choose how powerful an attack I want my fire spell to be, I'd rather have multiple levels of the same spell that I can use differently in different situations.

Diablo II, when you leveled up later skills you'd get points added to weaker spells, essentially beefing them up as they beef up your later spells. It kinda works out but Diablo II has the worst balancing in a game (for single player) IMO.

Cut Everything, Make Nothing.

author=Feldschlacht IV

author=Radnen
(This is coming from someone who hates Muslims for religion reasons, but as people not all are "bad").

Hating anyone for a religious reason is still pretty retarded.

I hate Christians who believe the world ended yesterday.