deweyhewson

"I don’t know how long I’d been unconscious, or how I ended up lying on this beach, but I knew all too well the feeling of death which hung around me like a moth-filled blanket." Presenting a new story, Crescendo to Catastrophe, to those who have been following the journals. Check it out here! http://www.dayzdiary.com/2012/06/crescendo-to-catastrophe/

Why does every gaming community have to devolve into the basest form of human behavior as soon as a game gets popular? It's not that sandwich jokes are offensive, so much as it is that they are so tired and unoriginal. "Haha! Women belong in the kitchen! Making me sandwiches! Cause they're women!" Seriously? That qualifies as humor these days? Attacks against anybody, be it group or individual, are little more than a direct representation of insecurity on that subject by the person making them. In that vein, I'm not at all surprised to see the level of misogyny and sexism that is on regular display coming from gamers, en masse. That being said, the people who act like this do it because they have an audience, so it's usually best not to give it to them. Personally, I usually just sigh whenever I see such an immature person make an appearance in a game I'm in, and ignore them, but it still deserves to be recognized for what it is. People certainly can take things too seriously, that is true, but it's also true that anonymity combined with an audience leads to a great many people making even the apes embarrassed to call themselves our ancestors.

The problem is that those other mechanics are direct reflections of the real world: You don't eat, you get hungry. You don't drink, you get thirsty. You are exposed to the elements, you risk getting sick. It's all logical, and realistic, even if slightly exaggerated in the game (and perhaps that exaggeration should be changed). But one of the enormous reasons DayZ is so fantastic, and interesting from a psychological standpoint, is that it's all happening to you, the character, as a direct, natural result of your choices. It makes it immersive, and makes you, the player, feel a part of the game world. But when you kill somebody in the game, you feel...what exactly? Should you feel good? Should you feel bad? Something in-between? The answer is any and all of them, perhaps some all at once. This is really the essence of human behavior and psychology, everybody is monumentally different, has different motives for what they do, and will feel different emotions and reactions to those choices. A game mechanic intended to simulate real world effects would be taking that choice, and natural consequence, away from the player, and making the judgment call for them following the logic that, since most people feel this about that, you, the player, will also feel this about that. Not only is a game mechanic entirely ill-equipped to represent, or accurately gauge, the spectrum of human emotion and behavior, but it would detract from the realism, and therefore the immersion, and thus detract from the entirety of DayZ itself. The part where you say that humans are monumentally different is where you go off course and your line of thought I am sorry to say falters. Humans, aren't that different. Its the reason that companies run ads on TV for products the way they do (there are entire courses in Psychological Marketing), its the reason that people from ALL walks of life get caught up in Ponzi schemes, or get taken by confidence men. Mankind as a whole are actually dangerously similar. Want another example? Guyana South America 18 November 1978, over 900 people drank the literal cool aid (actually flavor aid but I digress) because a man named Jim Jones knew just how similar people were (these were rich people, poor people, doctors, lawyers, and laborers). And before you go thinking that the People's Temple was just some cult do your reading. Especially about the good that they did in the mid 70s in San Francisco. Rev. Jim Jones knew how to exploit people, were not that different. The way you are dismissive of my argument without fully understanding or rebutting it, and the way you throw random events into the conversation as though they stand in place of a proper rebuttal, tells me that you really should study quite a bit more of the subject of psychology before passing an absolutist judgments on its implications and effects. It doesn't matter if human beings are fundamentally similar; of course they are, we're the same species! The point is that each person reacts differently, even if slightly differently, to every stimuli and scenario. Everybody has a sex drive, right? So I guess that means we all act and react to all sexual stimuli in the same manner, right? Of course not. Everybody is minutely different in each aspect of their sexuality from everyone else around them, no matter how superficially similar they may appear. For another example, even if 99% of people experienced PTSD following traumatic events, there would still be 1% who did not; how would you implement a game mechanic reflecting that on a level that does not ruin the immersion and realism of the game for each individual player? Simply put, you can't. You seem to be trying to argue from some fallacious position of authority here, instead of presenting concise and rebutting comments to those who disagree, including myself, especially so far as those arguments relate to DayZ and potential changes to it. If you want changes made to DayZ, and on the basis of psychological science, it is your obligation to prove how those would, or even could, be effective down to the individual level without compromising the realistic and immersive nature of the game. The bottom line is that, if my character in the game experiences some consequence for their choices which follow neither logical progression (such as hunger) or individualistic response (my own emotions as the player), then immersion is immediately lost, and I no longer relate personally to either my character or the game world. Trying to implement something like human psychology, in all its scope, down to the individual level, is simply not possible without seriously compromising the game world. If you disagree, don't just throw random events at me you learned about in Psych 101; rebut my arguments and prove how they are wrong.

The problem is that those other mechanics are direct reflections of the real world: You don't eat, you get hungry. You don't drink, you get thirsty. You are exposed to the elements, you risk getting sick. It's all logical, and realistic, even if slightly exaggerated in the game (and perhaps that exaggeration should be changed). But one of the enormous reasons DayZ is so fantastic, and interesting from a psychological standpoint, is that it's all happening to you, the character, as a direct, natural result of your choices. It makes it immersive, and makes you, the player, feel a part of the game world. But when you kill somebody in the game, you feel...what exactly? Should you feel good? Should you feel bad? Something in-between? The answer is any and all of them, perhaps some all at once. This is really the essence of human behavior and psychology, everybody is monumentally different, has different motives for what they do, and will feel different emotions and reactions to those choices. A game mechanic intended to simulate real world effects would be taking that choice, and natural consequence, away from the player, and making the judgment call for them following the logic that, since most people feel this about that, you, the player, will also feel this about that. Not only is a game mechanic entirely ill-equipped to represent, or accurately gauge, the spectrum of human emotion and behavior, but it would detract from the realism, and therefore the immersion, and thus detract from the entirety of DayZ itself.

If you get into character, this response is already felt. Read this, for example: http://www.dayzdiary.com/2012/05/chapter-5-my-soul-for-a-can-of-beans/ And no, that's not a shameless plug; it's directly relevant to the subject at hand. In fact, I tweeted only yesterday that, having studied psychology in-depth myself, it is both fascinating and exhilarating to see how it plays out within the confines of the DayZ world. Artificial game mechanics intended to represent real world human psychological effects would be a mistake, in my opinion, because they could never come close to the real thing. I find that human psychology already is playing a huge role in the world, even from those who don't even begin to try to get into character.

"You do what you must to survive. Alex had told me that, and that was the axiom now haunting the halls of my mind." For those who have been following the story: http://www.dayzdiary.com/2012/05/chapter-5-my-soul-for-a-can-of-beans/

Chapter 4 is live for everyone who's been following the story. :) http://www.dayzdiary.com/2012/05/chapter-4-angel-of-mercy-or-angel-of-death/

In response to the many, many complaints about bandits, or the removal of bandit skins: I hear what you're saying, and I used to agree with it, but the problem is that isn't how it works in the real world. The reality is that you can't tell on sight the type of person someone is, their crimes, or their nature. You can tell little things about them, and over time probably pick up on some of those things, but it's certainly not going to happen from seeing them cross a road a hundred yards in front of you. What I would like to see, instead, is real world communications based on players' actions. For example, last night I was part of a bandit group (but wasn't a bandit myself, and still haven't killed anyone) who took out two guys at the Balota airstrip. As we moved away, we saw people communicating through chat that a bandit group was around the airfield, to be careful; some even resolved to come hunting us. It was very thrilling, and felt very organic. So maybe there should be some method for people to leave information throughout the game. Like a note pasted outside a town, or on the ground, or paintings in blood on the side of barns naming known bandits, or something similar to those things. It would still be realistic, still be organic, and not compromise the gameplay. If anything, I think it would add to it. Criticism: "You guys just want to be able to do whatever you want and not have to pay for it." Absolutely not true. I have NEVER murdered someone in the game, and don't plan to ever start. I play a true survivalist, and I my mantra is that it's okay to shoot in defense, but better never to have to shoot at all. But if bandits were nerfed in an unrealistic manner, it would remove a huge element of danger and realism from the game, and make my experience as a survivor LESS fun.

I hear what you're saying, and I used to agree with it, but the problem is that isn't how it works in the real world. The reality is that you can't tell on sight the type of person someone is, their crimes, or their nature. You can tell little things about them, and over time probably pick up on some of those things, but it's certainly not going to happen from seeing them cross a road a hundred yards in front of you. What I would like to see, instead, is real world communications based on players' actions. For example, last night I was part of a bandit group (but wasn't a bandit myself, and still haven't killed anyone) who took out two guys at the Balota airstrip. As we moved away, we saw people communicating through chat that a bandit group was around the airfield, to be careful; some even resolved to come hunting us. It was very thrilling, and felt very organic. So maybe there should be some method for people to leave information throughout the game. Like a note pasted outside a town, or on the ground, or paintings in blood on the side of barns naming known bandits, or something similar to those things. It would still be realistic, still be organic, and not compromise the gameplay. If anything, I think it would add to it. "You guys just want to be able to do whatever you want and not have to pay for it." Absolutely not true. I have NEVER murdered someone in the game, and don't plan to ever start. I play a true survivalist, and I my mantra is that it's okay to shoot in defense, but better never to have to shoot at all. But if bandits were nerfed in an unrealistic manner, it would remove a huge element of danger and realism from the game, and make my experience as a survivor LESS fun.

Spot on post, OP; the logic and rationality within it was a breath of fresh air. I think what people need to remember is that DayZ is meant to simulate how the real world would deal with an apocalyptic scenario, and part of that reality is that people will kill, steal and betray each other if they think it'll keep them alive. Some will do it just for fun. And some will avoid doing any of those things out of a loyalty to their sense of morality that they'd rather die than betray. The fact that all those things exist within DayZ is what makes the game so fantastic, and, much as I hate being murdered, or fear bandits, I'd hate to see those elements removed from the game to cater to a base that is use to being able to regenerate health, and respawn at will. If anything, the game should be even more difficult than it is now.

Chapter 3 is up now for those who have been following the story. :) http://www.dayzdiary.com/2012/05/chapter-3-friendship-murder-and-a-final-stand/

Chapter two is now posted for everyone who has been following along in my journey! http://www.dayzdiary.com/2012/05/chapter-2-a-wrong-turn-in-the-storm/