Split: Violence in games

[Ultimatum479]

All syllogisms are flawed, since they take for granted the point they're attempting to prove.

Not at all, if you actually do it right. Syllogisms should never require any such assumption.

U say that humans are idiots...

Oh, so now you disagree? Shouldn't have used it in your logical "proof", then. Make up your mind, will ya?

U claim there are degrees of humanity...

I say there are degrees of everything. I don't split things into dichotomies. I'm a relativist. The position's been logically defended often enough that I shouldn't have to do it, but I'll repeat the arguments if you need 'em.

U claim to have less than the majority of people...

I've been told that by many people. Since you people seem to trust public opinion so, that would validate my statement in your eyes.

However, it's obvious that although U (with your extra helping of wisdom gained by skipping the humanity course) didn't understand my point, others did.

Interesting. Your point seems to have remained the same, especially with others repeating it afterwards, and yet you seem not to have understood _my_ response to it.

...now it has been split, so I guess U're in the wrong thread. Or does less humanity confer infallibility as well as wisdom?

He was referring to my posts before it was split, and I was explaining to him that my posts were focused on Grayswandir's game and your reaction to it. The same goes for Colicedus' "back on track": the "track" _was_ "Save The Children", hence my posts. Background knowledge is useful more often than not, ya know.

Colicedus, your post is biased. Watch your diction when you attempt to ask questions to start a discussion.

Now, since this thread seems to have been split so that we can discuss violence in games in general, I guess we'll still be focusing on Lugaru but not necessarily Grayswandir's suggestion. Very well.

[Grayswandir]

But...but...its a natural order of things...wolves eat rabbits...rabbits defend their young viciously with knives, sticks and swords....
<_<
>_>

I have deduced from this statement that:

• You're just using this as an excuse
• You are and/or would be a fan of The Badlands

The first point, you are correct. The second point is incorrect.
I hated Badlands, I only liked the aspect of ripping up poor, helpless peasants tied to poles to score points for my team.
...
Hey, in Myth peasants were portrayed as stupid, bovine-like, strees-relievers (lets light peasants on fire), and cannon fodder.
...
You were making a reference to Myth right?

Really, the original idea spawned from a mix of a WC 3 expansion level where you have to fight for control over this guy in a cage and one flag-CTF.

[Colicedus]

Really, the original idea spawned from a mix of a WC 3 expansion level where you have to fight for control over this guy in a cage and one flag-CTF.

You mean Illadin?

[Usagi]

U, it's obvious U depend on syllogisms to prove your points, but not many rhetoricians do any more. Despite their appealing simplicity, syllogisms don't work well in the real world, because most of the data we use is not amenable to such effortless recombination.

But it works for U, mainly 'cuz U take for granted what U try to prove.

And I don't disagree about humanity being idiots; not in Ur case anyway. It's clear that U're awfully dense, anyway, or U would have noticed U posited it as a basic assumption, and that my syllogism was pointing out how ridiculous Ur arguments are.

An of course a 12 year old (ha!) relativist, though unusual, would know there are degrees of humanity. I'd be interested in seeing Ur (oops, I meant other people's) arguments....wait, strike that, I'm bored to tears already.

Many people here have told U U're an idiot, so that's validated for all of us, I guess.

And of course my point remains the same; I don't change my point in order to try and claim I said something different when I'm challenged, like U do.

And I don't remember U ever responding to my point. I remember a bunch of intentional obfuscation, nothing else.

So long U. Been nice chattin' with U. Won't happen again.

[rudel_ic]

When he says that, it'll take at least 2 years until you hear from him again. I know what I'm talking about

[BunnyWithStick]

You were making a reference to Myth right?

No, I was making a rather clear reference to the world in which Gish and a bunch of flash animations and games take place in.

[Renegade_Turner]

I say there are degrees of everything. I don't split things into dichotomies. I'm a relativist. The position's been logically defended often enough that I shouldn't have to do it, but I'll repeat the arguments if you need 'em.

What a load of crap. You're a relativist? Stop using all this ridiculous nonsense, all you ever end up sounding is pretentious.

[Ultimatum479]

What a load of crap. You're a relativist? Stop using all this ridiculous nonsense, all you ever end up sounding is pretentious.

If anything, absolutism is far more "pretentious" than relativism. It'd be nice if you'd research things which you don't know before speaking about 'em.

[rudel_ic]

Why do you always use such an agressive tone? It's no fun talking to you.

[GaGrin]

I suppose the real question in all of this is what role do we want our players to take.

Protaganist or Antaganist?

Its interesting to me that not matter how many games will let you play an evil character all that really amounts to is killing things. Which seems to match up perfectly with playing good.

Of course I'm not condoning rape, torture or murder. I will admit I find the distinction of infanticide being made rather offensive; but then I have often had a slightly "utopian equality" view of human morality which I realise doesn't match up with reality. Mores the pity.

I do think that its interesting however, that evil as expressed in games is identical to good, with a slight colour change.

Several things suggested in this thread are truely evil: rape in my opinion being the worst.

Imagine how much damage a developer could do if they make the player character a rapist. You absolutely never should condone or glorify acts of this kind - and yet the general theme of games seems to imply that the player is the hero and is doing the right thing; even if they are infact the villain.

On the other hand, if approached with taste and good narrative can you imagine how disgusted you could make a player feel? Thats genuine reaction to choice and if you can actually make players feel horrified at their own actions - even if just slightly - then you've done something amazing: You've humanised your characters.

Meh. I've played Masq recently so I'm full of the power of social narrative over pure gaming

And I'm tired. Much of what i've typed may not make sense. I'll edit it when I get a chance.

[Zantalos]

Oh - and while we're on the subject - why is killing children worse than killing adults? Because the adults can fight back I assume. Except of course that often they can't.

Meh. Ethics need to be consistent imo and these just aren't

I'm going to bring this back up. Maybe you feel that since you are a child you think it is fair to judge yourself equal to adults, and thus be killed like them. However in a democratic society, adults/grown citizens, are to be the first that should die in a war. There is no point in going in and killing all the children in a war, that is sadistic. There may however, be a point to going in and firebombing a major city (Tokyo), or nuking two others (IE: Nagasaki and Hiroshima). Even soldiers are not the main thing you should be killing in a war, just because they have the ability to defend themselves better than unarmed civilians, killing them is not very important because they do not make the decisions. They are not an independent branch off the government where they decide when to go to war and then just go off and attack a country, it's the citizens, the adults that cause all this, they vote, or they let things happen with the power to stop it all. Soldiers do not start wars, they can help wars escalate but it's the people that vote for what happens of not. You can easily justify why killing children is so much worse than killing adults, because they do not cause any of this, they do not vote, they are just kids, you shouldn't kill them because they are innocent and don't have the power to start any of this or prevent it.

[Ultimatum479]

...in a democratic society, adults/grown citizens, are to be the first that should die in a war. There is no point in going in and killing all the children in a war...Even soldiers are not the main thing you should be killing in a war...it's the citizens, the adults that cause all this, they vote, or they let things happen with the power to stop it all.

So were you in command of the army during a war against a "democratic" country, you'd exclusively, or at least primarily, target the citizens of voting age.

I'd hate to be on your side in a war.

By the way, even with that horrible attempt at an explanation for why ethics are as they are, you didn't address the other major part of unequal ethical value of life aside from the child-adult discrepancy: the women-men gap.

[David]

Rudel is right, you really need to chill out. If you don't stop insulting everyone, you are going to have to take your trolling elsewhere.

[Colicedus]

Thought for the day: No one should die, and No one should be in pain.

Now... as for this Rabbit rapping, I do not glorify it as such.
But don't we use many of media to feel a mood or have an experience that we would not wish to play out in real life?

it is true that we are playing the role of Turner and not our owen little character who would do that kinda shit.

But lets say for the Story side of a campaign, you wanted to have a rabbit tied to a tree for interrogation. so you start hammering something into his gut. (on side note, Will there be intestine leakage in L2?)

or for instance, Turner is spending a night at the local inn and goes out for a smoke/lay a pellet when he sees a woman/bunness getting attacked by some creep for a free ride shall we say?

Turner could leave her to suffer the rabbits abuse, or he could save her and help her to the tavern, or maybe his friends show up.
It could be the means to a side story, and adds to the drama of Lugaru.

[ChazFox]

(on side note, Will there be intestine leakage in L2?)

That would be very interesting. I haven't seen intestine leakage since Soldier of Fortune. I'd rather leave out the prolonged writhing and dying animations though. I'd imagine you'd die pretty quickly from a shot to the gut

Speaking of violence in videogames, I oppose the idea of having the main character rape anybody or kill children (the wolf children, as aforementioned, would be capable of growing up and killing turner so it's best to get rid of them while still young), and rape should stay, as it already has been, as a small part of the storyline. It'd be very boring actually if we included more rape in L2's storyline though (I'd hate the idea of Turner settling into a new village and the same thing happening again, we need a much better storyline :3 don't forget to keep Turner as a ditz though, we need that ) Well, there's my view on things.