The other night I was roaming around in the DZ with a group of four. At one moment one of our team started shooting a solo player and killed him, so the whole group went rogue. That also started a discussion. "Why did you shoot him, he didn't do us any harm" said one of the others. The shooter answered "well, I think that guy was going to shoot us, so I shot him first". That started quite a discussion. Three of the four players thought it unfair to shoot a single player if that player wasn't shooting one of us. At a certain point the shooter said "and I think it's fun to shoot another person and that's what the DZ is all about". If that's your opinion, I wonder what that says about you as a person. That made me think about the DZ and the makers of it. The whole idea behind the DZ is actually rather unethical. Especially if you take in consideration that, in my opinion, a persons behavior in the DZ is rather close to his real personality.
I would like to hear your opinions.
Interesting responce, inparticular where you say "Where else can you shoot someone in the face, repeatedly, steal their stuff and get away with it? "Originally Posted by EddyRockSteddy Go to original post
What would you do in the real world if you where 100% certain you could get away with it?
This thread again? Oh well.
I don't shoot solo players but that's only because I like more balanced and thus challenging scenarios. When any teammate opens fire on a solo player I instantly shoot too since it's all within the rules of the game.
It's a PVP area and it all goes there. There's no morals, only rules, in a game. Just like you play to win in, say, the board game Risk, you also try to win in the DZ. Winning in the DZ is about staying alive more than other players as far as I'm concerned.
So yeah, You don't open fire on sole players? Neither do I. Doesn't make us worse or better than those who do. It's a bleeding game.
From the morality and ethics aspect of video games...
I think there are some people that bring in their sense of real-world fair play into video games.
Then there are people that leave the real-world in the real-world and play the video game within the rules of the video game.
Aside from the hackers (playing outside of the rules of the video game), there is nothing wrong with either approach.
The rules of a video game are not governed by our societal rules of morals and ethics. One should adjust it according to the video game.
I don't know about anyone else, but I still wouldn't because I'm not a psychopath, and am fully capable of recognizing the difference between what is acceptable behaviour in the context of a video game, and causing real harm to another human being, duh!Originally Posted by Robert-of-Hague Go to original post
Shooting other players in a video game, regardless of the accepted mechanics involved, is no more an indication of a person's mental health than playing Pac Man is an indication of an eating disorder, or playing Super Mario an indication of a predisposition towards animal abuse.
It's.
Just.
A.
Game.
M0J033, of course it's just a game and there is no ethics involved what so ever if you kill computer generated characters (PVE). For as far as PVE is concerned The Division is like playing Super Mario or packman, but only a bit more sophisticated.
But shooting characters with a real human behind the console is a whole different ball game. You can't compair a PvP shooting with Super Mario.
I would hope that we all know that nobody really dies when we kill their character in a game. We all know that nobody gets hurt when they die in a game, just like we all know that nobody respawns in real life.Originally Posted by Robert-of-Hague Go to original post
One is fantasy, the other is reality.
It's a pretty big stretch to assume that anyone would willingly harm another person in real life, just because they are capable of manipulate some computer generated pixels in a manner that causes another player's computer generated pixels to change their configuration.
Would you think I'm a murderer if I took one of your pieces playing chess?
This is no different. Sure, the presentation is more sophisticated, but both are just games, and both involve one player defeating another.