I'm sure it's sarcasm. I just have a hard time understanding what the point it's trying to make is.

And the two responses to my comment so far perfectly illustrate my confusion, I think:

> I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells.

AND

> All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened.

Is the author's premise that games focused on social dynamics are just as easy to make as games focused on violence, and that we have to back-fit justifications to fit it? Or is it that games focused on social dynamics really are harder?

All of the things mentioned in the article have been justifications used to explain why games about social dynamics haven't happened.

I believe his point is that we have violent games because it's a no-brainer. You don't have to be creative, you don't have to sweat to find an appealing game mechanic, and it sells.

Note the sarcasm here:

> In a sense, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know how to make games about the human heart, but struggle to deal with fists, swords, and guns.