I don't recall America's Army having KP sessions, recruit hazing, sexual abuse, activities while a drill Sargent yelled insults at you, or even the concept that you might have to face child solders.

Really, it was a slightly clever interactive recruitment poster in the disguise of a hollow shootbang.

At least it isn't spunkgargleweewee, but its still a shootbang.

Also, I'll take Close Combat any day over a FPS.

I already did. You're backpedaling. But that's good, means you're moving in the right direction.

"It can help you with tactics and strategies but it cannot prepare you for the actual thing."

Obviously jars with:

"You're aware that it has nothing to do with real life soldiery at all?"

But to make an effort to bring us closer together:

Would you at least grant that I never claimed that video games portray killing accurately? Or even semi-accurately? Or soldiering?
The original point was that sex isn't videogamey.
Yeah, that's kinda funny. Peace?

You may not have said it, but the implication was there and was enough for me to stomp all over it.
This.

A thousand times this. Don't ever try to say Americas Army is anything but a recruitment tool.

To follow on some of the perceptive comments on the mechanics of play.
Better sex experiences in a videogame also requires AI we do not have, and likely will not for ages.
Otherwise we fall into the typical cinematic shortcut, for which there are better media.

So, several elements of games as interactive experiences contribute to an inherent mismatch between desires and realitites here - pun intended ;)

Existing input mechanisms are not well adjusted to simulating sex experiences.
Gameplay often conflicts with the narrative intent of a sexual exposition.
Scripting the "other" responses to your actions is very far from providing the level of interaction being required.

This does not go directly to the point of why such games are not distributed broadly, but IMO lack of quality is an important reason (not the main one) for the lack of broad distribution.

It really wasn't. The implication was (and is) that video games and shooting work better together than video games and sex.

By the by, would you agree? Just "yay" or "nay"?

Now Canada's Army? That's a fine game! Patrols around the north pole, blowing up mooses in the far north, reading invasion plans for invading the USA...ah, what a fun time.

We don't know that, actually. The current input methods work for shooting better than for sex, yes. But we have no idea what will happen in the future, and we also have no idea what kind of implementations are yet unexplored. At the very least, videogame sex can work just as well as videogame conversation - and that already works fairly decently.

Ivory&Gold and itchy01ca01, I would say that your discussion is pretty meaningless, as it is clear that you are in agreement abut most things regarding this topic, further discussion about rhetorical details really is just penis fencing.

There are some japanese visual novels with sexual content, out there, there are actually pretty good ( Air, Kanon, Clannad )

Well you could just use a quote to make it less confusing :-P I honestly don't see those two statements being in conflict with each other - that it's not been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means it's difficult to do. If you read my other posts, you will also find that I provide some examples of semi-decent execution that I would like to see being buit upon.

You know, that article is stupid in that its main argument is that games are designed for entertainment and thus willingly manipulate parameters, add or remove details etc., they don't mention hardcore simulators, even the ones developed for civilians. Now, that the ARMA games aren't perfectly realistic is one thing, another thing is that the developers' design goal is still maximized realism, even at the cost of "entertainment" (although there's clearly a niche that considers that design philosophy entertaining), so the main argument in the article is still pretty much invalid.

I would say yay. But is this because of natural laws or genetic reality? Or are the reasons cultural? "Sexual activity" seems to evoke a stronger emotional response than just "shooting other living creatures". (And thus more difficult to mold into a gaming experience.) But why should not shooting other living things attract as much of an emotional response?

Fenixp, I think these statements are almost polar opposites. I mean, let's be honest here. You (and Leroux) have during the whole thread tried to trip me over percieved logical fallacies, because I've in the past made dismissive (maybe arrogant?) comments about video games. That is perfectly fine. I made these comments precisely to elicit responses and discussion. (I also do stand by them, they weren't just intellectual shenanigans). But it seems to me now that you're just looking to disagree with me, even if it means contradicting yourself. And where's the point in that?

Maybe I'm wrong. If it really interests you, here's, in as few words as possible, my opinion on the current topic: I think video games are very poorly suited for dealing with sex. I think they're much better at other things, like shooting or tactical stuff. I did not choose the shooting example in order to paint gaming in a bad light. I did it because itchy01ca01 brought it up.

That's the gist of it, take it as you will. Apart from that, since I know you're a fan of Morrowind, I recommend you check out my new thread. You might find it more to your liking.

This reminds me of something interesting I once read, by Andrea Dworkin. She wrote that sex is the ultimate rebellion against death. That the emotions it brings are the result of this desperate, doomed struggle against mortality. A few short minutes (snicker, snicker) of us almost deceiving ourselves into thinking we can beat it. Giving life against loosing it. Extasy against oblivion.

That makes a lot of sense to me and kind of explains the emotional response you're refering to. But maybe one could make a point for killing as the ultimate rebellion against death? Taking life against loosing it. Or, hey maybe it's the ultimate surrender to death? As in, serving it?

First of all: No. The only thing I remember you saying is that videogames aren't art, and what I have actually carried over from those discussions is that I actually don't quite give a shit about what are they called. I don't even know if I got to that end all by myself or if you have helped me, but I do hold this particular outlook thanks to you and I'm actually glad I do, so for all that's worth, I see you in positive light.

The shooting bit did feel a bit like you just attacking videogames for no apparent reason, but that was just me misunderstanding you as it turned out later on when you said that "The implication was (and is) that video games and shooting work better together than video games and sex." and I have dropped that discussion altogether at that point and brought back the original subject.

It's extremely rare that I actually associate people with previous discussions and change my reactions in any way due to this - not because I'm more than human or whatever, quite simply because my memory is rubbish and I have better things to remember than who did I talk with about what - you either have to be extremely obnoxious (hello, jamitode!) or actually give me a new outlook on an issue that I remember often enough, and you did that at one point, so kudos to you.

... and here it's you misunderstanding me. Read my original statement very carefully and tell me where lies the contradiction. In one I'm saying that I've never seen videogames to do sex properly, in the other I'm saying that I believe videogames have potential to manage it, but it would be extremely difficult to pull off.

For the record, I don't believe videogames actually pulled off conversations properly yet, instead replacing them with branching trees of interactive stories - which is fine and I'd like to see the same applied to sex, but it's not even an approximation of how a conversation works, or how sex would work.

And that's exactly what I'm getting at, videogames in their current form are best for that. I feel it's all based in the evolution of videogames - without the ability to store almost limitless amounts of information, non-videogames were usually based around tactics, precision or physical activity. Reproducing physical activity in videogame form is quite pointless as it sort of defeats the excercise (but they tried anyway!), but tactics and precision did get meaningful conversions extremely quickly - and from there, videogame perripherals and control methods started evolving, just as midsets surrounding them.

We are now living in a time where videogames are just starting to realize their potential, and technical evolution will follow closely with this realization - we already have things like oculus rift and full body tracking. If AI gets pushed further as well, we might actually see interesting experiments and advances in how videogames allow us to express ourselves in them, and ... Well, nobody knows what that will lead to.