next »

[Paint by Numbers]

In Dwarf Fortress, you can lock your enemies in cages and drop said cages into magma, burning them alive. You can vomit and bleed and vomit some more. Dead bodies give off the stench of rotting meat, inspiring bipolar tantrums and often resulting the lunatic ruination of your fortress. But let me guess - it's different because these are dwarves, not humans? Well, this roguelike is a game, not real life.

Roguelikes are dope as hell and people should be making more of them with original themes like this one. Not that unoriginality is a problem for roguelikes - most of the ones I've seen have been very original and interesting. Just, we should have more.

Have there ever been any roguelikes that use multi-tiled creatures (e.g. the amoeba-like blobs from good ol' ZZT)? I know Toady was planning on putting them into Dwarf Fortress at some point, but it's the only roguelike I can think of that does. I'm hoping that nobody's done it yet, since it's a big part of my pet roguelike project.

Edit: Oh my god I just realized it didn't even take us a page before we started up the morality discussion. God dammit.

[s0]

I think the whole "Hey, you kill people in other games too, what's the problem?" argument is oversimplifying things.

It has more to do with the motivation for the violence than the violence itself. In DF, you're not the "bad guy", your main goal isn't brutally murdering unwitting victims. Sure these things are possible, but they're largely optional, the serial killer RL, they're the main point. In most "normal" games there's a moral justification for killing tons of baddies (they're bad!), this game puts the player in a fundamentally immoral role. And yes, I think the realism of the setting factors into as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wagging my finger or anything, I'm just trying to explain why it's not hypocritcal to perceive the subject matter of SKRL as more sensitive than, say, Serious Sam.

[Paint by Numbers]

Sure these things are possible, but they're largely optional, the serial killer RL, they're the main point.

Are you saying that SKRL is morally wrong because it has you doing cruel things instead of DF's tacitly accepting cruelty, giving you the means to do it easily, and building a culture best known for its gleeful lunatic brutality? I really don't think the games are all that different in terms of how cruel they are; at least, certainly not enough to consider one acceptable and the other something to be feared and detested.

But no matter the motive, it's a game. It doesn't actually happen. Acting out imaginary actions in an imaginary world has no consequences, of any sort, to anyone.

I guess I just don't see the point in getting riled up about procedurally generated @ people.

[s0]

Did you actually read my whole post?

By "immoral", I meant "immoral in the context of the game".

[Seth]

Paint by Numbers, do you think rape should be included in the game?

[Paint by Numbers]

Did you actually read my whole post?

By "immoral", I meant "immoral in the context of the game".

I know what you meant. In Dwarf Fortress, you can play as an in-universe immoral character. You can do this in, say, the GTA games as well. Your point seemed to be that people are seeing the violence as more terrible because you play as an immoral person in-universe killing innocent people, and that the realism of the setting contributes to this feeling; that seems to me a lot like GTA. But, of course, if you went around complaining about GTA's popularity and how morally reprehensible it is, you'd be laughed at.

Paint by Numbers, do you think rape should be included in the game?

Figured it out from my biased explanation of peoples' views, huh? Ah me. Yes, I do think rape should have been included. Shying away from something reprehensible like that shouldn't be tolerated in a game like this.

[Xion]

game looks super-rad. Can't wait to play it.

[s0]

You can do this in, say, the GTA games as well. Your point seemed to be that people are seeing the violence as more terrible because you play as an immoral person in-universe killing innocent people, and that the realism of the setting contributes to this feeling; that seems to me a lot like GTA. But, of course, if you went around complaining about GTA's popularity and how morally reprehensible it is, you'd be laughed at.

GTA is controversial though. It also sugarcoats the cruelty it portrays with cartoonishness and (often pretty juvenile) humor.

But that's not the point, I think you're being overly defensive when there's not even much to defend.  You seem to think I'm somehow morally outraged about SKRL, which I'm not. I never said a word about the game being "morally reprehensible" or that the people who
look forward to playing it are sick fucks or anything like that. What I meant with my earlier post is that because the subject matter is both realistic and taboo, controversy is understandable. And as I said before that, I hope SKRL goes deeper than GTA and has the balls to be serious about its subject matter instead of using faux-satire as a copout.

[X3N]

Nice descriptions on everything!

[Contrary]

Is there any incentive to kill in this game? It says you can have a normal job and stuff. What happens if you do that and never kill?

[Paint by Numbers]

Is there any incentive to kill in this game? It says you can have a normal job and stuff. What happens if you do that and never kill?

You can get hallucinations or become uncontrollable if your urge to kill gets too strong, and jobs will be a sort of fast-forwarded event, not something you can play through. Without killing and all of the events that arise from that (investigations, needing to keep yourself hidden, etc.), the game isn't anything.

GTA is controversial though. It also sugarcoats the cruelty it portrays with cartoonishness and (often pretty juvenile) humor.

But that's not the point, I think you're being overly defensive when there's not even much to defend.  You seem to think I'm somehow morally outraged about SKRL, which I'm not. I never said a word about the game being "morally reprehensible" or that the people who
look forward to playing it are sick fucks or anything like that. What I meant with my earlier post is that because the subject matter is both realistic and taboo, controversy is understandable. And as I said before that, I hope SKRL goes deeper than GTA and has the balls to be serious about its subject matter instead of using faux-satire as a copout.

In the last sentence I meant "one", not "you". But I am being overly defensive, and for that, I'm sorry. Like I said, I've seen a thread about this go to pot because Certain People came in and started eating it alive for perceived immorality, and already we've had one guy say something that was apparently a complaint about ethics, so I was a bit eager to condemn anyone who spoke a word about morality. Again, sorry.

[Swattkidd]

I dont want to get into a debate or anything, but just want to come in and say that I dont think this game is bad or anything if thats what my post came across as. I think games where the point to kill people in gruesome ways, and people who find that fun, is a bit odd. But I dont feel like that is the main thing in this game, more of a mechanic.

Anyways...The game does look pretty interesting, and I like that you sneak around and stuff but hopefully you have to actually find ways to break in, and can't just pick every lock. Maybe during one of your everyday tasks you notice a window open or something.

[s0]

In the last sentence I meant "one", not "you". But I am being overly defensive, and for that, I'm sorry. Like I said, I've seen a thread about this go to pot because Certain People came in and started eating it alive for perceived immorality, and already we've had one guy say something that was apparently a complaint about ethics, so I was a bit eager to condemn anyone who spoke a word about morality. Again, sorry.

No big deal. 

[Seth]

I'm always confused by the conflation of the attitude that people should be able to make any game they want, even about being a serial killer, and the attitude that everybody should be entirely comfortable with the game and the premise.  Often this is coupled with a defense along the lines of "It's just a game, nobody is actually getting hurt."  

It certainly is a true statement, but I have a problem with that defense because it suggests two things: that games should not be treated seriously, and that discomfort is not a valuable emotional response.

As to the latter: why should I or anyone else not be uncomfortable with the game's premise?  Sure, the game itself is not real, but the subject matter is, certainly, very real.  This attitude that no one should give the game a second thought because it's just a bunch of at signs is ridiculous; it's like suggesting that no one should have an emotional reaction to a novel because it's just a sequence of letters.  Being uncomfortable with the idea of playing out the acts of a serial killer in incredible detail is a completely normal reaction--in fact that reaction I have is the main reason I find this game interesting.  The reason I like the movie Inglorious Basterds is because I have a similar reaction--it makes me uncomfortable to realize I enjoy watching the Nazis in the movie die so much.

The idea that games shouldn't be taken seriously ties into this--if we approach the game that way, it denies the possibility that the author intends to make players uncomfortable.  He may or may not have those intentions, but it's too early, I think, to assume either way.  And, honestly, I think the "it's just a game" defense does more harm than good.  I think most people who react with outrage to games like this do so because they make the understandable assumption that the game will treat the subject matter with frivolousness.  If more people were on board with the idea that you can make a game about playing a serial killer with at least some degree of seriousness, insight, or reflection, as opposed to purely vapid shock value, there wouldn't be an issue.

[Contrary]

Oh ok. This game sounds pretty sweet. I'll look forward to bludgeoning and butchering many-a ASCII tile!  

Obligatory philosophical comment: But is not choice also a factor? Is emotion and attitude a function of humanity that is free from all conditioning and moderation? Whether a person likes something or not is often decided by their disposition prior to the experience, for example one might hear bad reviews of a movie and by this condition themselves to search for the flaws and ignore the good points, rather than liking it despite these? Hasn't everyone had a time where some experience has been spoiled for them by a friend's nagging negativity?

This is a reason many people refuse to accept games as a valid art form, it's because they don't want to.

So why can we not change our disposition based on logical reasoning? Why can't we open our hearts to an art game, but close them to a murder simulator?

[Seth]

now you're just being contrary

[Paint by Numbers]

Instead of skill points, you can entirely choose your own psychoses, so you get to essentially choose your own difficulty.

Also, you choose the trophies you want to keep, which gives the game a bit of an objective!

[Okenido]

The ability to play as a transsexual should be moved from sexuality to gender.

The rest of the character creation system looks quite good.

[Bood_war]

I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned Dexter yet, with all this talk of morality and whatnot. I don't want to derail this thread, but why would Dexter be alright to watch? Because he only kills other killers? He's still destroying a life, still taking a man/woman away from their family, taking away everything he will ever be. If it's alright to watch Dexter, who's to say you couldn't roleplay with this. Say that the people you kill are murderers, or even track down murderers if the game includes such a thing?

Even if we say that these shows, games, books, or whatever else is wrong, it still exists. Why? Because we, as a species, are attracted to death. Fascinated with it. What happens after death, the act of taking a life, corpses, zombies, funerals, war, we love it all. That's why Dexter is popular. That's why this game is getting attention. I daresay that's why serial killers even exist.

So whatever anyone may say, whatever they may do, it's not going to go away. Humans are too much in love with death.
/Morals discussion

This does look like it'll be neat though.

[Paint by Numbers]

/Morals discussion

Please don't do this. I'm sorry, I'm just not letting this happen.