DayZ is a paradox game - Random thoughts

[gwartham 13]

There is no paradox, the points you pointed out could be for ANY sandbox game where there is PvP.

 

1. I don't want to, nor do I need to be nice to random tweens, let alone roleplay with them.

 

2. Its a game, most of us dont take it seriously enough to put a value on ayone elses life but our won and our mates.

 

3. Wish PvP was more abundant.

 

4. This is as it should be. The guys in my teamspeak are my "social group" in Dayz, and if you ain't one of us, then your toast.

 

Look, been playing MMO type games since what m59 and UO, and the same things your stating today are the same things people were complaining about then.

 

 

This game will appeal to different people for different reasons, but I garantee you will not be able to force others into your niche of playstyle. There will always be guys like us shooting people like you without a second thought, and to us that's as it should be.

[SGT. Kalme 106]

These are not the game design flaws. These are flaws in design of human. You can't have truly open game with open environment when your actions and decicions are made or affected by anything else than yourself.

DayZ offers the freedom of choice. Like in real life, people can have morale and ethics in their approach or not. And you can't change that in game because it is not the fault of the concept of DayZ. It is the society.

I vote against anything that suggests that we should limit the game in order to put limits to human behavior.

 

....

 

 

Little more details. For some people there is more value to life, for others less. But the gap between the two ends is actually very small. Most people, especially nowadays, can't handle intense situations and danger very well. Hence they panic, they let the primitive instincts lead them to actions. How would one judge if the lack of interaction points out flaws in gameplay or is actually natural behavior of humanbeing in such environment and situation? Preserving life, and especially your life because self-defence is actually the most basic instinct of any living lifeform, is built upon elimination or avoidance of threats. Both by nature are against interaction. There is no reward trying to act in opposite, only three different results in which one of them means being killed, other killing and for last having a positive interaction that connects two different persons into one role - be it having similar goals or friendly nature - but last which doesn't exclude the previous two options. Decision would be made considering the worst threat and consequences and as you can see, the odds are not in interaction favor.

 

What would help? Changing human nature. Teaching people to be more social, to think about others, to value life overall, not only welfare of your own person. The small changes in game can't do that. That should be done during entire life of a person.

 

So it is not a paradox game - well, at least in that meaning - but it is just a possible projection of an apocalyptical event in a virtual environment. Would people speak to each other if it was impossible to cause any harm to others? Sure. Would it make the game better? No, it would just take one aspect of what life really is away and add fake behavior of humanbeings.

 

My opinion only. You are free to agree or disagree.

 

....

 

I play this game as a survival game and I have not seen any restrictions to it. I survive to survive. Now this is a concept flaw of DayZ. Not only, all the computer games. You can't make the life as valuable and surviving as rewarding as it would be in life. Unless you make people die when they happen to die in game. Which would make this game very unpopular and hence be a bad move.

 

Problem is, people are so boxed in their minds. They only search for a reward for anything they do. if I can't get something from it, why do it? I tell you why. For the feeling of doing something. I find this game much more pleasing than the games where I act to unlock features or get bonuses. Because that restricts me to specific actions, yes, but as well because I am not concentrated for rewards. My own experience is the result and the only reward if seek. It is the fun of it. In reality, I would be much more paranoid about any living creatures and the fun would be less than half of it. Because games are all about fun. Fighting for your very own and real life is not.

Edited May 3, 2014 by SGT. Kalme

[gwartham 13]

What would help? Changing human nature. Teaching people to be more social, to think about others, to value life overall, not only welfare of your own person. The small changes in game can't do that. That should be done during entire life of a person.

 

See right here is the problem.

 

People always trying to bring real life morality and consciousness into a frickin video game.

 

The only conclusion I have ever been able to come up with about this type of person is that they spend so much time in a video game, that it becomes their life, and they can no longer distinguish between the 2.

 

Hey if you wanna roleplay the hero, knock your socks off. I wont stop you. But you best wake up and realize that out of the 2 million other players who have bought this game, your gonna be in the low minority, and most of the 2 million people are just gonna see you as something to shoot at.

 

Its not because they are immoral, or have some low value on life, its because to them its simply a game.

 

I also find it ironic that its these solo players complaining about other people being anti social. So let me get this straight, your the ones running about ALONE, while the rest of us have friends we been gaming with for years that bought the game because we did, and we are the ones who are anti social......go figure the logic.

 

I dont talk to you because I dont need to, I got a dozen other guys in TS for company. I dont shoot you for your gear, I garantee I got better anyway, I shoot you because I want to. I shoot you because thats pretty much the point of this game, to get the best gear ya can and not lose it. Having something to lose makes for a more exiting game.

Edited May 3, 2014 by gwartham

[SGT. Kalme 106]

See right here is the problem.

 

People always trying to bring real life morality and consciousness into a frickin video game.

 

The only conclusion I have ever been able to come up with about this type of person is that they spend so much time in a video game, that it becomes their life, and they can no longer distinguish between the 2.

 

Hey if you wanna roleplay the hero, knock your socks off. I wont stop you. But you best wake up and realize that out of the 2 million other players who have bought this game, your gonna be in the low minority, and most of the 2 million people are just gonna see you as something to shoot at.

 

Its not because they are immoral, or have some low value on life, its because to them its simply a game.

 

I also find it ironic that its these solo players complaining about other people being anti social. So let me get this straight, your the ones running about ALONE, while the rest of us have friends we been gaming with for years that bought the game because we did, and we are the ones who are anti social......go figure the logic.

 

I dont talk to you because I dont need to, I got a dozen other guys in TS for company. I dont shoot you for your gear, I garantee I got better anyway, I shoot you because I want to. I shoot you because thats pretty much the point of this game, to get the best gear ya can and not lose it. Having something to lose makes for a more exiting game.

 

I see lot of anger in your post against the playerbase. Since you quoted me I assume that my post, or the part you cut from it, caused that, anyway.

 

I don't see a problem because I didn't address it as a problem. I simply stated what could change the game to what people so much praise for. Do I think that this game should be all about the value of life and looking for ineractions, preserving life of your own and others? No. I don't know where you read that from my post because the opposite is actually stated there. I asume you just skipped to the part that caused that emotion in you because my post is long and boring wall of text. I think that people should be able to play the game in the manner they choose. Whatever it may be, it is individual choice and game developers shouldn't be working on how to limit the freedom of choice but how to make selection of choices much bigger. If people have only two choices to choose between - that is either to sit in a tree or go kill everyone - then the choice becomes one eventually. Because boredom leads to it.

 

For the very first statement that you bring up as a problem - everything you do, whereever you do it, is affected by what kind of person you are. Be it saying rude word to homeless, acting douche in forum or playing game as one - it is related to morale in your person. I don't choose to be rude or kill people and teabag them in a videogame because I can. I act the same way I do in life because that is what I am in person and I don't see why would I change that and try to be something else. I don't judge you for acting differently in a videogame because it doesn't bring any harm to anyone. But it does reflect you as a person, don't ever think otherwise.

 

Cheers.

 

I expect you to not give any warranties for what you can't actually guarantee. That is exactly what I am talking about. Don't take it strictly personal, you are not alone in this.

Edited May 3, 2014 by SGT. Kalme

[Ken Bean 174]

Little more details. For some people there is more value to life, for others less. But the gap between the two ends is actually very small. Most people, especially nowadays, can't handle intense situations and danger very well. Hence they panic, they let the primitive instincts lead them to actions. How would one judge if the lack of interaction points out flaws in gameplay or is actually natural behavior of humanbeing in such environment and situation? Preserving life, and especially your life because self-defence is actually the most basic instinct of any living lifeform, is built upon elimination or avoidance of threats. Both by nature are against interaction.

Most humans and animals are not even able to self defence in the very first phases of their lifes. Calling agression or self defence the "most basic instinct" in my book can be falsified and would be very counter constructive. However in later llife phases it gets more room. And in many cases, the most agressive animals don't protect themselfes, but their children.

 

It's pretty counter productive for every population to just to be always agressive and kill everone. Those have no future.

[gwartham 13]

I see lot of anger in your post against the playerbase. Since you quoted me I assume that my post, or the part you cut from it, caused that, anyway.

 

I don't see a problem because I didn't address it as a problem. I simply stated what could change the game to what people so much praise for. Do I think that this game should be all about the value of life and looking for ineractions, preserving life of your own and others? No. I don't know where you read that from my post because the opposite is actually stated there. I asume you just skipped to the part that caused that emotion in you because my post is long and boring wall of text. I think that people should be able to play the game in the manner they choose. Whatever it may be, it is individual choice and game developers shouldn't be working on how to limit the freedom of choice but how to make selection of choices much bigger. If people have only two choices to choose between - that is either to sit in a tree or go kill everyone - then the choice becomes one eventually. Because boredom leads to it.

 

For the very first statement that you bring up as a problem - everything you do, whereever you do it, is affected by what kind of person you are. Be it saying rude word to homeless, acting douche in forum or playing game as one - it is related to morale in your person. I don't choose to be rude or kill people and teabag them in a videogame because I can. I act the same way I do in life because that is what I am in person and I don't see why would I change that and try to be something else. I don't judge you for acting differently in a videogame because it doesn't bring any harm to anyone. But it does reflect you as a person, don't ever think otherwise.

 

Cheers.

 

I expect you to not give any warranties for what you can't actually guarantee. That is exactly what I am talking about. Don't take it strictly personal, you are not alone in this.

 

Wasn't directed at you, but I will say this, you are terribly wrong on the morals side.

 

You cannot put video game playing in the same category as morality in real life, the two are completely separate, period, and I question your mental stability if you confuse the two.

 

You WANT this game to be something complex, you have some need for it to be.

 

See your type simply cannot distinguish real life from the games you live in heres proof:

 

Be it saying rude word to homeless, acting douche in forum or playing game as one - it is related to morale in your person.

 

You have to interject a real life scenario into it, every single time.

 

Would it surprise you to know, speaking of the homeless, that I give to my local shelter, and even donate my time there when I can. That I help out at the local Catholic food bank, yet I am not religious?

 

So how does that work out in your mind?

 

Apparently I say rude things to the homeless, but I bet I have done more for the homeless then you ever have?

 

You sir, have not a grasp of reality.

 

Its a game, get over yourself and that high horse you PRETEND to ride.

 

Excuse me if I treat it as such.

[SGT. Kalme 106]

Most humans and animals are not even able to self defence in the very first phases of their lifes. Calling agression or self defence the "most basic instinct" in my book can be falsified and would be very counter constructive. However in later llife phases it gets more room. And in many cases, the most agressive animals don't protect themselfes, but their children.

 

It's pretty counter productive for every population to just to be always agressive and kill everone. Those have no future.

 

Books differ which is expected. Ability to defend yourself in first phases of life is in no way related to it being primary instinct. Can be argued though so let's just call it a day here. I think we can say survival is keyword for any living organism. Defence plays huge if not major part of it.

 

Now that is why I even brought up that point. It is very counter productive. But still, it is true. Not to kill everyone, there are more than one choice. But in difficult times, one weighs up another. We have nations that want to destroy and rule everything even in not so difficult times.

 

Wasn't directed at you, but I will say this, you are terribly wrong on the morals side.

 

You cannot put video game playing in the same category as morality in real life, the two are completely separate, period, and I question your mental stability if you confuse the two.

 

You WANT this game to be something complex, you have some need for it to be.

 

See your type simply cannot distinguish real life from the games you live in heres proof:

 

Be it saying rude word to homeless, acting douche in forum or playing game as one - it is related to morale in your person.

 

You have to interject a real life scenario into it, every single time.

 

Would it surprise you to know, speaking of the homeless, that I give to my local shelter, and even donate my time there when I can. That I help out at the local Catholic food bank, yet I am not religious?

 

So how does that work out in your mind?

 

Apparently I say rude things to the homeless, but I bet I have done more for the homeless then you ever have?

 

You sir, have not a grasp of reality.

 

Its a game, get over yourself and that high horse you PRETEND to ride.

 

Excuse me if I treat it as such.

So you are stating that when you are on the internet or in a video game, it is a different person than you or your actions are decided by someone else? Nope. You may try to justify the way you act when there is illusion of privacy covering your person that prevents others to know who you really are but only that fact says a lot about person.

Question my mentality all you want but you obviously don't have much understanding of psychology. That said, I see no point in discussing it any further with you.

For your actions to help homeless, I salute. But it was just a series of examples not directed to you personally. Just in attempt to explain how different actions in different enviroments are still your actions that you personally choose to make. And that connects those actions to your person, no difference if your person is known or not in reality.

It is human nature that we try to defend ourself and our actions, words and whatelse. I can't and don't want to crucify you for that. But your manner of speech tells me a story that is not written post you composed. It gives me an understanding of you. And you are extremely eager to make assumptions. Assuming is often the biggest mistake. I am not free of that myself but try to hold back making those as I can.

[gwartham 13]

SGT. Kalme:

 

Instead of a giant wall of text against your psycho babble hyperbole let me just state it simply.

 

Have you ever played, oh I dont know,  Tekken, or Battlefield, or any other game where you either beat or shoot people?

 

Did you shed tears every time you won a match or shot someone?

 

No?

 

This game is no different for me.

 

Just because YOU want to make it more then that, doesn't mean the rest of us do, or that there's something morally wrong with us because we don't see the game the same as you do..

 

ITS JUST A GAME! You seem to be a intelligent person, why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

 

It doesnt go any deeper then that, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

To me its just a high stakes FPS game, and that's what draws this game to me, and I meet far more people who play the game like I do then YOU do.

 

Even if I could prove to you that 75% of the people playing this game play it like me, you would I bet still say there's something wrong with all of us, instead of you.

 

Oh one last thing:

 

"For your actions to help homeless, I salute. But it was just a series of examples not directed to you personally"

 

Yes it was too directed at me personally, so if you example was flawed, I would say its your thinking that's flawed, as I have proved I can be sympathetic to the homeless, and yet be a brutal heartless killer in the game.

 

 

The whole point of video games is entertainment and fantasy, you, sir, seem to have forgotten that.

Edited May 3, 2014 by gwartham

[SGT. Kalme 106]

SGT. Kalme:

 

Instead of a giant wall of text against your psycho babble hyperbole let me just state it simply.

 

Have you ever played, oh I dont know,  Tekken, or Battlefield, or any other game where you either beat or shoot people?

 

Did you shed tears every time you won a match or shot someone?

 

No?

 

This game is no different for me.

 

Just because YOU want to make it more then that, doesn't mean the rest of us do, or that there's something morally wrong with us because we don't see the game the same as you do..

 

ITS JUST A GAME! You seem to be a intelligent person, why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

 

It doesnt go any deeper then that, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

To me its just a high stakes FPS game, and that's what draws this game to me, and I meet far more people who play the game like I do then YOU do.

 

Even if I could prove to you that 75% of the people playing this game play it like me, you would I bet still say there's something wrong with all of us, instead of you.

Sure I have played those games. And playing them like they are expected. But I still don't act any different than I would in person.

You see, it is not about the games or what they are like. It is about the behavior of playerbase. While therre are nice people in any game that I have played, there are whiners, ragers and so on so forth.

While this goes far off-topic now but I try to bring it back. There is nothing wrong with game concept. It is the human behavior that causes so much whine around it.

I am not saying there is something wrong with it. When you live in a complete anarchy, it is expected that everything depends purely of individuals actions. And their actions vary from one extreme to another.

It may be just a game for you. It is just a game for me, too. I just don't see why should I be any different when playing a game. Just like you don't see why would you behave the same as you would in person. I don't understand why would you want to prove there is something wrong with me and not with others. I don't say there is something wrong with others. But I do not believe there is something wrong with me. But as I choose to act one way or another, it is tied to who I am in person. Try to argue with that but that won't change a thing.

And I can differ game from real life very well. It feels completely different when you are being shot at in reality than it is in game. That does indeed mean I can make the perfect difference. Plus I rarely play any games so that couldn't be problem either that I spend too much time in them. You see why making assumptions can be mistake?

[Ken Bean 174]

Books differ which is expected. Ability to defend yourself in first phases of life is in no way related to it being primary instinct. Can be argued though so let's just call it a day here. I think we can say survival is keyword for any living organism. Defence plays huge if not major part of it.

 

Now that is why I even brought up that point. It is very counter productive. But still, it is true. Not to kill everyone, there are more than one choice. But in difficult times, one weighs up another. We have nations that want to destroy and rule everything even in not so difficult times.

The point is we have many primary instincts, only one of them is aggression.

What you did was just given those jung male adults - lets call them that - the perfect excuse for being rude, agressive, selfish and an sociopath in its pure form.

That is not the usual and normal way things work, neither in human society nor in nature. Aggressive persons doesn't act reasonable and indeed are a problem themselfes.

Even animals don't always "fight to kill" (basically only if it is a pray). Otherwhise, "engaging" (attacking) "enemies everwhere" is a danger, not only for a population, also for the invidual itself.

The primary instinct is self-preservation. This can be reached by many ways. You don't need to "f*cking fight everything".

To me its just a high stakes FPS game, and that's what draws this game to me, and I meet far more people who play the game like I do then YOU do.

Even if I could prove to you that 75% of the people playing this game play it like me, you would I bet still say there's something wrong with all of us, instead of you.

That Battlefield "shoot & respawn" playstile not only is very unrealistic, it also looks like being way off of the game. Do we really want that?

But anyway, thanks for proving my point.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Ken Bean

[cuddly_rabbit 102]

@gwartham: You do understand that your style of playing it as a "high stakes FPS" makes it really hard for those to enjoy it who want to play it as something else, I assume. I also assume, you do not care about that. That's fine (actually, no, it's not) and a typical "on the internet" reaction. 

 

In my personal opinion, the player type who runs around gunning down random people is wasting the real potential of this game, which is sad, but your choice.

 

It will be the task of developers to somehow combine the playing styles, because doubtlessly both will be in the final game and somehow belong there. However in the right amount.

 

Right now, the amount of senseless, unrealistic PvP is just too high. But that's not even the players' fault, but it is due to the Alpha not giving people anything to do once you have a gun. I assume that will change. If it doesn't, this game will ultimately fail (at least for me).

 

Anyway, I am curious to where this game is heading.
And I would like to ask you personally to keep yourself from "You have no lives, you live in your games, etc..." statements. You do not know me, nor anybody else in here. Your statement is false, and can be taken as an insult. That's not what I made the thread for.

It was made to have a funny, a little self-ironic look at what we are doing here.
And to have a nice discussion about it.

No need for the aggressivity your posts somehow convey (if I am not wrong in interpreting your statements).

Edited May 3, 2014 by cuddly_rabbit

[gwartham 13]

Look, you still don't get it.

 

I have been playing sandbox games since they were invented.

 

Your side of the argument has for the last 20 years been the same old sorry song and dance.

 

"Oh you kill in a video game something must be wrong with you IRL."

 

It was old then, and its old now. It has to be the weakest argument in the history of internet arguments.

 

We are no different then you, hence why you need to get off your "high horse".

 

I equate this game to poker.

 

Cod/BF4 those are like poker games where no money is at stake. People play like idiots in those games.

 

Dayz is like a poker game with money at stake. It tends to make people play a little better, play with a bit more strategy and tactics.

 

Those who don't, well they just sit in Berenzino playing noob wars.

 

You really need to keep psychology and morality out of it, it just makes you look like a higher then thou ass.

 

You may of come here looking for Ultima 4, I didn't, I already played it.

[Ken Bean 174]

Look, you still don't get it.

 

I have been playing sandbox games since they were invented.

 

Your side of the argument has for the last 20 years been the same old sorry song and dance.

 

"Oh you kill in a video game something must be wrong with you IRL."

 

It was old then, and its old now. It has to be the weakest argument in the history of internet arguments.

 

We are no different then you, hence why you need to get off your "high horse".

 

I equate this game to poker.

 

Cod/BF4 those are like poker games where no money is at stake. People play like idiots in those games.

 

Dayz is like a poker game with money at stake. It tends to make people play a little better, play with a bit more strategy and tactics.

 

Those who don't, well they just sit in Berenzino playing noob wars.

 

You really need to keep psychology and morality out of it, it just makes you look like a higher then thou ass.

 

You may of come here looking for Ultima 4, I didn't, I already played it.

No, it's not that way. Just infinite respawning loop is not this particular game is about.

The problem is that people are really sensitive. They know it is just a game, no real consequences follow, so they play it as a game.

So yes, people spawned wrong, so they climb an object, fall to death, and hope they find a better spawning position...

*No one would do this in real life (*well, add almost, one has to be cautious with such statements).

This however goes against what I thought this game is about.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Ken Bean

[gwartham 13]

@gwartham: You do understand that your style of playing it as a "high stakes FPS" makes it really hard for those to enjoy it who want to play it as something else, I assume. I also assume, you do not care about that. That's fine (actually, no, it's not) and a typical "on the internet" reaction. 

 

 

Do you give a shit about my playstyle?

 

Why is your playstyle more important then mine?

 

That's what this is really about.

 

People thinking that its their game, when its not.

 

Its not your game to dictate to anyone else how to play, and its not mine.

 

I'm not trying to dictate your gameplay, your trying to dictate mine.

 

Seems rather easy to play the game you want, go west my friend, go west.

 

Don't wanna play my game? Stay away from the hotspots. If you choose to play in the hotspots, then you choose the risk, and I don't want to hear any crying about it.

 

Its a big map if ya didn't notice.

[SGT. Kalme 106]

The point is we have many primary instincts, only one of them is aggression.

What you did was just given those jung male adults - lets call them that - the perfect excuse for being rude, agressive, selfish and an sociopath in its pure form.

That is not the usual and normal way things work, neither in human society nor in nature. Aggressive persons doesn't act reasonable and indeed are a problem themselfes.

Even animals don't always "fight to kill" (basically only if it is a pray). Otherwhise, "engaging" (attacking) "enemies everwhere" is a danger, not only for a population, also for the invidual itself.

The primary instinct is self-preservation. This can be reached by many ways.

They already have a perfect excuse to act as they want (in dayz that is) - freedom of choice. They do because they can. And it is not wrong or bad actually. You can see all forms of human nature in that game which is awesome I think.

Animals defend themselves by the same principle humans do. After all we are animals as well. But don't confuse the actions that are only justified by selfdefence as one. 

As for DayZ - many people get caught up with it. More or less everyone does. That means to some extent, intense situation affects their thinking functionality. Only because nowadays so many people have lost the need to selfdefence because they live in a safe environment where they are not threatened by predators. Ability to make rational decisions fades because people rarely go through any of those situations. That means the first most basic and reasonable action when thrown into danger may be kill or be killed. Most of the time it comes down to it. People spend much time, get emotionally attached to their virtual character and to what is achieved so far so the fear of losing it affects their emotional readiness to risk it. They become eager to defend their time and pixels in a primitive way. They might even not be threatened but they don't estimate the danger, they just act like they were programmed to by nature.

People think it is only a game and they are right. It is only a game but people actually act quite similar way in reality. So, my point is. It is impossible to fix what people ask to by just making changes to game. Because it is not caused by game itself.

[Ken Bean 174]

Animals defend themselves by the same principle humans do. After all we are animals as well. But don't confuse the actions that are only justified by selfdefence as one.

Animals most of the time just run away and stay hidden. There's no reason to fight unless you feel invincible or you have a really good doctor. If they go to confrontation, they don't "fight to kill", impressing the opponent can be enough. Goal is self-presevation, not last man standing.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Ken Bean

[gwartham 13]

That's just it.

 

In this game you can be the paragon of virtue if you want. You can stand and fight, and don't have to worry about the hospital bills.

 

You can also be a evil bastard, and again you don't have to worry about the hospital bills.

 

I would love to see a bunch of you "paragons" take a city like story sobor, and make it a bandit free zone.

 

You cant tho, because you know as well as I do, it would be like putting a big ol bullseye on your forehead.

 

And that's the whole point. Your welcome to play the game any old way you want, just dont be surprised when the vast majority don't play along.

[Ken Bean 174]

That's just it.

 

In this game you can be the paragon of virtue if you want. You can stand and fight, and don't have to worry about the hospital bills.

 

You can also be a evil bastard, and again you don't have to worry about the hospital bills.

 

I would love to see a bunch of you "paragons" take a city like story sobor, and make it a bandit free zone.

 

You cant tho, because you know as well as I do, it would be like putting a big ol bullseye on your forehead.

 

And that's the whole point. Your welcome to play the game any old way you want, just dont be surprised when the vast majority don't play along.

Yep, that's sad. It's one point why this game doesn't cater a survival experience. The doctor bills wouldn't be a huge problem, the untreated wound indeed.

You don't seem to feel obligated to the rules of surviuival.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Ken Bean

[SGT. Kalme 106]

Look, you still don't get it.

I have been playing sandbox games since they were invented.

Your side of the argument has for the last 20 years been the same old sorry song and dance.

"Oh you kill in a video game something must be wrong with you IRL."

It was old then, and its old now. It has to be the weakest argument in the history of internet arguments.

We are no different then you, hence why you need to get off your "high horse".

I equate this game to poker.

Cod/BF4 those are like poker games where no money is at stake. People play like idiots in those games.

Dayz is like a poker game with money at stake. It tends to make people play a little better, play with a bit more strategy and tactics.

Those who don't, well they just sit in Berenzino playing noob wars.

You really need to keep psychology and morality out of it, it just makes you look like a higher then thou ass.

You may of come here looking for Ultima 4, I didn't, I already played it.

Well, congratulations on that. That is some achievement right there.

On more serious note, you don't read or just refuse to understand my posts in order to go on with your what-ever-that-is-story.

You assume my argument is one thing and put up another that is completely off the topic.

Whenever did I post such argument, it must have been a typing mistake. But it was not. Because I didn't post such statement.

I am fully aware that my posts are little too hard to follow, though, so it is as much as my mistake as it is yours to misunderstand them.

You call people idiots that choose to play the game as they want. So, in comparison to my point, you are putting people that choose to act differently on an inferior position. And you call me out being on a high horse. I get tired of it. You try to make people look worse than you to prove your point and that is not a way I am looking into to go on with discussion. Your arguments are actually quite irrelevant because all you do is to bring examples how you choose to do something. That doesn't make any point of mine less true but actually proves them. You want to take psychology away from human behavior? Good luck with that.

It is simply logic. You don't even need to study psychology to understand basic rules of behavior.

The way you compose your posts shows something completely different than me being on a high horse.

Animals most of the time just run away and stay hidden. There's no reason to fight unless you feel invincible or you have a really good doctor. If they go to confrontation, they don't "fight to kill", impressing the opponent can be enough. Goal is self-presevation, not last man standing.

 That really depends from who they would be defending from. It is still essentially the same principles on most primitive level. Our ways to kill whole nations for some shiny rocks is not a primitive level that I am talking about. This is just an example. Edited May 3, 2014 by SGT. Kalme

[cuddly_rabbit 102]

@ "Instinct and Human Behaviour Discussion":

Hm. For sure I personally wish that players' actions in this game would be closer to what real people living/dying in the the DayZ world would be like. 

But: That won't happen. It is still a computer game. And there are many many people who want it to stay - what I would describe as - "shallow" and judge as "unrewarding". Just my own opinion, though.

Discussing morality, social responsibility in a post-apocalyptic world, realism of self-preservation, realistic survival chance distribution for aggressive behaviour, etc with players who play the game as a high stakes PvP and whose motivation can range from boredom to grieving, from the wish to become really good to whatever it might be... It will not work. Even if you got all the scientific data right, it would not work because a game (luckily) is far from reality.

 

I don't als think that our instincts is what guides our ingame actions. Therefore the distance between game reality and my own core of values and believes is too far apart. Too many layers of abstraction separate my gaming actions from what I would really do in a given situation. And that's good. You would not want to watch most things that your character does "just like that" in reality. Many actions I encounter in DayZ would destroy a real human being for life if you had to witness them in reality. 

 

On the game, however, you can decide consciously how you want to play this game whenever you decide to log on. I am a social player, I like playing with other and the most rewarding interaction is a talking one for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't sometimes log on and play differently and shoot much faster.

If I was a dev, I would move the game towards the crowd that is not playing it as a FPS with high punishment when killed. I think it falls short of its undeniable potential if played that simply. Increasing the survival factor, discouraging PvP via portraying that these are untrained survivors and not trained supersoldiers could help.

[gwartham 13]

Yep, that's sad. It's one point why this game doesn't cater a survival experience. The doctor bills wouldn't be a huge problem, the untreated wound indeed.

You don't seem to feel obligated to the rules of surviuival.

 

Ok did you ever watch the original Dawn of the Dead?

 

The "survivors" took only those they needed, they didn't take everyone.

 

Remember when they got attacked by the mauraders?

 

Both were doing "the right thing"

 

Both suffered for their decisions.

 

I have all of my mates, we have all we need, we don't need you.

 

We mostly camp Airbases, not like we are attacking those who obviously don't know what they are doing.

 

We just do it better then anyone else.

 

That being said, we also realize that the vast majority of this game are a bunch of moronic tweens, that even if you do attempt to hold them up, they just shit talk and try and knock you out for your gear.

 

So you say we aren't playing right, I disagree.

 

We have absolutely no reason to be "social", as we already have our own social structure.

 

Survival in this game is a joke, if it wasn't for the pvp I would quit this game, because as far as survival goes, we already beat it.

[Ken Bean 174]

That really depends from who they would be defending from. It is still essentially the same principles on most primitive level. Our ways to kill whole nations for some shiny rocks is not a primitive level that I am talking about. This is just an example.

Yet we can go on on with the discussion that the impetus of the FPS crowd, which hangs around the Airfields or bigger "hotspots", is anything but self-preservation.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Ken Bean

[SGT. Kalme 106]

@ "Instinct and Human Behaviour Discussion":

Hm. For sure I personally wish that players' actions in this game would be closer to what real people living/dying in the the DayZ world would be like. 

But: That won't happen. It is still a computer game. And there are many many people who want it to stay - what I would describe as - "shallow" and judge as "unrewarding". Just my own opinion, though.

Discussing morality, social responsibility in a post-apocalyptic world, realism of self-preservation, realistic survival chance distribution for aggressive behaviour, etc with players who play the game as a high stakes PvP and whose motivation can range from boredom to grieving, from the wish to become really good to whatever it might be... It will not work. Even if you got all the scientific data right, it would not work because a game (luckily) is far from reality.

 

I don't als think that our instincts is what guides our ingame actions. Therefore the distance between game reality and my own core of values and believes is too far apart. Too many layers of abstraction separate my gaming actions from what I would really do in a given situation. And that's good. You would not want to watch most things that your character does "just like that" in reality. Many actions I encounter in DayZ would destroy a real human being for life if you had to witness them in reality. 

 

On the game, however, you can decide consciously how you want to play this game whenever you decide to log on. I am a social player, I like playing with other and the most rewarding interaction is a talking one for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't sometimes log on and play differently and shoot much faster.

If I was a dev, I would move the game towards the crowd that is not playing it as a FPS with high punishment when killed. I think it falls short of its undeniable potential if played that simply. Increasing the survival factor, discouraging PvP via portraying that these are untrained survivors and not trained supersoldiers could help.

Yes and no.

I see it that way - there would be all kinds of extremists when anarchy would hit a nation. You think what people do in a game where they can do all they want is weird and out of normal. It is, in regulated society. But people would do all kinds of stupid things when opportunity hits. So, my opinion is that it ia fine in DayZ.

There were to apart discussions about how the instincts lead action in stressful situation and how behavior is connected to a personality, not dependant on environment in which they exist. It doesn't make difference if you behave differently than you would in person in material world. It does determine part of personality, however.

I don't think there is anything wrong with DayZ and its playerbase as it is now. You do meet all kinds of people in reality so I don't think any behavior in DayZ is somehow surprising.

Edited May 3, 2014 by SGT. Kalme

[SGT. Kalme 106]

Yet we can go on on with the discussion that the impetus of the FPS crowd, which hangs around the Airfields or bigger "hotspots", is anything but self-preservation.

Refer to the example and my post. People have long gone from natural path to only self-preserve. We want to destroy, rule, overcome the nature. But that is completely another story.

You will see that some people just think they are better than everyone else, that they do everything better than others. Overall are superior species somewhat. But it is their choice. Nothing you can do about it.

We just do it better then anyone else.

 

That being said, we also realize that the vast majority of this game are a bunch of moronic tweens, that even if you do attempt to hold them up, they just shit talk and try and knock you out for your gear.

[enforcer1975 1111]

I agree a bit, but honestly no amount of zeds being a threat will force people to band together. If anything, people who bring friends from outside the game will team up and still play deathmatchZ against everyone else. Same if they ever add content that needs groups to achieve. This is probably the loneliest and single-player-ey 'mmo' I've ever played, and nothing that can be added within the realm of reason will change that, sadly.

 

Then maybe the social experiment rocket wanted to do really failed because in reality complete strangers would band together because numbers means a bigger chance of survival..or are animals wrong with forming swarms, herds and pods...? Let's admit it...people only think of this as a game as long as the devs only throw out new weapons after every patch instead of actually adding surival aspects and whatever hardship comes with surviving wiwthout technology ( i bet 75% of the younger population would die because they can't use their iphones anymore :lol: )