7 ms·

I would argue that in most games, the violence is not the goal, just the mechanics. You're either competing with other players, trying to fulfill a quest, survi

by vlunkr 6y ago

I would argue that in most games, the violence is not the goal, just the mechanics. You're either competing with other players, trying to fulfill a quest, surviving the zombie apocalypse, etc. Very few games are really "murder simulators" and when they do come along, even if they are meant to be satirical or something, they are usually controversial.

afandian 6y ago
I'm not necessarily suggesting that the participant in the simulation is trying to do nothing more than commit acts of violence. But if the goal is predicated on committing violence, and can't be achieved without it, then I don't think it's logical to dismiss the violent aspect. To transpose the argument to reality, a serial killer may see the act of killing as a neutral act pursuant to a goal they consider important. There are plenty of serial killers with manifestos. Whatever they are trying to achidve, they aren't welcome in society.
- scotty79 6y ago
  I think that games with optional violence are more contentious. If violence is the only way, you are putting yourself in soldier mindset pretty quicky. You kill to defend yourself or your objectives. And this makes everything ok because our culture sucks and if you have to kill because that's the rules, suddenly everything is ok and you are absolved.
- vlunkr 6y ago
  Would you make the same argument about a war film? Violence is a necessity there, but it doesn't mean people want to commit or see real violence, or be in a war. Also, you could just as easily transpose it to something tame in reality. Kids like to put on capes and swing sticks around like swords, not because they want to kill stuff, but because it's fun to play pretend. Turns out grown ups like to do this too, we just call it cosplay and video games.
dr_orpheus 6y ago
I would also echo this as well. I play quite a few violent video games, but not all. I do not necessarily seek out a video game because it is violent, but there are mechanics that I enjoy more than others. I like shooter games (Halo, COD) more than I enjoy fighting games (Mortal Kombat, Soulcalibur). Does that indicate that I have a violent desire is to go out and shoot people? Absolutely not.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  > Does that indicate that I have a violent desire is to go out and shoot people? Absolutely not. Perhaps. But does it mean you're more tolerant of violence? And that others such as yourself eventually aggregate to have a collective impact on the broader culture? And what about 10 or 20 years from now, will your non-desire to shoot people still not exist? Neuro-plasticity effectively dictatess we are what we consume, we are what we do. I'm not disputing your self-diagnosis. But there is science that does.
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > Perhaps No, which is the entire premise of the linked article we're discussing. > And what about 10 or 20 years from now, will your non-desire to shoot people still not exist? Perhaps, but it will have considerably less to do with video games than other life factors. > Neuro-plasticity effectively dictatess we are what we consume, we are what we do This isn't what neuro-plasticity means. It means your brain can perform a task with less work, not that you "become" something because the pathways are optimized for a task.
    - chiefalchemist 6y ago
      Neuro-plasticity means what it says: the brain is moldable. It's not static. It's not set in stone. Prior to neuro-plasticity the brain was perceived as being set in stone, so to speak. The brain is a result of how you "exercise" it, or not. It's the result of what you feed it, or not. It's not static. Neuro-plasticity enables stroke victims to recover. And the depth and breadth of that recovery is a function of how much or not the brain is forced to rewire.
iso8859-1 6y ago
If the mechanics were sufficient, why are people not posting more pictures of airliners flying into buildings in Flight Simulator? It is a simulator, so it has the best mechanics. The violence is the only thing missing. Flight Simulator will just display a boring dialog saying "you crashed".
- totony 6y ago
  There's a middle ground where mechanics are fun but not too easy; flight simulator is just too hard to be that fun in my experience.
- Groxx 6y ago
  Because flying into a building doesn't gain you any benefits in the game. It's not part of a goal, it has no purpose. Since it's not part of the mechanics: as you point out, it's not (frequently) done. That seems to support the claim that it's not about seeking violence.
  - devenvdev 6y ago
    As someone who flew an airplain into the statue of liberty on purpose (in a simulator of course) - it was purely out of interest what will the game do, not violence. The same goes for the torture scene in GTA5, it didn't "feel" violent, it felt like you playing a part of the story in an alternative reality. Again, out of curiosity, going along with all the torture methods available.
    - Groxx 6y ago
      There is definitely an element of "find the edges of the simulation" / "learn the system better" / "see everything" in a lot of these, along with just enjoying a spectacle. E.g. in Kerbal Space Program I often "reset" bad airplane flights by crashing into the ground as fast as I can, or one of the space center buildings if I'm nearby. I could just hit esc and reset and be back faster, but then I don't see an explosion, nor have a chance to see messed up physics breaking the universe. I've also coordinated orbital collisions to do the same, but there it's more because it's extremely challenging to achieve at any reasonable velocity. I have no desire to crash real planes or blow up space stations though. The closest that gets to the real world is "I like fireworks".

by vlunkr 6y ago

afandian 6y ago

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the participant in the simulation is trying to do nothing more than commit acts of violence. But if the goal is predicated on committing violence, and can't be achieved without it, then I don't think it's logical to dismiss the violent aspect. To transpose the argument to reality, a serial killer may see the act of killing as a neutral act pursuant to a goal they consider important. There are plenty of serial killers with manifestos. Whatever they are trying to achidve, they aren't welcome in society.

scotty79 6y ago
I think that games with optional violence are more contentious. If violence is the only way, you are putting yourself in soldier mindset pretty quicky. You kill to defend yourself or your objectives. And this makes everything ok because our culture sucks and if you have to kill because that's the rules, suddenly everything is ok and you are absolved.
vlunkr 6y ago
Would you make the same argument about a war film? Violence is a necessity there, but it doesn't mean people want to commit or see real violence, or be in a war. Also, you could just as easily transpose it to something tame in reality. Kids like to put on capes and swing sticks around like swords, not because they want to kill stuff, but because it's fun to play pretend. Turns out grown ups like to do this too, we just call it cosplay and video games.

dr_orpheus 6y ago

I would also echo this as well. I play quite a few violent video games, but not all. I do not necessarily seek out a video game because it is violent, but there are mechanics that I enjoy more than others. I like shooter games (Halo, COD) more than I enjoy fighting games (Mortal Kombat, Soulcalibur). Does that indicate that I have a violent desire is to go out and shoot people? Absolutely not.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
> Does that indicate that I have a violent desire is to go out and shoot people? Absolutely not. Perhaps. But does it mean you're more tolerant of violence? And that others such as yourself eventually aggregate to have a collective impact on the broader culture? And what about 10 or 20 years from now, will your non-desire to shoot people still not exist? Neuro-plasticity effectively dictatess we are what we consume, we are what we do. I'm not disputing your self-diagnosis. But there is science that does.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > Perhaps No, which is the entire premise of the linked article we're discussing. > And what about 10 or 20 years from now, will your non-desire to shoot people still not exist? Perhaps, but it will have considerably less to do with video games than other life factors. > Neuro-plasticity effectively dictatess we are what we consume, we are what we do This isn't what neuro-plasticity means. It means your brain can perform a task with less work, not that you "become" something because the pathways are optimized for a task.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    Neuro-plasticity means what it says: the brain is moldable. It's not static. It's not set in stone. Prior to neuro-plasticity the brain was perceived as being set in stone, so to speak. The brain is a result of how you "exercise" it, or not. It's the result of what you feed it, or not. It's not static. Neuro-plasticity enables stroke victims to recover. And the depth and breadth of that recovery is a function of how much or not the brain is forced to rewire.

iso8859-1 6y ago

If the mechanics were sufficient, why are people not posting more pictures of airliners flying into buildings in Flight Simulator? It is a simulator, so it has the best mechanics. The violence is the only thing missing. Flight Simulator will just display a boring dialog saying "you crashed".

totony 6y ago
There's a middle ground where mechanics are fun but not too easy; flight simulator is just too hard to be that fun in my experience.
Groxx 6y ago
Because flying into a building doesn't gain you any benefits in the game. It's not part of a goal, it has no purpose. Since it's not part of the mechanics: as you point out, it's not (frequently) done. That seems to support the claim that it's not about seeking violence.
- devenvdev 6y ago
  As someone who flew an airplain into the statue of liberty on purpose (in a simulator of course) - it was purely out of interest what will the game do, not violence. The same goes for the torture scene in GTA5, it didn't "feel" violent, it felt like you playing a part of the story in an alternative reality. Again, out of curiosity, going along with all the torture methods available.
  - Groxx 6y ago
    There is definitely an element of "find the edges of the simulation" / "learn the system better" / "see everything" in a lot of these, along with just enjoying a spectacle. E.g. in Kerbal Space Program I often "reset" bad airplane flights by crashing into the ground as fast as I can, or one of the space center buildings if I'm nearby. I could just hit esc and reset and be back faster, but then I don't see an explosion, nor have a chance to see messed up physics breaking the universe. I've also coordinated orbital collisions to do the same, but there it's more because it's extremely challenging to achieve at any reasonable velocity. I have no desire to crash real planes or blow up space stations though. The closest that gets to the real world is "I like fireworks".