> why isn't it standard in games that gifting the love interest a rare flower makes them follow you around in some sort of ridiculous simulacrum of infatuation
Actually, it is. Try giving a porkchop to a wolf in minecraft :)
Re:Why So Few Violent Games?
by JoeAltmaier on Wednesday July 02, 2014 @06:45PM
(#7980313)
I'm guessing its simple, blind evolution. D&D and such had kill-and-gather-loot mechanics, and were pretty popular. So many offshoots of that genre got written and sold. Evolve some wings and fins etc and we are where we are.
If we actually decided where we wanted to go with video games, we could get somewhere. Til then we're going to wander around in this violent killfest wasteland, upgrading the graphics on the explosions.
> But I'd rather have a history of how games got where they got.
Rather than do a parody, I'd just point out that excuses about simulation are crappy because games hardly simulate anything. Outside of rigid-body physics, game logic is just a nonsense of magical rules. Why can't I blast open this door? Why do all the light switches still work after I've released several grenades in the room and decaled all the walls? It's all happily absurd.
So if it's a standard in games that stepping over a medkit can cure you of the shotgun blast you took to the face, in some ridiculous simulacrum of first-aid, then why isn't it standard in games that gifting the love interest a rare flower makes them follow you around in some sort of ridiculous simulacrum of infatuation.
It's a nice parody argument. But I'd rather have a history of how games got where they got. Maybe we can blame it all on Dungeons and Dragons. That game had HP.