4 ms·

Gamer's arguments have always been that shooters are artificial environments with no personality involved. In Counterstrike you're fighting against stereotypica

by linkeex 12y ago

Gamer's arguments have always been that shooters are artificial environments with no personality involved. In Counterstrike you're fighting against stereotypical terrorists that are in no way related to your personal life. Here, you "kill" real people with a face. Objective? Motivation? Kill him before he kills me? I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting.

fastball 12y ago
I always thought the argument was "it's just a game". If you can't separate fiction from reality, you have deeper issues than violent video games.
- linkeex 12y ago
  I can, but other people might not.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Hang on: why are you special?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - lifeformed 12y ago
    Who?
freehunter 12y ago
Yeah paintball and airsoft and laser tag are disgusting, no one would ever play a game like that in real life.
downandout 12y ago
I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting. As others have pointed out, if this inspires violence in someone, they already had serious mental issues. The larger issue for this game is that it simply doesn't look very fun. I think the idea of involving one's environment in mobile games is good, but this particular implementation doesn't seem very compelling.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Stop linking violence to mental illness.
  - d23 12y ago
    What? Why? I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability. I see your background is mental health. Instead of just throwing out these cryptic "holier than thou" one-liners, you would do your cause (whatever it is) a lot more justice if you would actually explain your point of view rather than just trying to look like some kind of sage.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      People incorrectly link mental illness to violence. Most violence, even spree killings, is not committed by someone with a mental illness. Mental illness is not a predictor of violence. (A previous episode of violence is; a drug or alcohol addiction is, but a mental illness, even a severe and enduring mental illness is not) People with a mental illness are very much more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence. By linking mental illness to violence you stigmatize people with a mental health problem. This stigma makes people less able to seek help from professionals or friends or even family. People become irrationally scared of those with a mental illness and don't know how to offer help. Employers are less likely to offer employment to those with mental illness. > I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability. But that's just ignorance caused by people who continue to lazily assume and then state that anyone who is violent is also mad - even if there's nothing to support that. This is possibly an example of the conjunction fallacy. We see violence and cannot explain it, and so when we think "is this person violent, or violent and has a mental illness?" we end up at "violent and with a mental illness" even though it's less likely than "just violent". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy Linking mental illness to violent crime is as lazy and ignorant as Fox news linking violent crime to African Americans, with the same mangling of statistics and undue focus on very rare events and lack of focus on common events. Here's some further reading with cites: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
comex 12y ago
My view is that it's largely about realism. Even in today's first-person shooters with fancy HD graphics, you're usually aiming at a person who pops in and out of a single cover location, conveniently waiting for you to shoot him. Even if you've killed all his buddies, he won't run away or do anything different, but just keep yelling generic insults at you. If you shoot him, but not enough times to kill him, he will start shooting you again after a few seconds, seemingly no worse off for the injury (just like your own character). If you kill him, he will make a generic yell and fall over, but never die any more gruesome way. His corpse may have some blood around it but won't look remotely realistic. Originally this was basically mandated by technical requirements, but today it would certainly be possible to go further; I suspect most games don't do so precisely because players would feel weird being more realistic killers. That's for FPS. In this game, even though the opponent has a face on their profile, the shooting consists of hitting a button and seeing a health bar go down. It's so abstracted from any reality that it's not even close to a problem.

by linkeex 12y ago

fastball 12y ago

I always thought the argument was "it's just a game". If you can't separate fiction from reality, you have deeper issues than violent video games.

linkeex 12y ago
I can, but other people might not.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Hang on: why are you special?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- lifeformed 12y ago
  Who?

freehunter 12y ago

Yeah paintball and airsoft and laser tag are disgusting, no one would ever play a game like that in real life.

downandout 12y ago

I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting. As others have pointed out, if this inspires violence in someone, they already had serious mental issues. The larger issue for this game is that it simply doesn't look very fun. I think the idea of involving one's environment in mobile games is good, but this particular implementation doesn't seem very compelling.

DanBC 12y ago
Stop linking violence to mental illness.
- d23 12y ago
  What? Why? I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability. I see your background is mental health. Instead of just throwing out these cryptic "holier than thou" one-liners, you would do your cause (whatever it is) a lot more justice if you would actually explain your point of view rather than just trying to look like some kind of sage.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    People incorrectly link mental illness to violence. Most violence, even spree killings, is not committed by someone with a mental illness. Mental illness is not a predictor of violence. (A previous episode of violence is; a drug or alcohol addiction is, but a mental illness, even a severe and enduring mental illness is not) People with a mental illness are very much more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence. By linking mental illness to violence you stigmatize people with a mental health problem. This stigma makes people less able to seek help from professionals or friends or even family. People become irrationally scared of those with a mental illness and don't know how to offer help. Employers are less likely to offer employment to those with mental illness. > I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability. But that's just ignorance caused by people who continue to lazily assume and then state that anyone who is violent is also mad - even if there's nothing to support that. This is possibly an example of the conjunction fallacy. We see violence and cannot explain it, and so when we think "is this person violent, or violent and has a mental illness?" we end up at "violent and with a mental illness" even though it's less likely than "just violent". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy Linking mental illness to violent crime is as lazy and ignorant as Fox news linking violent crime to African Americans, with the same mangling of statistics and undue focus on very rare events and lack of focus on common events. Here's some further reading with cites: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

comex 12y ago

My view is that it's largely about realism. Even in today's first-person shooters with fancy HD graphics, you're usually aiming at a person who pops in and out of a single cover location, conveniently waiting for you to shoot him. Even if you've killed all his buddies, he won't run away or do anything different, but just keep yelling generic insults at you. If you shoot him, but not enough times to kill him, he will start shooting you again after a few seconds, seemingly no worse off for the injury (just like your own character). If you kill him, he will make a generic yell and fall over, but never die any more gruesome way. His corpse may have some blood around it but won't look remotely realistic. Originally this was basically mandated by technical requirements, but today it would certainly be possible to go further; I suspect most games don't do so precisely because players would feel weird being more realistic killers. That's for FPS. In this game, even though the opponent has a face on their profile, the shooting consists of hitting a button and seeing a health bar go down. It's so abstracted from any reality that it's not even close to a problem.