Intresting article on DayZ on Wired

[[Outcasts]Massacre 121]

A intresting read wheter you argree or not.

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/psychopaths-dayz-rust/

[real meatshield 424]

Pretty good read.

[vitdom 56]

I'm really not appreciating the journalist's apparent approach on DayZ (or the other games being discussed) as a behaviour transforming social game where anything can happen as analyzed from a mature viewpoint, focusing on immature jokes as practised by YouTube Whores.

 

Guessing the headline "Why Online Games Turn Players Into Psychopaths" has been devised with honesty and professional intentions by Wired. Sigh...

Edited May 27, 2014 by Vitdom

[brumey 116]

nice little read

[qww 287]

i didnt thinkm much of the article, even the title is a wrong statement,  hes making out that thats how people play the game, or its how they have to play to be successful (having to attack others for equipment), but thats not how it is, at all, for lots of players.

also when he describes dayz and says  death is permanent and means starting again with nothing, thats not going be true once they (unfortunately) add persistent after death storage

[Katana67 2907]

Eh, for one... the author is a bit late to the "psychoanalysis of DayZ" writing game... there were a ton, an absolute ton, of articles just like this around April-May of 2012 when the mod came out.

 

Second, I think there's only one factor which dictates people's behavior in-game. Consequence. With a lack of consequence, people will do anything. It's not necessarily a commentary on their psychopathy or even their mental state. I mean, there is no consequence to killing someone in a video game. Not even a subtle, moral, "Huh, should I have done that?"

 

At least for me, perhaps that makes me a sociopath. But, I never once thought the act of killing another player in-game was some sort of moral conundrum in any circumstance. Partially because I don't do it very often, I try and stay away from folks as much as possible. But partially because, at the end of the day, I'm still aware that this is just a game.

 

This is not to belittle the very real aspect of "trolling" which can indeed have emotional effects on victims, akin to "bullying."

 

But, when you're entering into an open-world environment, you've got to accept that you're fair game... and others are equally fair game. I think the article gives too much legitimacy to the concept of mental state, when in actuality I think human behavior in DayZ is functioning just fine in terms of the environment. There are no consequences for killing folks, or even mistreating them.

 

Do I think DayZ needs to have more consequence to action? Absolutely. Because, in my opinion, adding consequence adds depth. Instead of just acting, you're weighing the pros and cons of a situation, and then acting. We haven't really ever had this, outside of player-enforced retribution.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Eh, for one... the author is a bit late to the "psychoanalysis of DayZ" writing game... there were a ton, an absolute ton, of articles just like this around April-May of 2012 when the mod came out.

 

Second, I think there's only one factor which dictates people's behavior in-game. Consequence. With a lack of consequence, people will do anything. It's not necessarily a commentary on their psychopathy or even their mental state. I mean, there is no consequence to killing someone in a video game. Not even a subtle, moral, "Huh, should I have done that?"

 

At least for me, perhaps that makes me a sociopath. But, I never once thought the act of killing another player in-game was some sort of moral conundrum in any circumstance. Partially because I don't do it very often, I try and stay away from folks as much as possible. But partially because, at the end of the day, I'm still aware that this is just a game.

 

This is not to belittle the very real aspect of "trolling" which can indeed have emotional effects on victims, akin to "bullying."

 

But, when you're entering into an open-world environment, you've got to accept that you're fair game... and others are equally fair game. I think the article gives too much legitimacy to the concept of mental state, when in actuality I think human behavior in DayZ is functioning just fine in terms of the environment. There are no consequences for killing folks, or even mistreating them.

 

Do I think DayZ needs to have more consequence to action? Absolutely. Because, in my opinion, adding consequence adds depth. Instead of just acting, you're weighing the pros and cons of a situation, and then acting. We haven't really ever had this, outside of player-enforced retribution.

I do like your post but you cannot punish players for doing something that the game allows.  So have some beans but I do disagree with you :)

[Daemonkid 493]

I do like your post but you cannot punish players for doing something that the game allows.  So have some beans but I do disagree with you :)

 

Sure you can. You round up a posse of your most trusted rustlers and go on a manhunt!

[Katana67 2907]

I do like your post but you cannot punish players for doing something that the game allows.  So have some beans but I do disagree with you :)

 

I agree, but to me, consequence isn't punishment. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. And, it can be natural and/or derived from the environment.

 

For example, trying to kill someone in a city. It's easy, you just sight them in and fire. They go down.

 

But, if there were crowds of zombies flooding the streets, rushing after the first twitch of sound (much less a gunshot), and you only had a few rounds to spare... the consequences for engaging that player increase dramatically. You can still do it (kill folk), but there are complicating factors which have to be weighed by the player as to judge whether or not something is prudent.

 

The issue is, that most systems in the mod were consequence-less (inventory, travel, weapons, etc.) They (the developers) haven't really had a chance to implement these things in concert, owing to the piecemeal approach of "early access." But that's a different issue entirely.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Katana67

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Sure you can. You round up a posse of your most trusted rustlers and go on a manhunt!

Doing that is fine but making some game mechanic to punish players is wrong.  Heck, once actual survival aspects are introduced eg. diseases, getting cold, hopefully a better hunger/thirst system, rare and hard to find weapons and ammo etc, these guys running around with backpacks full of ammo are going to be in for quite a surprise.  

[OrLoK 16187]

Won't Somebody Think Of The Children?

[randomspawn 215]

Won't Somebody Think Of The Children?

yes, tasty...

[guppy22143 1081]

I don't agree that games would "make you a phsychopath."

 

However, I do agree that a desperate situation, real or not, will drive someone to go beyond their moral limits to obtain what they need to survive.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Won't Somebody Think Of The Children?

I do every time I buy a new pair of shoes :(

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

I agree, but to me, consequence isn't punishment. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. And, it can be natural and/or derived from the environment.

 

For example, trying to kill someone in a city. It's easy, you just sight them in and fire. They go down.

 

But, if there were crowds of zombies flooding the streets, rushing after the first twitch of sound (much less a gunshot), and you only had a few rounds to spare... the consequences for engaging that player increase dramatically. You can still do it (kill folk), but there are complicating factors which have to be weighed by the player as to judge whether or not something is prudent.

 

The issue is, that most systems in the mod were consequence-less (inventory, travel, weapons, etc.) They (the developers) haven't really had a chance to implement these things in concert, owing to the piecemeal approach of "early access." But that's a different issue entirely.

Oh, if this is what you were talking about then definitely.  I fully agree on in game consequences from noise bringing in the hordes.   It's been a while since I played the mod, didn't your character kind of get a scared/frightened effect from being shot at or almost getting hit by the infected?

[St. Jimmy 1631]

"Perma-death". Overly used word or phrase about DayZ. DayZ could become the punishing "perma-death" multiplayer game but it isn't that yet because you can sometimes "cheat" and continue like nothing happened after little time.

It's same like you would say that GTA is perma-death because you lose all the guns. You can easily cheat them back in GTA and you can also "cheat" stuff back in DayZ if your friend covers your body for 20mins or nobody looted your body and you run back to your corpse. When that changes I can accept the term perma death in this game.

Sorry I'm bit bored about the media spreading that word as DayZ would've done something really revolutionary or how some other games are also introducing "perma-death". Big scale deathmatch is not what that word should mean

Edited May 27, 2014 by St. Jimmy

[Element47 2481]

Guessing the headline "Why Online Games Turn Players Into Psychopaths" has been devised with honesty and professional intentions by Wired. Sigh...

I don't agree that games would "make you a phsychopath."

 

However, I do agree that a desperate situation, real or not, will drive someone to go beyond their moral limits to obtain what they need to survive.

but thats not the headline, and its not what it communicates: the article does not state that games make you a psychopath, it states that within the game worlds, you act like a psychopath: doing negative things to others without feeling bad about it

 

if you're a dick in the game, enjoying how you ruined someones experience, because you can, because the games provides the tools and does not regulate negative behaviour, then yes, you have chosen to act like a psychopath.

 

whether or not we can make assumptions about you as a human person based on that, is an entirely different matter. but within the game, you acted like someone who brings negative things upon others without feeling bad about it. and the part of not feeling bad about it, the lack of internal guilt about your negative action, is what relates this to the acts of a psychopath.

 

there is also another aspect to the whole thing. killing others without a reason is generally percieved a bad thing in the "real world". in games, being killed may be the end to an elaborate ambush, prank or story, which provided entertainment and fun to all involved - including those who were killed. the survivor of the wired story obviously was a good sport and enjoyed the whole thing, he seems to lack any trauma one would expect froma man who was kidnapped and force to fight his friends for survival. so as the negativity of many acts is relative, so is the evaluation of actions as psychopatic

 

 

 

but the psychopath thing wasnt the core of the story to me.. to me, the most interesting part of this article is the reasoning of the player at the center of it all, Klyka.  He says he acts as he does because DayZ doesn’t give you goals, it just gives you tools. I have seen many on these forums argue that we have all this KoS and griefing because the game is alpha and there is nothing else to do. I disagree. When the game is finished, and we have the most elaborate survival mechanics, those people who KoS today will still KoS. Because DayZ will not provide you with quests and hold your hand, it will only provide you tools and let you decide what to do with it. Thus the same people will again decide that they get the most fun out of griefing others - because they can.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Eh, for one... the author is a bit late to the "psychoanalysis of DayZ" writing game... there were a ton, an absolute ton, of articles just like this around April-May of 2012 when the mod came out.

 

Second, I think there's only one factor which dictates people's behavior in-game. Consequence. With a lack of consequence, people will do anything. It's not necessarily a commentary on their psychopathy or even their mental state. I mean, there is no consequence to killing someone in a video game. Not even a subtle, moral, "Huh, should I have done that?"

 

At least for me, perhaps that makes me a sociopath. But, I never once thought the act of killing another player in-game was some sort of moral conundrum in any circumstance. Partially because I don't do it very often, I try and stay away from folks as much as possible. But partially because, at the end of the day, I'm still aware that this is just a game.

 

This is not to belittle the very real aspect of "trolling" which can indeed have emotional effects on victims, akin to "bullying."

 

But, when you're entering into an open-world environment, you've got to accept that you're fair game... and others are equally fair game. I think the article gives too much legitimacy to the concept of mental state, when in actuality I think human behavior in DayZ is functioning just fine in terms of the environment. There are no consequences for killing folks, or even mistreating them.

 

Do I think DayZ needs to have more consequence to action? Absolutely. Because, in my opinion, adding consequence adds depth. Instead of just acting, you're weighing the pros and cons of a situation, and then acting. We haven't really ever had this, outside of player-enforced retribution.

There is NO consequences in stabbing a random person to death in a dark alley in the real world, provided you do the minimum to avoid getting caught. Most people still won't do it even in the perfect situation.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Lady Kyrah

[Katana67 2907]

There is NO consequences in stabbing a random person to death in a dark alley in the real world, provided you do the minimum to avoid getting caught. Most people still won't do it even in the perfect situation.

 

Besides being implicated in attempted murder. By your own admission, the consequence is getting caught, and therefore found guilty of breaking a law. Hence why, in addition to acknowledged moral imperatives, why people don't go around stabbing folks without considering the consequences.

 

This is a different type of consequence than I am asserting should be included in DayZ, and is more of a "punishment" in the traditional sense.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Katana67

[guppy22143 1081]

Besides being implicated in attempted murder. By your own admission, the consequence is getting caught, and therefore found guilty of breaking a law. Hence why, in addition to acknowledged moral imperatives, why people don't go around stabbing folks without considering the consequences.

 

This is a different type of consequence than I am asserting should be included in DayZ, and is more of a "punishment" in the traditional sense.

Wanna punish murderers in SA?

 

Get all of your mates together, you will probably need atleast 20 people for this (10 if they are skilled enough.)

 

Go to the coast

And for a society, implement a government/police force, and fuck up the KoSers.

[scriptfactory 620]

There is NO consequences in stabbing a random person to death in a dark alley in the real world, provided you do the minimum to avoid getting caught. Most people still won't do it even in the perfect situation.

If every DayZ account was connected to a person's real identity everyone would act completely different.

[randomspawn 215]

If every DayZ account was connected to a person's real identity everyone would act completely different.

The same can be said for most 'comment-warriors' on forums on the web. Anonymity is the great enabler of this stuff. 

[Katana67 2907]

Wanna punish murderers in SA?

 

I didn't say anyone should be "punished" in DayZ.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Besides being implicated in attempted murder. By your own admission, the consequence is getting caught, and therefore found guilty of breaking a law. Hence why, in addition to acknowledged moral imperatives, why people don't go around stabbing folks without considering the consequences.

 

This is a different type of consequence than I am asserting should be included in DayZ, and is more of a "punishment" in the traditional sense.

I ment that there are many situations where someone could get away with a random murder, there is only so many ways to deal with a crime that happend in a fairly secluded area without a motive or any strong proof tying the murderer to the crime scene.

[blacklabel79 949]

the article is way "late" for the "message" it tries to transport but in tune with the mainstream. Something you shall get aquinted to while dealing with "wired" in the last...uhm...years.

 

Anyways...i stoped reading their stuff since they are allways way behind the real "flow".

Edited May 27, 2014 by {Core}BlackLabel