Does DayZ's player killing simulate real life authenticly?

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

I think it does.

Senseless violence is the number one symptom of the human condition. Killing each other over entirely petty things, sometimes over nothing more than egos at all.

Most people would just murder each other in the zombie apocalypse, as they tend to do it in any kind of cataclysm. Many folks don't even really care about their well-being, the desire for self-destruction is a well recorded psycho-sociological aspect of human behavior.

The only people that would really be likely to be non-violent would be the ones who never picked up weapons at all. And even there are not -immune- to the cycle of violence, they are just not partaking in it themselves. They will still get shot and murdered in droves, even more so because they can't defend themselves.

[RIGHTLY 87]

Yes.

I don't... Really have anything else... To say...

Thats it.

[xenomta 128]

I think it does aswell, but not totally.

I mean I usually feel bad after killing someone, sometimes I even stop playing all together for a day or two, but if I killed someone in real life I think I would feel much worse than I would if I killed in Day Z.

[Aporis 422]

When you don't know what to do, you get kinda cornered inside your head, then its easy to pull the trigger, also getting used to violence in a situation like that makes people cold.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

I think it does aswell, but not totally.

I mean I usually feel bad after killing someone, sometimes I even stop playing all together for a day or two, but if I killed someone in real life I think I would feel much worse than I would if I killed in Day Z.

That's actually not true. Some people feel bad at first, but later feel intense euphoria. Your brain has a specific part of it that has an instinctual drive for enjoying the rush of killing, especially if you are male.

It stems from our early hunter-nomadic societies.

[SoWeMeetAgain 100]

I think yes, but I also think eventually people would become so scarce that the killing would pretty much stop...

the following thought depends on the number of killers being far less than non-killers:

every time someone enters a fight he takes unto himself the chance of being harmed or killed. therefore (if the assumption above holds true) the people willingly entering fights often will have a smaller chance of survival in the long run.

a thing that may contribute one way or the other:

if the killer-group does not have a very strong leader, then in-group violence is more probable than in non-killer groups

my thoughts on this are not finished ;)

[v3c1c 86]

I will go for NO it does not

you dont need Zombie apocalypse or something - take for example Somalia (not sure how there is today) - very poor country were is not much food and banditism is a norm. even childrens have guns - are they KOS - NO. But you can get killed for no reason, that is true

[TheDesigner 1197]

That's actually not true. Some people feel bad at first, but later feel intense euphoria. Your brain has a specific part of it that has an instinctual drive for enjoying the rush of killing, especially if you are male.

It stems from our early hunter-nomadic societies.

I know you're probably taking some course in psychology or something like that, but I call bullshit. Not everyone is a born killer or wants to kill. We might have the capability, but that does not mean we will use it. Our brain also has the capability to remember everything since we were born, but does everyone have that "power"? No, only a select few. Same with your "joy of a kill", a select few people might want to kill because of instincts, but humans also have the instincts to group up and work as a team.

[BwobBwub 660]

There needs to be more player interaction. Not everyone will kill senselessly.

[BSB Jimmy 360]

no

[Death_Dealer 3155]

That's actually not true. Some people feel bad at first, but later feel intense euphoria. Your brain has a specific part of it that has an instinctual drive for enjoying the rush of killing, especially if you are male.

It stems from our early hunter-nomadic societies.

Not true at all. If this was the case then there would be many more murderers out there.

[Claw 26]

I agree kos would and does happen in rl and kos does not bother me one bit in dayz however there is a certain something you are leaving out OP. we have become a lot for civilised since our early roots and just because some will answer those early yearnings l not all will. But when push comes to shove ( apocolyptic situations) it can go out the window. I think groups of people would stick together and some wouldnt. Look at disasters such as new orleans , tsunami etc etc for examples of both types of behaviors.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

Not true at all. If this was the case then there would be many more murderers out there.

Lol. Take a look at human history. It's filled with murder.

[TheDesigner 1197]

I agree kos would and does happen in rl and kos does not bother me one bit in dayz however there is a certain something you are leaving out OP. we have become a lot for civilised since our early roots and just because some will answer those early yearnings l not all will. But when push comes to shove ( apocolyptic situations) it can go out the window. I think groups of people would stick together and some wouldnt. Look at disasters such as new orleans , tsunami etc etc for examples of both types of behaviors.

KoS doesn't happen in real life, lol. You don't walk in to an icecream shop and just get one between eyes because the cashier is feeling bandit-y.

Also, New Orleans was horrible. Those people should be ashamed. Look at all the disasters in Oklahoma and those tornado alley places. They work together to clean things up and look for survivors.

Lol. Take a look at human history. It's filled with murder.

It's also filled with acts of kindness.

Edited July 1, 2013 by TheDesigner

[SteveLord 32]

I enjoy it. BECAUSE ITS A FRICKIN GAME!

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

It's also filled with acts of kindness.

Have you even read a history book?

Most 'acts of kindness' have only happened because of economic reasons to benefit the financial and social elite. Most major human rights changes have only happened because of a major economic incentive, take the Civil War for example. It ended slavery, but it never would have happened if the North hadn't had HUGE economic incentives to wage it. And once the war was over, noone tried to help the freed slaves very much.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Ozelot

[Death_Dealer 3155]

Blood, guts, and the thought of killing someone alone makes me feel sick and queasy. You think actually killing someone is going to make me overjoyed and happy? That's basically what you said.

[WBK 176]

It's an interesting post, definitely one that requires serious thought and not just an instant response.

While the study of the general impact of anarchy has produced some fairly gruesome and distressing results, nothing much like a pure live or die scenario has really been documented. So most people are going to judge this based on two perspectives: literature (by which I'm including media and cinema) and personal. I think most people would say "oh I couldn't kill anyone", and I'm the same, although all previous thoughts and attitudes are thrown out the window when faced with a situation that doesn't resemble what we know and expect from life. However, OP's comment that people retrogress into baser instincts is exaggerated. There are people with a passion for killing: Baron von Richtofen and Richard Kuklinski are names off the top of my head. But these people aren't the norm, and in this sort of scenario he isn't even talking about those types of people. He's referring to people who kill for personal gain. As I'll show in my post, I think people will realise soon that there is not much to be gained from killing others. While survival is the strongest instinct, humans also have an unbelievable capacity to care and nurture - both of which are essential to survival.

My impression of what would happen, based on the variety of sources I know:

I think the immediate reaction to an outbreak would be quite similar to that seen in lots of movies (i.e. I Am Legend). Chaos. Nothing but chaos. People wanting to leave with only one goal. In those first few days, nothing would matter apart from leaving the area, trying to get to safety. It's the most basic survival reflex of those without a plan or an overwhelming advantage: flee. People would throw money at anyone who could get them to a green zone. For those that don't manage to get away, the survival instinct switches to the next option, prepare. It's the famous fight-or-flight response. I imagine this is the period in which the most killing would happen - maybe not intentional, but in this stage more than any, people are scared because they don't know what the exact problem is. Fear is a strong impulse, one of the strongest, and it would literally flick a switch in people that initiates a free-for-all, me-first mentality. People would be fighting for the best gear, locations, buildings, strongholds, anything that they feel could give them an advantage. People would fight to mainly to protect and earn things they think give them an advantage in preparing for whatever is coming.

After the initial outbreak is where I'm most lost. I can't see any studies or find much help at all from literature (they usually cut to '2 years later' in movies at this stage...). However my guess is this is when a lot of communities are formed. Once people are aware of the extent of the problem, the fear instinct is almost removed. People would want to rebuild society, get back to their normal lives, start trusting people again. They'd be objectively aware of strength in numbers. It'd be like the Kevin Bacon Gambit; I trust my friends, they trust their friends, and they trust their friends. We can all get together and stay strong. People would stay in packs, possibly even one large pack for each town. If you are staying in one place, the larger the group the better. In this stage, people would have the most trust in others. They don't know whether it will end soon, they saw the horrors of people trying to escape and they would desperately want to trust people. People would be really eager to work with and help others. People might see a few zombies and kill them, but it would still be a raw experience.

After groups have been formed, I imagine that soon after people will discover who is to be trusted, who is to be removed from the group. I think in this stage most people will become desensitised to killing. They've had to kill or seen people die that they used to know, and they know it's an accepted part of life now. Communities will form hierarchies, and because hierarchies are the basis for civilisation, there will not be too much killing between or inside communities. Group leaders will talk to other group leaders, and work together while maintaining a healthy mistrust for those outside the group.

What happens next is (moreso than anything I've said yet) pure conjecture. People might split up and form smaller and smaller groups and become increasingly isolated, or they might understand the concept and success of a community-based lifestyle. A few simple turning points, like a death here or an infection there could literally change the landscape of an apocalyptic environment forever. People will eventually grow weary of living inside a community, some will embrace it. It is how the community deals with it that determines the world in which they will live. I imagine larger groups would stick together better, purely because of majority rules. If you're a group of 5 disagreeing with 100 other people, you're going to stay. If that same group disagrees with only 20, there's every chance bloodshed will follow.

So if anarchy reigns, then there is a fair chance that bloodshed will ensue. If there is order, that chance is substantially lower. It's as simple as that. My guess? After the initial hysteria, people would understand that working in groups is best. Smaller towns and communities would deal with it the worst, purely because of low numbers. Large cities the best. Safety in numbers!

But if we skip straight to a DayZ scenario, with wandering survivors, I imagine there would be small tightknit groups that keep to themselves. Trading would be essential but minimal, and people would own territories of the land. Obviously some people would have better land; i.e. those in the country could sustain themselves, and this could cause territory wars, but I don't think there would be much 1v1 at all. Being a lone wolf would be very difficult to survive, and those that do would stay well out of the rest of society's way.

TL;DR - go stuff yourself! I put work into typing this, you can put work into reading it.

Edited July 1, 2013 by WBK

[mick17 93]

I think it does. I believe most people would be the way they are in the game as in a real apocolypse situation...

[WBK 176]

Ozelot I honestly can't tell if you're a troll or someone who just likes to play Devil's advocate.

Have you even read a history book?

Most 'acts of kindness' have only happened because of economic reasons to benefit the financial and social elite. Most major human rights changes have only happened because of a major economic incentive, take the Civil War for example. It ended slavery, but it never would have happened if the North hadn't had HUGE economic incentives to wage it. And once the war was over, noone tried to help the freed slaves very much.

We've all read history books. Know why they're filled with murder? Because kings wanted to kill other kings, and civilisations wanted to conquer other civilisations. Most acts of kindness occur in everyday life. No one wants to read about everyday life, because it's plain. But plain isn't bad, and people want and need plain. Otherwise there would be more murders than births, simple as that.

I'll admit war fuels an economy and vice versa - especially a capitalist one - more than anything, but anarchy is not war. Anarchy is completely different. Anarchy far more closely resembles an apocalypse than any war would. Find a few well documented cases where anarchy has resulted in societal annihilation and I might change my view. But right now, with all these assumptions and snide remarks you just look like you're trolling a little too hard.

[TheDesigner 1197]

Have you even read a history book?

Most 'acts of kindness' have only happened because of economic reasons to benefit the financial and social elite. Most major human rights changes have only happened because of a major economic incentive, take the Civil War for example. It ended slavery, but it never would have happened if the North hadn't had HUGE economic incentives to wage it. And once the war was over, noone tried to help the freed slaves very much.

Have you read anything above grade 8 history books? Yeah, the civil war was gruesome, but after large battles when both sides fell back, they'd allow each other to get the wounded and either try to operate on them or bury them.

WWI, on Christmas, during the trench warfare between Germany and Britain, they sang Christmas carols back and forth.

War is war. Saying that just because humans kill each other because we love it is daft. People go to war to defend their country and they feel honored about it. After 9/11 tens of thousands of people signed up for the military. Why? To defend their country. You act as though everyone who partakes on war is a killing machine, but really that's just stupid.

[Walking Wounded 199]

I think it does.

Senseless violence is the number one symptom of the human condition. Killing each other over entirely petty things, sometimes over nothing more than egos at all.

Most people would just murder each other in the zombie apocalypse, as they tend to do it in any kind of cataclysm. Many folks don't even really care about their well-being, the desire for self-destruction is a well recorded psycho-sociological aspect of human behavior.

The only people that would really be likely to be non-violent would be the ones who never picked up weapons at all. And even there are not -immune- to the cycle of violence, they are just not partaking in it themselves. They will still get shot and murdered in droves, even more so because they can't defend themselves.

That's actually not true. Some people feel bad at first, but later feel intense euphoria. Your brain has a specific part of it that has an instinctual drive for enjoying the rush of killing, especially if you are male.

It stems from our early hunter-nomadic societies.

How many people have you killed? based on your posts I would estimate 0.

There are many ways to kill. Some require a simple click on a button from miles away.. others involve opening major arteries with a sharp instrument or destroying the brain with a blunt one.

Having killed I can tell you euphoria comes from being still alive after the fact. Adrenaline acts in the moment.. the regret or the consideration of guilt comes later much later.

In other words.. you talk out of your anus.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

How many people have you killed? based on your posts I would estimate 0.

There are many ways to kill. Some require a simple click on a button from miles away.. others involve opening major arteries with a sharp instrument or destroying the brain with a blunt one.

Having killed I can tell you euphoria comes from being still alive after the fact. Adrenaline acts in the moment.. the regret or the consideration of guilt comes later much later.

In other words.. you talk out of your anus.

You say I talk out of my ass even though you admit what I said is true: Killing made you feel good in the moment.

You say guilt makes you feel bad later, but here's the thing: Not everyone feels guilt over killing. And are you so sure that guilt isn't just a byproduct of how OTHER people respond to the fact that you enjoyed the act of killing? Guilt is rarely an entirely internal emotion, it's a response you feel from being pressured from your current social group.

Most people will judge you for saying it felt good to kill a man, because they don't understand and have never done it. Do you think someone who has never killed would not give it deeper consideration than that?

I don't think killing is really wrong. There are many valid reasons to kill someone. And I don't think it's wrong to feel good about it either, it's only human.

[TheDesigner 1197]

You say I talk out of my ass even though you admit what I said is true: Killing made you feel good in the moment.

You say guilt makes you feel bad later, but here's the thing: Not everyone feels guilt over killing. And are you so sure that guilt isn't just a byproduct of how OTHER people respond to the fact that you enjoyed the act of killing? Guilt is rarely an entirely internal emotion, it's a response you feel from being pressured from your current social group.

Most people will judge you for saying it felt good to kill a man, because they don't understand and have never done it. Do you think someone who has never killed would not give it deeper consideration than that?

I don't think killing is really wrong. There are many valid reasons to kill someone. And I don't think it's wrong to feel good about it either, it's only human.

How can you make these wide assumptions and you've done little to no research? Where does the guy say he enjoyed killing? My Grandpa used to tell me stories of Vietnam and I'll tell you right now, he did not enjoy the killing.

You say not everyone regrets killing someone and you're right. Psychopaths do not regret killing someone. Normal people do.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

How can you make these wide assumptions and you've done little to no research? Where does the guy say he enjoyed killing? My Grandpa used to tell me stories of Vietnam and I'll tell you right now, he did not enjoy the killing.

You say not everyone regrets killing someone and you're right. Psychopaths do not regret killing someone. Normal people do.

Why do you assume I have done no research? I study psychology for a living.

The fact that you make this wide distinction between 'psychopaths' and 'normal' people shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what psychopathy actually is. Psychopaths and as you put it 'normal' people are still equivalent under the distinction of being human beings first and foremost.

Hearsay based on what your 'grandpa in vietnam' told you does not make you an expert.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Ozelot