4 ms·

Any type of game where you shoot another human being is F*d up. The hypothetical scenario where you can accidentally kill innocents does not justify the game.

cobrausn 15y ago
The game does not have to 'justify' itself to you, or anyone. It is what it is - a virtual world where human conflict drives the story and the mechanics, and the goal is entertainment. And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people? Maybe you have not noticed, but violence is part of human nature, and our creative works (of all kinds) have used this because, for better or for worse, it mirrors us. If you don't like the reflection, don't look. I don't suppose you think any book where humans kill humans is also 'F*d up'? What about movies? Or is it only acceptable when they provide moral overtones you agree with?
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people? // I've played such games a little but never thought of the people I was playing with as the enemy. The people you play with are your friends normally aren't they?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I think parent means what the characters in the games are supposed to be. I don't think the vast majority of players see others as "enemies", they're simply adversaries, much like in a sports game. There's the random oddball (usually an immature kid) that gets too worked up when he loses and starts insulting people, but then again, that's common in sports too.
angersock 15y ago
If you accidentally kill innocents you probably aren't very good at the game. (ammo is a precious resource)
icebraining 15y ago
So, paintball? Because I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels. And I assure that I'm perfectly capable of distinguish them, both at a rational and emotional level.
- gnosis 15y ago
  "I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. ... I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels." This reminds me of a story in Stanislaw Lem's Cyberiad (which is a fantastic book -- highly recommended). From this[1] description of the story: In the story "How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good," Lem describes how Trurl consoles a deposed dictator named Excelsius by building him a simulated kingdom -- a small-scale mechanical model controlled by computer programs -- so that his client can play at being a tyrant without actually harming anyone. But Klapaucius objects that, because Trurl's model is so perfect, Trurl has actually created a host of conscious beings who are suffering under Excelsius' misrule... "If an imperfect imitator, wishing to inflict pain, were to build himself a crude idol of wood or wax, and further give it some makeshift semblance of a sentient being, his torture of the thing would be a paltry mockery indeed! But consider a succession of improvements on this practice! Consider the next sculptor, who builds a doll with a recording in its belly, that it may groan beneath his blows; consider a doll which, when beaten, begs for mercy, no longer a crude idol, but a homeostat; consider a doll that sheds tears, a doll that bleeds, a doll that fears death, though it also longs for the peace that only death can bring! . . . You say there's no way of knowing whether Excelsius' subjects groan, when beaten, purely because of the electrons hopping about inside -- like wheels grinding out the mimicry of a voice -- or whether they really groan, that is, because they honestly experience pain? A pretty distinction, this! No, Trurl, a sufferer is not one who hands you his suffering, that you may touch it, weigh it, bite it like a coin; a sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer!" [1] - http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/Faculty/JAbbate/cyborg/cyberiad.html http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/...
  - burgerbrain 15y ago

cobrausn 15y ago

The game does not have to 'justify' itself to you, or anyone. It is what it is - a virtual world where human conflict drives the story and the mechanics, and the goal is entertainment. And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people? Maybe you have not noticed, but violence is part of human nature, and our creative works (of all kinds) have used this because, for better or for worse, it mirrors us. If you don't like the reflection, don't look. I don't suppose you think any book where humans kill humans is also 'F*d up'? What about movies? Or is it only acceptable when they provide moral overtones you agree with?

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people? // I've played such games a little but never thought of the people I was playing with as the enemy. The people you play with are your friends normally aren't they?
- icebraining 15y ago
  I think parent means what the characters in the games are supposed to be. I don't think the vast majority of players see others as "enemies", they're simply adversaries, much like in a sports game. There's the random oddball (usually an immature kid) that gets too worked up when he loses and starts insulting people, but then again, that's common in sports too.

angersock 15y ago

If you accidentally kill innocents you probably aren't very good at the game. (ammo is a precious resource)

icebraining 15y ago

So, paintball? Because I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels. And I assure that I'm perfectly capable of distinguish them, both at a rational and emotional level.

gnosis 15y ago
"I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. ... I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels." This reminds me of a story in Stanislaw Lem's Cyberiad (which is a fantastic book -- highly recommended). From this[1] description of the story: In the story "How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good," Lem describes how Trurl consoles a deposed dictator named Excelsius by building him a simulated kingdom -- a small-scale mechanical model controlled by computer programs -- so that his client can play at being a tyrant without actually harming anyone. But Klapaucius objects that, because Trurl's model is so perfect, Trurl has actually created a host of conscious beings who are suffering under Excelsius' misrule... "If an imperfect imitator, wishing to inflict pain, were to build himself a crude idol of wood or wax, and further give it some makeshift semblance of a sentient being, his torture of the thing would be a paltry mockery indeed! But consider a succession of improvements on this practice! Consider the next sculptor, who builds a doll with a recording in its belly, that it may groan beneath his blows; consider a doll which, when beaten, begs for mercy, no longer a crude idol, but a homeostat; consider a doll that sheds tears, a doll that bleeds, a doll that fears death, though it also longs for the peace that only death can bring! . . . You say there's no way of knowing whether Excelsius' subjects groan, when beaten, purely because of the electrons hopping about inside -- like wheels grinding out the mimicry of a voice -- or whether they really groan, that is, because they honestly experience pain? A pretty distinction, this! No, Trurl, a sufferer is not one who hands you his suffering, that you may touch it, weigh it, bite it like a coin; a sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer!" [1] - http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/Faculty/JAbbate/cyborg/cyberiad.html http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/...
- burgerbrain 15y ago