next »

[JWK5]

I never said we can't escape it, in fact I said:

The human condition isn't that we are warlike, the human condition is that we've reached a mental state that allows us to think beyond being warlike, that we can see something more in life than the forces that drive us to mercilessly consume. We can resist the urge for chaos, we can defy the urge for order.

What makes us good at negotiating and what makes flourish as a species is that we can think beyond instinct (even if the thoughts initially occur as a result of instinctual urges), and we can see ourselves in virtually anything which allows us to extend our compassion and nurturing instincts (for example, treating animals like family, diligently and affectionately caring for plants in our gardens, etc.).

Just saying that we are driven by primal instincts is not the same as saying we are limited to acting on them, and just saying that the concepts of justice and morality are social illusions is not the same as saying they can't be leveraged beneficially. However, being aware of our instincts and biology and how they move us, and being aware that justice and morals are social arrangements, we will be better equipped to deal with them when they fail us.



EDIT: Back on the topic of violence in video games, one possible factor of why people like them so much could also be that a good number of people in the modern world are locked into routine monotony. Repetitive schooling, dead end jobs, etc. Tedium has a funny way of winding into frustration and aggression. Violent video games might just be that splash of senseless mayhem people are craving to break the tedium in their lives.

Head shots in Unreal Tournament (complete with the announcer loudly proclaiming "HEADSHOT!") still amuse me, which should be pretty disturbing given that it is a depiction of something horrific (that I brought about). However, there is something inherently appealing about the vicarious destruction (something along the lines of blowing shit up with fireworks just for shits and giggles). It is definitely a power fantasy, but when you're stuck in a society that constantly funnels all the power to a small group of people (that doesn't include you) sometimes a power fantasy is nice.

[gimymblert]

That's why we need good sonic games

[JWK5]

That's why we need good sonic games

Agreed.

[Sik]

let's not forget how the colonialist ideal is baked in most game mechanics

killing tribal society that are deem savage and ugly so you can feel safe looting their gold for fame and defending civilization by invading their territories .... mmmm I wonder where they did get this narative, it's like every rpg and 4X ever (and more).

Don't RPGs usually have you killing wild monsters instead? (although then you have the whole thing about killing animals for no reason other than "they're dangerous" well you went looking for them, goddammit)

Reminds me of how in Soleil there's the usual conflict of humans wanting to get rid of monsters and killing them and in the end it turns out that monsters got teleported to our world by accident and just wanted to go back home (and the whole conflict came up because nobody could communicate with each other). Not like that prevented the game from encouraging the idea of slashing everything in your path...

[JWK5]

Typically, the player is the most bloodthirsty monster of all.

[gimymblert]

@sik
Depend trolls and goblins and various humanoid monster with tribal element are filled under animal most of the time when it's not monster ...

on animal:
One of the biggest "world building into gameplay" tropes by noob when they dream rpg is "if you kill monster it will affect the ecosystem" ... thing that never happen because it's not a real gameplay proposition and they resort to usual spawning ... So at least the demand is there, the realisation that it is odd is internalized by both player and dev, but nobody was passionate enough to create a full system about it.

[JWK5]

They give you things to kill without guilt, and more often than not without consequence, but always with reward. The problem with that is you don't see a creature, you basically see a walnut you're trying to crack to get at the goods inside. You lose the fantasy that "this is a living thing" and instead are presented with a lifeless object to destroy. It's not exactly the fantasy most people are looking for, it is just the mechanics most games have failed to evolve past.

[gimymblert]

piñatas

[JWK5]

They're being hunted to the brink of extinction by spiky-haired assholes looking to purchase a new suit of armor...







Oh, the horror...

[gimymblert]

BTW that's why game like farm simulator have taken off recently, and harvest moon was always a niche darling that need a bit more polish to break to mainstream ... (animal crossing did and that's basically harvest moon without the farming)

[SirNiko]

http://www.kongregate.com/games/myplayyard/pinata-hunter

[s0]

summary of this thread: RIP pinatas

[jamesprimate]

They give you things to kill without guilt, and more often than not without consequence, but always with reward. The problem with that is you don't see a creature, you basically see a walnut you're trying to crack to get at the goods inside. You lose the fantasy that "this is a living thing" and instead are presented with a lifeless object to destroy. It's not exactly the fantasy most people are looking for, it is just the mechanics most games have failed to evolve past.

piñatas

wellllll put. thats what disturbed me the most about the zombie fad: it was the flimsiest possible pretext to justify slaughtering civilians / your neighbors with an axe. "its okay, they are othered now because of... reasons". And then to add pinata incentive to that? might as well just be honest at call it "murder and looting simulator 2015". fine, just set a game in modern day Congo then FFS.

but idk, as distasteful as it may be to see our Id so meticulously rendered at 60FPS, at least maybe it shows we've corralled and abstracted our more destructive jungle survival instincts. obviously this is a just a correlation, but violent crime in the first world is the lowest its been in recorded history. the kids seem vastly more inclined to twitter warfare than gang violence. perhaps hacking up simulated versions of your neighbors acts as a release valve for inclinations of the other sort. we can now satisfy our bloodthirst, an atavism honed from millions of years of scarcity and tribal conflict, with Diet Blood Lite. sure.

but all that rambling aside, there is plenty of room for devs to be more clever about it. its getting tedious :/

[oahda]

Pretty much any biologist out there will tell you that Darwinian theory is worth studying for two reasons:

1. To know where we come from.

2. To know how not to build our society as human beings, as we can do better since our brains have evolved such uncontested capacities compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, still forced to follow Darwinian rules. We do not want to live in such a society.

Saying "animals work like that" is rarely a good argument for anything. That's how you try to defend homophobia (which isn't even true) or try to claim that humans need meat because certain other animals do and all sorts of irrelevant stuff that has nothing to do with us, a different species, with different capabilities.

I see the discussion has already moved there, tho, so thank you.

-----

Again, no need to use the GamerGate thinking where you think just because we're tired of seeing so many violent games (or misogynistic games or racist games or whatever) it means that we are trying to censor and remove games like that to make sure there are none left. Which brings up discussion and arguments about things that nobody has been claiming anyway.

We don't want to remove violent games, we just want to see gaming as a whole be less saturated by them and see more creative ideas flow. I'd say 'in the mainstream', but a quick look at the devlogs over here reveals that violence is just as essential to most indie games as well.

And that's tedious. It's uncreative. And it's a bit scary. It's scary that it's the norm. Society as a whole is scary and this is a scary echo. We've got a long way to go.

[JWK5]

Last I checked, the discussion had moved to games essentially using their "enemies" as piñatas for the player to destroy.

Saying "animals work like that" is rarely a good argument for anything. That's how you try to defend homophobia (which isn't even true) or try to claim that humans need meat because certain other animals do and all sorts of irrelevant stuff that has nothing to do with us, a different species, with different capabilities.

Except, nobody is defending homophobia in this thread and nobody said anything about eating meat (that I am aware of). For the record, many animals species engage in homosexual behavior, only humans seem to feel the need to dictate it, and it has been shown that humans initially ate starches, we fed on the bulbs of tuber plants. At our stage in development meat, or no meat, is a choice and each side of that choice has bodily consequences but ultimately you can eat whatever you can survive on. So really, there's not much of an argument to be had there because if we turn to the animal kingdom on the matters it'd slap us and look at us like we're stupid. Yes, other creatures are different species but we share the majority of our functioning with them.

On another note, I do find it odd that people find it less cruel to eat a plant than an animal when plants have most of the sensory capacities that other creatures do. If plants could vocalize their suffering would vegans still feel the same? It is funny how the farther removed from us we think something is the easier it is for us to kill it (and consume it) with little to no remorse. That actually explains a lot about violence in video games.

Again, no need to use the GamerGate thinking where you think just because we're tired of seeing so many violent games (or misogynistic games or racist games or whatever) it means that we are trying to censor and remove games like that to make sure there are none left. Which brings up discussion and arguments about things that nobody has been claiming anyway.

We don't want to remove violent games, we just want to see gaming as a whole be less saturated by them and see more creative ideas flow. I'd say 'in the mainstream', but a quick look at the devlogs over here reveals that violence is just as essential to most indie games as well.

And that's tedious. It's uncreative. And it's a bit scary. It's scary that it's the norm. Society as a whole is scary and this is a scary echo. We've got a long way to go.

The majority of people posting here, myself included, agree it is tedious. I don't think anyone said anything about censorship. Even a lot of us saying "I like violent video games..." are adding "...but yeah, this shit is getting pretty boring." You are talking about people bringing up discussion and arguments nobody is claiming anyways but I am not seeing the discussion and arguments you are claiming either. I think you may be reading between the lines a bit (I unintentionally do that often, so no judgement here). I think pretty much everyone is on board with "we need new approaches", whether we are talking about violence in video games or the lack thereof.

I would have to agree society is scary, though. However, if I had to make the choice between someone venting their hunting insticts, aggressive competitiveness, compulsive urge to gather things, etc. in the "real world" or virtually in a game I'd go with the game. So if it is a societal echo, the least we can do is make it a better on the rebound.

[oahda]

Nobody said that, no. They were analogies on my part as to how irrelevant it is to bring up what might happen in nature when we obviously possess the ability to oppose our Darwinian background, unlike probably all other animals.

Just as you say, homosexual behaviour does appear in nature, which was an example of how some people who try to invoke the animal kingdom aren't even correct about it half the time. But even if it never did happen in nature elsewhere, it would indeed be irrelevant to what happens in humans.

Pain is the point you pose when the article itself states that ”scientists are reluctant to go as far as to say they are responding to pain„. I'm pretty sure most researchers agree that plants react to stimulus as inherent mechanisms rather than actual conscious perception. Clipping a part of an amorphous plant should be more akin to clipping the nail of a human. It doesn't hurt the organism, it doesn't kill it, and the clipped part might grow back. The future will show whether more research suggesting clear indications will pile up, or whether the currently most common view will remain.

Anyway, sorry for seemingly inviting you to derail the thread. It was just meant to be an analogy and it was partly misunderstood and I probably misunderstood or missed some of the most recent developments of this thread, so let's try to get back on track. Sorry.

That actually explains a lot about violence in video games.

Except the most popular games like CoD are about killing other people or humanoid creatures. : ppPpPppp

[JWK5]

Pain is the point you pose when the article itself states that ”scientists are reluctant to go as far as to say they are responding to pain„.

I meant "suffering" not "pain" (hence having edited it).

Pinning your neighbor down and shaving their head against their will is cruel, mowing your lawn is a given. Cruelty is relative, that was my point.

Anyway, sorry for seemingly inviting you to derail the thread. It was just meant to be an analogy and it was partly misunderstood and I probably misunderstood or missed some of the most recent developments of this thread, so let's try to get back on track. Sorry.

Fair enough.

Except the most popular games like CoD are about killing other people or humanoid creatures.

Except, they do not behave like humans or even living creatures. If we instead saw the characters in CoD breathing, bleeding realistically, limping and wincing in pain, crying over the loss of their comrades, spasm in the throes of a gruesome death, etc. (i.e. react realistically) people might feel differently. As it stands, CoD is at best a cartoon about war violence. No matter how "realistic" people say the game is getting it is very far from it. That is not to say that it won't have an effect on anyone, just that I doubt most people see the characters in the game as being human-like because the characters only barely mimic human-like qualities. Most people don't think twice about squashing a bug because it is nothing like them, it is less a living thing and more a nuisance. The characters in CoD are a nuisance.

[Torchkas]

As Chris Crawford famously said. Games are a fundamentally spatial medium. Because games are so good at simulating spatial environments, violence has been prevalent since day one. It requires real creativity to come up with something different and, as we all know, being creative is hard.

Of course, games being targeted to 20-something heterosexual males and our marketers' ideas of what they like has a lot to do with it. The consequences of violence rarely get explored, and even when they do (Spec Ops), they don't explore it in a mechanically justifiable way. There's no use to a game that punishes you in the story for things it rewards you with in its mechanics.

[Sik]

might as well just be honest at call it "murder and looting simulator 2015".

That already happened, the game in question is called Hatred. We all know how well that went =S

It seems that as long as there's some dumb justification people are OK with it. (amusingly nobody seems to care about Carmageddon these days in that regard, but I guess it's so ridiculously over-the-top people hardly take it seriously)

[gimymblert]

it's not call hatred, it's call gta, hotline miami, unchartred, etc ...