nekoali said:
wAriot said:
nekoali said:
It doesn't say good things about humanity, does it? That freed of laws and consequences, this is what people turn to...
Because clearly video games are real life, they make people violent, racist, misogynistic and psychopathic.
Wait, no, they don't.
Except that is the complete opposite of what I was talking about. That games like this show what some people would be like if their actions had no consequences to themselves. See "Griefer".
I'm not sure it's really appropriate to call players of a game like this "griefers" when griefing is an encouraged game mechanic. People might be momentarily upset when they get screwed over by other players and lose all their hard-earned loot, but it was the constant risk of that happening that makes the game engaging for them. I see "griefing" as entering another player(s)'s personal space and acting in an obtrusive manner that's outside the player(s)'s expectations of what's acceptable. For example, going onto a peaceful Minecraft server and destroying a town people have spent weeks making without the
expectation that it could be compromised is griefing, but going onto a survival PvP server and looting/destroying another player's secret bunker isn't. They made that bunker with full understanding that an unfriendly player could destroy it and take their stuff. That action is permissible within the rules of the game - they have the expectation that their work could be destroyed.
I don't really see games like this as significantly different to any other PvP game. Tricking someone into raiding an opposing camp is no more dickish than throwing a hadouken in Street Fighter. In the end it all comes down to the mindset of your opponent. Edge guarding in Smash Bros. might frustrate and annoy a casual player, who will see you as a dick, but is perfectly accepted among more involved players. The game then becomes about getting your opponent in a position where you can exploit edge guarding and trying not to let them do the same to you, rather than having a "fair" fight on the ground. For noobs of Rust/DayZ/whatever it's not very fun to get ganked by other players, and I get that, but you have to understand and appreciate the utility of ganking in the meta game. The purpose of the game is to outwit, outplay, outlast (or maybe that's another "survival" game...), and if psychological manipulation helps a player win then the good players are going to have that skill set. If you don't have those skills, or have no desire to hone those skills, then you're not going to have fun with the game. It doesn't make the good players bad
people (as opposed to griefers, who ARE bad people), although it arguably makes them... not more dangerous, but more competent (which would only make them more dangerous if they had malevolent intentions). To use another example, a good FPS player will be much better at surveying the world around them and identifying the most advantageous locations for massacring people, but those skills only make them a danger if they
intend to shoot people.
Kind of ranted there. In any case, I don't think people that enjoy playing survival games are bad people, though I can understand why people would be uncomfortable being around someone that was really good at those kinds of games.
