I wanted to show how important violence is in the generic shooter, not just hyper violent shooters like Doom. Those who play these games probably indulge in killing people, not just aiming the crosshair faster than the enemy. That's not to say that it isn't important, but rather it is greatly enhanced by, I don't know, theming, or attributing meaning to aiming. Shooting aggressive white boxes is boring, but make it representational of a soldier and it becomes a whole lot more interesting.Darth Rosenberg said:I'm afraid 'Eh?' sums up my reaction to that question. "Feel" in this context is insanely subjective, and define what "the older games" actually means and I might be able to reply.
I think the feeling I am talking about can be generalized to tons of people, maybe most people. For example, Splatoon, a family friendly, not very violent shooter, still has the rhythmic sound of the Splattershot, squids having death cries, and exploding upon death. So, doing something like aiming, along with predicting where the slow projectile of ink will land and constantly re-calibrating to hit a moving target is tough work, but seeing your opponent violently explode along with a satisfying sound gives you pleasure for your hard work.
When I compare killing in the modern shooter compared to the older shooter, the modern shooter is more interesting because the devs have put effort in making it more realistic. Without ragdolls, enemies looked like they were tripping on a banana peel upon death, and the visual indicator of a hit was this low resolution red sprite. With ragdolls, you can see the body react to the momentum of the bullet, and sometimes you have particle systems for blood and dust. They also put effort in making canned death animations detailed and more entertaining, and then transitioning it into a ragdoll.
Now, as for the reason to why this is better, perhaps certain aspects of realism is just more aesthetically pleasing. For example, animating a ball to bounce up and down at the wrong timings just looks wrong. This is probably why shotguns can look great in older games, because that one powerful shot lines pretty well with the death animation.
But we still have to look at the big picture, why do we enjoy shooting people to death? Why are some death animations more appealing than others (think more along the lines of movie choreography)? Why is stopping something trying to kill you pleasurable? Why is stopping an animal perceived to be running pleasurable? Could it be that humans are predatory creatures? I don't know, I'm just conjecturing.
Well, double standards are fun to point out, because they give perspective. I was going to say that Brazzers really likes student-teacher relationships, but I think something along those lines of that has already been said. You see, student-teacher relationships aren't acceptable in Japan. Now, if you are going to learn life lessons of what is acceptable through things like dating sims and pornography, overriding real-life common sense, then it had better offer a really convincing reason as to why. Of course these things usually never do, but there are a lot of old incest and homosexual fiction in Japan where the couple runs away from home or commits suicide, and you can empathize with these characters. The natural side effect is that the taboo wears out for some, including me.Either way, as I said to Hentropy; this isn't about violence, and no amount of pointing out perceived double standards mitigates or absolves one or the other.
So, yeah I mean judge all you want, I can't really agree with you. These things are hard to "safely" explore, without downright condemnation by the story so that no one gets any funny ideas. To say "I'm not asking for it to be banned, I'm just criticizing this work of fiction, why can't I criticize things?" is rather disingenuous, and it's kind of playing the victim. The offensive material is either gone and you're happy, or it's not and everything is the same. I apologize if I come off as rude, but the "I like porn and freedom of expression, but let me filter it out" kind of statement irks me.
Edit: Actually, it's more like saying "I'm fine with this existing in an ambiguous, abstract sort of way, but once you show me I'm going to say it's not okay" deal. You probably did not mean it that way, and now I am just ranting.