I see your point, and I understand the whole 1 vs 100 type situation you're getting at. Hell, once I think about it, most popular games are 1 against 100, if not thousands (Halo, anyone?). That's probably why I love MGS' gameplay, is because it's not necessarily you against everyone (Unless you want it to be), and the killing you do have to accomplish I think is explained, and maybe even justified, through the storyline.

But I get your point, and it would be nice to see some games like the one you described, definitely would add some unique experiences and variety to the current action genre.

Lastly, no, I haven't read that book. Although it does sound like something I would enjoy. I'll give it a look-see, thanks for the suggestion.

 And what do you do after and before killing said person? lol a game needs action and fun more than just substance it is a game after all not a movie or a book. A good combo of both is ideal.

Timed exclusive, Namco just announced it for PS3.

I'm not a huge fan of games like MGS or FF, myself, and I'm somewhat conflicted about all of the nontraditional games. They're so close to the sorts of games I like, but they're just not quite there.

The most important thing that a game can offer, as far as I'm concerned, is engaging same-console multiplayer. That's why I play video games - it doesn't get better than having some friends over for hours of pizza and Halo/Smash Brothers/Mario Tennis/Wii Sports/etc.  Just this last weekend everybody had some time off from work and some college friends and I got together for six or seven hours of Mario Tennis and a movie.  It's important to me that one be able to play games for long periods of time - I don't get lots of thirty minute sessions; I get very few three-hour sessions.

Single player games are all right, but I've never really understood the appeal. I'll rent RPGs or adventure games when I'm bored, but I agree with Bodhesatva's criticism of their premises and stories.

So I've generally been against the increased focus on online multiplayer. Halo was great for the system link games. Halo 2 was still fun because of the ability to take guests on to Live, but you never had the 8 player fun of the original. Smash Brothers and Mario Power Tennis are the best things on the Gamecube as far as I'm concerned, and I still play a few hours of those every week.

What I dislike about the new nontraditional games is their tendency to only really be fun for short stretches of time. Wii Sports is an obvious offender - it's a fun game, but how many people can play it for more than an hour at a time? I'd really like something with a bit more variance between games and complexity. However, in other ways, I love them. They're great for lots of people, they're especially great for girls and nongamers, etc.

Mostly I like the social aspect of video gaming. I don't like modern gaming for its focus on online play and I don't like nontraditional gaming for its deemphasis on long sessions. I prefer Warioware to Half-life 2 though, so I guess it's a net win for me.

There are already games with very little action -- The Sims, Cooking Mama, and Brain Age come to mind immediately, and you'll notice I've listed all of those as the types of games I'd like to see more of in the future.

Basically what you're saying is that video games can or never will be a serious art form, but rather a simple, trivial, but fun and action packed entertainment. It's possible you're right, but I hope you're wrong.

Things to do to games with less action: add mature dialogue, and much much more plot development. Add psychological tension. Add supposedly mundane chores such as cooking or cleaning (both of which are part of the fun of "The Sims"). There are lots of ways to make games fun without killing stuff, it's just hard to recognize as a young male that adults and women have strikingly different senses of "fun."

More importantly, I'd be completely fine with games that aren't fun. I would be completely and totally happy with a game whose primary or sole purpose was to make me feel or think profoundly, not make me laugh or holler. It's the difference between a movie like Spiderman -- which is just for fun -- and a movie like "The English Patient" or "Pan's Labrynth" or even "Citizen Kane," which aren't very fun at all, are often very slow and deliberate and completely lacking in any action of any kind. Their intention is to make you think and consider.  That's what I want, personally.