Some of my strongest gaming memories are of the first (?) level of Rogue Spear (one of the Rainbow Six games), where I was hunting terrorists in the Met. It was fifteen years ago, but I still remember how upset I felt when I saw a virtual character fall down after being shot, and I can still remember the intense despair that crushing my elation when a hostage panicked and ran in between me and the terrorist (and I shot him). I played that level so many times that I can probably still sketch the map. I remember nothing else about the game, but the experience of playing that one map stays with me.
This is a completely different kind of "story" or memory than one's going to get from a game like Borderlands.
Why he has trouble inventing the same stories with robotic team mates and opponents I am not sure, but he seems to find value in the shared experience.
I do watch a few fairly violent movies a year, it is just the violent games that I don't enjoy.
You can Restrict dialog choices while still giving the player real choices.
In fighting games, competitive players tend to concentrate on the structure behind punches and suffering. They see a game of anticipation, dexterity, and timing. They talk about hit boxes, priorities, frame advantage… Those players would probably enjoy an abstract version of those fighting games.
Hmm… we could even test that: could we make a game that have a similar structure to Mortal Kombat, only it doesn't even look like 2 characters punching each other to death?
The essay you're referring to is written by a man named David Sirlin, and he runs a website where he talks about his ideas on game design[1]. He's perhaps most known in the community for helping to bring to light the concept of "yomi," (lit. "reading"), the process of taking actions specifically to get a grasp on your opponent's thought process and be able to predict it. To him, that's the one pure essence of fighting games (though this view is not universally held).
In fact, he's already done something like you describe. He designed a card game named, appropriately enough, Yomi[2], that attempts to bring the core of a fighting game into a card game format. Much like in fighting games, attacking beats throws, throws beat blocking, and blocking beats attacks. Hitting a player allows you to attempt to combo them, but the opponent can play cards (that may be bluffs) which can break the combo.
He did something similar with chess, calling it Chess 2, though it's much less popular than Yomi.
I would have liked to select another name for its underlying mechanics, but I'm not knowledgeable enough.
That has a lot less appeal than fast paced, cool looking ninjas kicking each other - hence why video games are an art form and not just intellectual exercise.
You only have two moves - jump and divekick.
What's the appeal of action movies?
It's fun. Haven't you ever tried blowing something up when you were a kid?
And generally, in my experience, it comes from a place of arrogance on the part of the person doing the asking, because the next phase is talking down about how the "reasons" aren't valid.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129948/the_chemistry_o...
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131802/glory_and_shame...
Off the top of my head.
A bit different than mindless violence as in e.g., GTA, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.
The "point", or motivation, isn't all that relevant. You're still shooting things in the face and getting your throat torn out while you writhe in pain, so let's keep the goalposts in place.
Not too far off topic: my brother and my grandson absolutely love violent games. I don't understand the appeal. What I do like are driving games and strategy games.