Ben-DutkaThis is one of those times when I'm not telling ; I'm asking . Before the shooter fans freak out, please bear in mind that I'm not about to offer up my own opinion as a definitive answer.
It's a question that has a place in most any entertainment venue: is the type of entertainment in which you indulge indicative of your raw intelligence? Perhaps it stands to reason that those who listen to classical music, watch award-winning foreign films with subtitles, and read literary classics are smarter than those who listen to hip-hop or metal, list "Hot Tub Time Machine" as one of their favorite movies, and read Danielle Steele and believe it's actually a good novel. Of course, I just set myself up for plenty of repercussions because I implied certain groups of people aren't intelligent just 'cuz they like rap or chick lit or whatever, but I'm hoping the truly intelligent people can understand I'm merely trying to make a point. And in relation to gaming, can it be said that role-playing fans (or fans of artistic, story-driven games like Heavy Rain ) are, in general, smarter than fans of shooters?
It's true that some games take more in the way of thought and brain-power, and there are quite a few kids and other not-so-bright individuals who really only play sports games and shooters. But maybe gaming is different. For the most part, hardcore gamers really enjoy playing many different genres; if it's fantastic, they probably want to experience it. Furthermore, some of the more in-depth games require bigger time commitments, and time is something some very intelligent people simply don't have. So just because they kick back with a fun shooter every now and then doesn't stop that person from being a chemist during the day. On top of which, we can never discount personal preferences. Some people just don't like RPGs or so-called "deeper" interactive adventures; they play to have fun, and their idea of fun is a simple, motion-driven, fully accessible Wii game.
In your experience, what do you find to be true? I mean, we shouldn't forget that complex and intricate video games didn't really exist when we were growing up, and as gaming was a "nerd's hobby" and nerds were – almost by definition – really smart, the intelligent people grew up playing simple, straightforward, shoot-'em-ups and beat-'em-ups. Now, maybe they've grown up since and, being intelligent, have graduated to deeper games. But then again, maybe they still love the easier, pick-up-and-play titles to this day. …maybe it just isn't fair to think we can predict a person's base intelligence by the games they play.
I personally like shooters that throw some kind of RPG element in them. The Mass Effect games are good examples, in my opinion. For all intents and purposes they're third-person shooters but have a decent story and such wrapped around it so there's a reason other than "ill pwn u" for doing what it is you're doing.
Heck, I play Oblivion and Fallout 3 in first-person mode so they're similar in many ways to FPS like Call of Duty and the like but they have a lot of RPG elements in as well.
I know I really didn't answer the question. I don't think there is a real definitive answer. Generally speaking, it might seem that shooter fans aren't as intelligent than those who play RPGs but it usually doesn't take too long to find more than one example that goes against the generalization.
This is by no means an easy question to answer. As it has been said, there are many factors that play into this including frequency of play. However, because of this I cannot give an answer but simply my experience.
I would say that I would fall into this stereotype. My passion is and always will be RPGs. I would also say I am quite intelligent in that I learn very quickly.
In high school, I spent more time playing RPGs than studying. However, I still obtained grades associated with Honours with Distinction (90% or higher; Canadian curriculum is different).
I think RPGs helped me think through problems and equations differently compared to most. I went to University and that was fun (mostly) and now I`m going to obtain a degree for game design. My theory is, if more people played video games I think we would live in a better place. That is why I want to create games that mix genres providing the depth and strategy of an RPG but some mechanics of a shooter.
Going back to the question, there is no answer. There is only a random occurrence of what games we like. I easily could have liked shooters but the first game put in my hand was Final Fantasy VII. Can games influence our intellect? Yes, but not necessarily in a positive direction. Too many conditions that need to be met.
"There is only a random occurrence of what games we like"…
I don't know about that Abidan13. I know what I like, I buy what I like… but I am willing to try something new… I am willing to absorb, learn and expand my intellectual capabilities…
We never stop learning… even as gamers..
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 7/22/2010 12:26:06 PM
I meant that had it been a different game put in my hands, things might have been different. I use the multiverse theory here. This was but one chance occurrence. It is possible that had a slight variation of an event occurred, a person may prefer a different genre.
This theory has many holes including the oh-so-popular circular argument: "I like it because I like it." Another such reason is liking them based upon a series of sub-reasons.
However, a multiverse would say that had something been different our personalities would be different.
I argue for argument's sake and now I am way off topic.
I think that people of all intelligence levels play all sorts of games. However, it seems likely it would be easier for a rather smart person to pick up a shooter here and there than a rather unintelligent person being able to pick up a more complicated game once and a while. Meaning, there are probably a larger number of people w. not quite as much wit on shooters and hack&slash games than in RPG's and in depth games. I doubt the numbers are vastly different and there's no doubt both types of minds play both types of games.
am smat n i shootas pley!
FYI- Einstein failed math in school.
You cannot assess intelligence by the interest of a person, but by measuring how s/he excels in it. And, to give it a holistic explanation…. a person is more intelligent than another if s/he excels in more interests than the other; Einstein excelled in math, physics,…………. and philosophy, thus, he was more intelligent than -for example- a math teacher who excelled in math only.
@Ben: Dan Brown is more intelligent than other "classical writers" because he excels in mixing reality with fiction in a very controversial way and choosing the "right time" to advertise his books. And the evidence is his success. To succeed in this world you have to be either too dmn lucky or too dmn intelligent.
Hear hear!
lol ever looked at a "best sellers" list? It often includes chic-novels and 1/4 star titles. You cannot rate a person's ability to write based on their monetary success. Drivel is often the best selling in American society.
As for Dan Brown mixing reality, every author does that that isn't writing a fantasy novel. He is certainly not the first to take religious symbols and twist their meaning to match his own conspiracy theory (which, by the way, is incredibly porous). The only reason it became "controversial" was because people actually believed it to be a factual book and not a fictitious novel.
Similarly, the mere pursuit of happiness (money) is not the driving force of intelligence. There are plenty of people in the world that are absolutely brilliant that sacrifice monetary success for something they are passionate about.
I would argue that someone solely focused on the dollar sign lacks any understanding of the real virtues in life, and is therefore the biggest fool of all. Dan Brown is the perfect example of a man who has sold his soul for controversial and amateurish writing. He cannot relay the human condition in a believable way. He lacks the ability to write a driving dialogue worth quotation. He cannot string any more than 2 or 3 ideas together within his conspiracy theory without completely fabricating a major dependent fact. Every author mixes truth with fiction. That's what makes stories so believable.
Ben is absolutely right about Dan Brown. A mediocre writer with a cult following of uneducated fruitcakes happy to find a reason to discredit religion… whether it's a legitimate reason or not.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 7/22/2010 2:19:33 PM
Dan Brown is a competent writer. To think he's among the greats means you haven't read the greats. This is the last time I'm saying this.
mm hmm, Ben. Perhaps I'm being too harsh towards Dan, but I just didn't get all the hype.
Then again… Twilight is pretty successful… and that's OBVIOUSLY extremely intelligent literature. /sarcasm/
The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons weren't horrible, they were just so boring…
I actually disagree on dan brown, his following is partly his own doing. he WANTED to stir the pot. it's utterly ridiculous. I tried to read angels and demons and was appalled by a "fact page, which was filled with bs, on the freaking FACT PAGE. Dan Brown fed the crazies and that's the only reason why he sold. I dont even think he's a competent writer.
Well, I did not say that Brown's among the greatest but I only meant that he is more intelligent than many of the classical writers. He might not be better in writing itself but he managed to become very successful based on many factors; like the TIMING, the TOPIC, the CONTROVERSY, ADVERTISING….
Besides, the success of "Twilight" or any other mediocre product, does not mean that the product itself is great, it means that whoever made it is intelligent enough to sell this mediocre product and make it successful. What you miss is that advertising needs intelligence, LOTS of it. The more intelligent the target is the harder it is to advertise and become successful.
It's a bit weird for me. I consider myself a hardcore shooter fan, but I also have an undying love for traditional RPG's (turn based games like dragon quest and all the final fantasies from ff1-ffX). I like to spend hours upon hours leveling my characters to max and persuing ultimate weapons. I can't stand the new age rpg wannabe's because they take most of the strategy out of the genre.
But I get pretty much every game that has a gun in it whether its 3rd person or 1st person. I admit I have a addictive facination with guns and explosives. I have almost every quality game on the market and play anything, but shooters and rpg remain the top to in my book.
Now where I'm getting is that I believe gaming is a hobby and it isn't indicative of your intellegence level. Since I love shooters and rpg's and creative games like heavy rain and flower, does that mean I don't know whether I wanna be dumb or smart? Are people who enjoy ONLY shooters dumb because they only like violence and action? I don't think so…in fact as long as they don't over-indulge in the fantasy and begin to act out what they see portrayed in the game, then I don't think we can judge them.
It was my belief that this nerdy looking fella I was suppose to gradute with was a geek because he would talk about rpg's 24/7 and he lived the whole dungeon and dragon's like lifestyle (wore robes and capes a la the guy who played Mc lovin in superbad, as he did in the movie role models. He played games that most would consider art and strategy filled, yet the kid didn't even graduate with us…failing his senior year.
Dumbness is only relevant when compared to IQ levels and in plausible tests. I've been a Sony supporter since the first system…and it burns me up to see a lot of our psx members talk about xbox gamers as if they were of a lower intelligence just because the system hosts mainly shooters. Yes the immature kids who cuss and say racial slurs are just that…IMMATURE. But that doesn't mean they're dumb, they just haven't had time to develop comprehension and maturity skills! We must unite as gamers…
Well put.
It really depends upon the person. I love fallout and pokemon but aren't exactly a huge RPG fan, but i do like shooters and more importantly third person shooters and racers. i like indie/rock so by that token i would seem stupid. and not to brag, im not, A* grades and early maths entry and so on….
and THIS is where Portal and especially Portal 2 comes in. The only First Person game that I've enjoyed since the first Goldeneye game, lol.
lol ^.^
Ah, if you're looking for the most complex games in terms of dealing with a large range of information, then turn-based strategy, or Paradox Interactive's EU/Victoria/Hearts of Iron games are probably the most brain-stretching I've played (outside of 'Brain Challenge' type games). RTS games are alright, but tend to more be about getting a small number of twitch routines down right, rather than complex strategies.
But there's another issue altogether, and that is what rates as intelligence. Sure, if you're looking for the genre that's likely to be toughest from a 'study' perspective, turn-based strategy wins hands down, but sports games can require a lot of thinking (think of Madden's deep strategic elements), as can shooters (there's often a need to make tactical decisions on the fly that have serious consequences). RPGs vary depending on their nature, but obviously have tactical and longer-term strategic elements as well.
There are lot of reasons why people enjoy one genre of game instead of another. As far as RPG's, a lot of them have characters that are 9 years old and speak as if they just took a hit off a helium balloon. Many people are turned off by that. Other people just aren't interested in the genre because they've never tried it and just don't think it would be their thing. Or maybe they tried a couple RPG's and they were really bad ones. Or maybe they just like to have a bit of fun now and then and don't relish the idea of devoting 100 hours to a single game. In my personal opinion, it's entirely possible to watch a whole pile of trailers for RPG's and just be totally turned off by the whole thing. Unless you actually devote 50 hours to a game, you can't find out about the deep combat systems. I think they're also more popular amongst gamers who have been playing since the NES days. They're either something you grew up with, or they're not.
For shooters, everybody likes shooters for the first few years they start gaming. Judging by what I've heard of the MW2 online population, most of those people aren't old enough to have gotten past the "just started" phase. There's also a huge influence of friends. If it's the game all my friends are playing, then I must play it too. Others people just like the fast paced action.
First of all, congratulations to psxextreme for developing a community of readers that can engage one another in conversations like this.
I read through the comments and agree with a lot of the things that were said. I suppose it's time to add my two cents.
Anecdotally we can all point towards people that fit the stereotype or don't fit the stereotype. I have a friend that just got his masters in computer science and his current favorite game is the split screen co-op mode of Left for Dead 2. Then there's my roommate whose past times include: chasing after girls, watching movies where the main plot line involves getting drunk, and working at a minimum wage job because he doesn't have a college education. His favorite games are the Halo series. Both like FPS, one is smart, the other isn't as smart.
Video games, both RPG and FPS, are designed to be accessible by as wide of an audience as possible. A good game is simple to learn and difficult to master. Simple to learn appeals to the idiots, difficult to master appeals to the intellects. Both genres incorporate this into their games, so both groups of gamers have wide ranges of intelligence.
In my opinion, neither genre is very taxing to the brain, and someone's preference for one or the other is less correlated to their intelligence and more correlated to their patience. (Both of my friends that I mentioned above would fall into the impatient category.)
People play FPS for the multiplayer, and a typical match is about five minutes. People that play RPGs love the grand adventure, and a typical RPG can be more than 40 hours long.
There's no correlation between patience and intelligence (that I know of), so I doubt a global study would reveal a correlation between intelligence and video game genre preference.
This stereotype that says people who play first person shooters are idiots likely comes from the fact that that group is the most vocal. (There are idiots that play RPGs, but a patient idiot is less likey to shout at a stranger through the internet than an impatient idiot.)
Hey…anybody notice the distinct difference between a thread of comments that only features PSXE readers, and a thread of comments like the Mario one that got onto N4G and ushered in the trash…?
Seriously. The obvious differences in INTELLIGENCE and CIVILITY is the REASON those losers aren't allowed in here! This is all the evidence I need to keep maintaining and building in a particular way.
Definitely noticed…
In my honest opinion intellect itself has its own questionable merit.
Hi there, I have been reading this sites news for a while now. But have only recently signed up. I'm just wondering where all the hatred for FPS's has stemmed from? Dont want a big debate, just wanna know. Cheers
Snypa 🙂
No hate! ^.^ Lots of us here enjoy shooters. Some more on an occasional basis than others.
I think this article just stems from a combination of frustration about the RPG going the way of the dodo as well as the types of people you run into online during a FPS online match versus something like, say, White Knight Chronicles, an MMO, or ModNation.
It's not about shooter fans being dumb, because many are very much NOT. It's more about the likelihood of a particular individual to be interested in a shooter versus an RPG.
Obviously, there's no solution unless someone did a clinical study, but it's not about FPS hatred by any means.
If you play MW2 online, for example, I'm sure you know there's more than a few unintelligent morons. Usually to be found in every single match, almost!
If I had a nickle for every time someone told me they did my mom or that I like their ball-sac…. The funny thing is, they always laugh as if it's the most clever thing they could have thought up to say.
You get the picture.
tbh ive always thought rpgs are more nerdy that other games…even though i like em….tbh anyone can play a shooter its easy….rpgs take more time and u kinda have to think more in turn baised ones
I'm starting to think that perhaps the reason it -seems- there's a far greater lack of intelligence in FPS is because of sheer volume and ease of access. In other words, there's obviously plenty of -very- intelligent people playing FPS's, as can be seen in this very forum!
However, perhaps since RPG's aren't always the most accessible and don't cater to a huge demographic of tastes in North America, FPS's are simply more accessible.
There's obviously some very dim-witted people that play RPG's, for example. However, if you know a relatively poorly read individual, it makes sense that they would gravitate towards shooters. Afterall, in our culture they are more popular!
So, since there are literally millions who play FPS's, the chances of you coming into contact with an utter moron in an online match of a game like CoD: MW2, is very likely.
When I play with my friends (which is the only time I do play CoD, really), we're very tactful and work well as a team. We all have pretty high win ratios as well. But we often come across people who are placed on our team who are sometimes very dumb, and are sometimes very brilliant and great communicators as well!
In short, this is what I believe:
I do NOT think intelligent people are more likely to play RPG's necessarily. Perhaps people who highly value artistry or storytelling, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're smart if you like stories. It just means you're more of a blue/green personality.
So to say, RPG'ers are smart is probably misguided. However, I do think the unintelligent folks of society are MORE likely to play a FPS before an RPG. Sheer sales numbers alone would be a good starting point for an argument. BUT that also means, NOT ALL FPS PLAYERS ARE UNINTELLIGENT. Maybe most aren't unintelligent! Who knows? But there are definitely a LOT of FPS players that are pretty darn dumb. Enough that it isn't rare to run into one online.
In short, FPS players aren't dumb because they're FPS players. Many aren't dumb at all! But if you ARE unintelligent, chances are you'd pick an FPS over an RPG.
This means I believe there to be no correlation in terms of intelligence being defined by genre. However, there may be a correlation between lower levels of intelligence and the likelihood of being drawn to FPS. I do not believe RPG's are a stand-alone option in any case related to intelligence. Rather FPS is the choice of the unintelligent before all other genres. It would also appear that high levels of intelligence would likely not discriminate against or in favor of any genre at all.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 7/23/2010 10:10:47 AM