DOC | *audiobook | ebooks | Download PDF | ePub. Ranks up contemporary classic, Please Kill Me is the definitive oral history of the most nihilistic of all pop. Please kill me by Legs McNeil, Gillian McCain, , Grove Press edition, in English - 1st ed. online do you really need this pdf of please kill please kill me ebook related book pdf book please kill me lhistoire non censuree du punk.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||29.59 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.39 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk. Home · Please Kill Me: The Please Me, Tease Me · Read more Kiss Me Kill Me · Read more. Grab a PDF of "Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk" () by Legs McNeil & Gillian McCain: homeranking.info?p. [PDF] Download Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk Ebook | READ ONLINE Download at.
Many players, however, oppose to suggestions of rewarding behaviour since it would lessen the freedom of choice for the players. A large part of the discussion is dedicated to the effort to understand why people do KOS and who is to be blamed for the excessive KOS in the game. It's a video game, most video games bring you up to speed with the "I am the good guy no matter what, everyone else is bad I must kill them" mentality. Firstly, a fear of from being shot yourself and thus losing your character. On the other end of the spectrum is the view that KOS is ruining the game. However, his view is on one end of the spectrum of the views on the forum; there are several opposite views stating that what Strawman sees as a problem, is actually a fun part of the game. This relation of real and imagined has been the interest of Jesper Juul in his work Half-Real, Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds,in which he coined the term half-real to describe the unique way of video games being played by real rules, while the actual playing takes place in an imagined fictional world.
Does a person who aims to spoil the game for others have social problems in real life as well? Issue 5: Is it really to simulate real life?
If there is KOS in real life, should there be in the game as well? If the game is supposed to simulate reality, how is that implemented into the game and what are the compromises a developer has to make? Issue 7: Are you allowed to enjoy killing inside a game? Issue 8: The fact Strawman is trying to convince his fellow players, and perhaps the developers, to change the game in a direction of his pleasing by writing on the forum instead of arguing for his case inside the game, can be considered a part of the metagaming.
There is also several other aspects of metagaming such as finding a clan from the forums to play with. Following his line of thought, there would seem to be an internal logic of game that provides a player with reasons for KOS, but he clearly states that this activity should be restricted within the logic provided by the game world and the personal rules of the player, and not to be something done without restrictive personal considerations.
This yet again emphasizes the first point he makes. Killing on sight is an acceptable option when it is done within the frame he suggests. As it later comes up in the conversation: Therefore, if the player is skilful enough, he will most likely avoid possible threats through a skilful playing of the game.
However, his view is on one end of the spectrum of the views on the forum; there are several opposite views stating that what Strawman sees as a problem, is actually a fun part of the game. Consequently, it is natural for the game, which he perceives trying to simulate real life in this respect, to have it too.
This seems to lead him to reason that you are allowed to KOS when it is appropriate, e. This also implies that one of the key aspects of the gameplay is the possibility to choose how you play the game. There are several differing opinions on whether or not the game design supports different styles of playing the game. The loss of a character in unfair circumstances cannot be said to be an unemotional event, since there are several thousands of posts in the forums about the relative unfairness of KOS as tactic, and even when it happens within the given appropriate guidelines, it would be still be worth a sigh.
It is worth considering the notion Strawman makes of killing being fun for the game. It is hard to define clearly, what he bases this on. I argue that DayZ as a videogame is a mixture between a toy and a game and that the virtual world acts as a modal prop for a narrative that the players create together. In chapter 3. Play In his book Homo ludens Dutch historian Johan Huizinga tries to understand the element of play in European culture. He suggests that play is not only elementary for humans but also a key factor in society also upholding it.
Huizinga argues that elements of play are to be found in all the sectors of society and he sees that they have significant purpose in them.
He also sees that play has no material interests, nor does it pursue any profit. Play creates its own rules and boundaries that materialize during its evolution within time and space. It also has a fixed composition, which it follows in orderly manner. Play also promotes the forming of social groups that distinguish themselves with secrets, disguises, and by other such means.
Even though one desires to win, he must abide by the rules of the game, and prove his fellow players his ability as a player. I return to this issue more closely later on in this chapter when I take a closer look at the ethics of games. When players dress up or mask themselves to play a certain role, Huizinga claims that they not only play a different role, they actually become another being.
Huizinga continues saying that there are two key factors in play: According to Huizinga, this representation has also its resemblance to ritual. This assumption of the make-believe of the situation is not merely observed, it also requires the actions of the player.
He is forced to make choices, such as whether or not to kill the other players on sight. There are two important moral factors to be considered here: The setting of the play is creating meanings beyond to what is imminently evident. The player is not morally disconnected from the choices he makes, but the context of the game allows him to test out moral decisions that he might not otherwise take.
Here we come very close to ritual- like mechanics of videogames. He thoroughly examines the definition of play and games, and this is where his work also benefits the study at hand, due to his extensive research on the nature of rules, of which I use his topology of different layers of rules involved in a game. Montola follows American games scholar Katie Salen and American game designer Eric Zimmerman in his approach to games.
According to Costikyan, the value and meaning created within the game has its relevance only in the context of that game. Investing effort and time creates meaning for the player, but also the meaning is contextually sensitive, in the sense that it has meaning for the player himself but the meaning outside the context of the game is not obvious. He creates six different layers of rules that affect the beginning and proceedings of a game: This means for this study that a game is first and foremost defined by its rules.
These are rules, which the player attaches to his playing, for example, private goals such as trying to beat the high score or trying to play in a certain way. These rules consider matters such as socially acceptable manner of playing the game, and possible rules agreed upon by the players to temporarily change the rules. These are the rules that define the game in the sense of how it is played, and what is the outcome of actions in the game. The focus of these is in organizing the game in a legal and normative manner so that its playing is possible without real life conflicts and violation of personal space.
Such as the actual size of a ball or the environments effect for the game, for example places like a jungle, a desert or an ice rink have very different effects. I use these categories for rules to understand and interpret the discussion on the game from the perspective of the rules. The categories are used in a unanimous manner for the interpretation of the dualistic nature of the rules in this study, the frame through which the game is understood and the rules that the players directly refer to.
The discussion regarding DayZ often refers to different layers of rules. I will use these layers of rules to categorize the conversation and to bring structure to the different aspects the rules bring to the ethical views.
Tavinor takes the trouble of defining and discussing many terms regarding videogames. I find his is ideas on virtual worlds of multiplayer experiences especially suiting for the use of this study. Tavinor regards videogames being not solely visual items, but more as modal representative props.
He compares them to movies, which also depict fictional worlds through a variety of representational media, but also rely heavily on their visuality. This is to say, games are a canvas or a background for an activity defined by the setting they create. The prop creates a make-believe setting which the player has to assume to play the game. The player is free to create his own narrative of what is going on in the game. For example, a child playing a game can use it as a toy and create his own goals and narrative of the events that take place.
Tavinor says that unlike traditional games such as chess, where rules are highly structured and give the game purpose and the means of execution, videogames can often be considered more as something that reminds us of toys, or something that the player merely fiddles with. Tavinor sees that this is something that resembles what children do at a sandbox while playing, or participating in games of make-believe. They can resemble chess, with strong rule based objectives and means to achieve given goals, but can also be more like toys and games only in the weaker sense when they encourage freeplay over the rule based play.
He sees that they allow us to formally encode videogames in fiction to make them accompany situational norms, which in turn makes them interesting for us to play. Tavinor sees especially multiplayer games as being collaborative affairs where players of the game use the element of fiction as a medium for real human interaction. Multiplayer games allow us to enter a fictional world together and to create fiction in a co-operative manner. He calls the result multi- appreciator fiction. One aspect of this is the fact that many games are challenging and time consuming.
To overcome the challenges, the player has to invest thought and effort. This can lead to frustration, especially when the player fails to achieve their goals. Losing after having invested a lot of time and effort can be a strain to anyone, and can also measure the sportsmanship of the player. He says that while we are emotionally involved as players we can also be committed to the story through our actions.
Tavinor describes this by the means of a narrative. When players are faced with rich decision space, they use emotions that the narrative has raised to decide their next course of action. Through the emotional involvement, the player makes emotionally significant choices, making them also morally significant. This emphasize what I have shown earlier in chapter 1. I remind the reader of DayZ being a public sphere, and I conclude that DayZ is a mixture of a toy and a game, which is significant to the players.
The players are emotionally involved in the game and this involvement makes the ethical consideration of the actions in the game possible for them. Firstly, DayZ is a form of play. Players do not play the game for profit or material interests, and often they are organized in groups with notable differences. One of the moral demands for the player is the measurement of his ability as a player.
The game resembles a ritual in a way that there is an actualization through the representation of the game. The player takes actions that have significance beyond what is actually happening.
These actions create meanings and experiences out of the ordinary, which can affect the player as part of his self-realization. Secondly, DayZ is a game, which means that it is an artificial conflict defined by rules with a negotiable and quantifiable outcome. The values and meanings created by playing the game have their imminent relevance in the context of the game.
The rules of the game can be divided to six categories, which I have presented in previous chapter. Rules guiding and limiting the actions available to the players, range from the actual rules of the game to the social rules of society and to the circumstances of the surrounding world as well.
The key to a game are the rules that define it. The player interacts through the audio-visual feedback of the game and a player-character through which he receives epistemic information of the state of the world. The gameplay of DayZ can be understood as a game, or a toy, or a combination of these two, which means that the player is free to choose his goals in the game.
The virtual world of DayZ is a collaboration of players, and the fictional element works as a medium for real human interaction. The player is emotionally committed to the game and this commitment can elicit real emotions. In addition, the player makes decisions in the game that are affected by these emotions.
The emotional connection combined with the fact that DayZ is social and interactive social construction makes it also a subject for ethical consideration. The player is confronted with several ethical issues when performing actions he chooses to perform, as part of the narrative of the gameplay and as a player in a social environment with other players.
Then in chapter 4. In chapter 4. I also inspect the metagaming aspects of the discussion. Lastly, I take a look on the primary frame of virtuality and the metaframe of ethics in chapter 4. Throughout the analysis I use the metaframes I introduced earlier in chapter 2. I also use the key concepts introduced in chapter 3. I carry the ethical theme throughout the analysis, and end rounding up the virtue ethical perspective in the last chapter of analysis 4.
To set the tone of the discussion I am about to analyse, I begin with quoting the first post of the thread that composes my source material. Here Korsbaek tells a story of getting KOS in the game, posted to the forum on the very next day of the alpha release of DayZ standalone version. I sneaked into the firestation to catch a glimpse of my first other player.
I called out "Hey man, I'm friendly". He shot me. I had nothing. I was a freshspawn. No gun, no axe, no nothing And yet he shot me. When i asked him why he shot me, he just answered "for fun" I guess killing on sight lives on in the Standalone.
Posted 17 December - Regardless, I want to bring attention to another most interesting approach from which the conversation would also benefit greatly. By this approach I mean the classic philosophical question in which two English philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, were interested at end of the 17th century.
Perhaps the reader of this study can let his imagination take a broader look on the matter while we inspect the peculiarities of the virtue ethical questions. The discussion itself on the matter is to be understood from the social frame, people discussing with people. The natural frame can be said to be very insignificant to the matter at hand, and also negligible to the flow of discussion in the forums and its issues.
The events of the game, that are the subject of discussion, take place in the environment of the game which is virtual as previously explained in chapter 2. I argue that the game provides a freedom of choice on how to play the game. This freedom creates opposing ways to play the game which can be very contradictory to one another.
I interpret this freedom as part of the moral emptiness of the public space of DayZ. Views regarding whether KOS is an asset to the game or not are divided between the extremes from seeing KOS as essential part and as fun content for the game, to seeing KOS in excessive numbers ruining the game and making it less fun to play. Generally, players see KOS as an integral part of the game and want to keep the freedom of choice to do it.
Therefore, the main question seems to be how much is too much to enjoy the game. Opinions seem to be divided between the preferences of interacting peacefully or violently with other players. Those who enjoy interacting peacefully with others seem to also be more against KOS being the general approach. Those who do not necessarily see KOS as an issue, seem to find it less enjoyable to interact peacefully with others, and prefer a straightforward gunfight. In the post, which I used as the basis for the themes for issue frames, Strawman sees certain cases where KOS is to be allowed and where he considered it to be a suitable approach to the situation.
On the other end of the spectrum is the view that KOS is ruining the game. One of these opinions is expressed in the following. It is a no risk solution to the possibility of human interaction. If you are so paranoid, scared or just cowardly to communicate or attempt communication before shooting someone, I must ask what are doing on Day Z.? There would be no need for recovery items or food or any of that.
Because whats the point when you kill everyone instantly and everyone else does the same thing? Posted 27 February - The preference is for human interaction, which may then lead to violence, but should almost always precede it, since it is the most enjoyable part of the game. The opinion that KOS should be removed from the game can be said to be absent from the discussion.
There is a strong consensus that the possibility to KOS your fellow players brings a unique flavour to the game, and creates tension and excitement to the encounters with other players. The question, should KOS be limited somehow, is the real issue at hand. Many agree with Strawman and AgentNe0 that there is a threshold of KOS that should not be crossed in the game and if KOS is used too often, as according to them is currently the case, it spoils the fun of the game.
There are no specific rules for KOS in the game. On the contrary, the setting of the game is a world where the society with its rules is abolished. The players are thrown into a world void of all the real life rules. The virtual world of DayZ is indeed, like the post-secular world suggested by Taylor in chapter 1.
What are the virtues a good player is to have and to represent? Instead, the opposite would seem to be true. The proposition for premises for individual logic introduced by the modal props of the world seem to be very flexible with the logic the player is allowed to deduce from the world for himself as we will see in the next chapter.
Real Meatshield: What takes more skill, killing on site or trying to initiate a conversation and come out on top if they try and kill you? I think my perception of skill differs from yours, because I think sniping a moving target at m is quite a skillful feat. Who I choose to shoot at, and where I choose to shoot them from, is entirely situational.
Posted 24 February - He sees nothing wrong in the way KOS is implemented in the game. He does not see interaction as the most interesting asset the game has to offer and is somewhat ignorant to the possibility of interacting with other players. Players see these playing styles as distinctively different, even though perhaps not restrictive. I made a sincere effort to help out some freshies, and paid dearly for it. Dearly enough that I vowed never again. Kill on sight is mandatory at this stage.
Posted 21 December - Those opposing change argue nothing is stopping the players from playing the game in a more peaceful and co- operative manner. Taking into account the fact that it is rather rare in games that the players would be free to choose how to play the game without a pre-written storyline. Even rarer in games is to have no moral compass included in the game. DayZ seems to provide something out of the ordinary for the players in its freedom of choice, neither forcing the players to work together nor merely shoot one another, but giving the option to choose to the player.
Taking part in the violence or refraining from it, is taking place in the cognitive understanding of the player, this would also mean that there is a strong cognitive aspect to the virtues as well.
However, the intentions and the interpretations of others do not necessarily meet, which gives this, or any freeplay multi-appreciator fiction, an interesting flavour to the ethical interpretation of actions.
First, I inspect the reasons players see affecting KOS. Then, I inspect the issues regarding the effects of skill to KOS. I emphasize the difference in the styles of play presented in previous chapter. I continue to argue that morally emptied space combined with the different approaches makes evaluating particular actions difficult, if not impossible. I argue that the good of the game is the measure of the moral value of a virtue.
I emphasize this by continuing to conclude that DayZ reminds more a toy than a traditional game, and in this it differs from the traditional understanding of the virtues of the good player. Why do you KOS? A large part of the discussion is dedicated to the effort to understand why people do KOS and who is to be blamed for the excessive KOS in the game.
A poll Table 1: The results are form the timeframe of the study.
Firstly, a fear of from being shot yourself and thus losing your character. Thirdly, just because it is fun. Fourthly, because the game is lacking in content and the players are creating a meaning for it. Those who are against KOS seem to widely share the view, that one of the main reasons for KOS is the fact that everyone is doing it.
This point of view is in fact supported by the poll. It clearly suggests that the main reason, for those players who voted, to KOS is fear of being killed themselves. Ideas on how to possibly destroy most of the KoS mentality: Be the hero. Help other players when you can.
This causes fear of losing it, making you want to KoS. Spread this message! Without, we may never stop it from spreading. Edited by Loopest, 20 April - Posted 20 April - The poll seems to indicate that those opposing large numbers of KOS have a point when arguing that those who KOS for fear are the ones actually ruining the game for others. If the players were not so afraid to lose their characters and would stop pre-emptively shooting others, the numbers of KOS would be drastically lower.
The poll results also reflect the other side of the discussion. Those who do kill for fun, to benefit, or just because there is nothing else to do, are mostly the ones who are of defending KOS as a gameplay element that is clearly creating a meaningful content for the game.
Since almost all of those for and against KOS seem to be defending the possibility of KOS for the atmosphere it creates, it would be logical in the free spirit of the game to allow each and every one to react to the fear in way of their choosing.
This presumption would follow in line with what we have seen earlier. The freedom to choose not just what one wants to do in the game, but also that the premises and internal logic of the game world are flexible enough to include different perspectives on the game, leave one free to choose how he understands the game.
The very real possibility of losing your character through violent means, combined with the meaningfulness of loss, creates an atmosphere of fear and at the same time there is a constant choice for the player whether to seize the violence or to refrain from it. There is a continuous fear of loss and the constant presence of violence, even to the extent that the players are accustomed to expect it and would perhaps even be surprised if encountering someone with good intentions, a virtual warzone.
In this frame of violence as the standard the out of the ordinary elements are layered as well. For the players it would seem that there is violence that is expected and violence that crosses the line of the ordinary, which KOS in the case of extensive use, seems to do.
In the following, I examining further how the players see the content of the game influencing their behaviour in the game. First, there is the question of content. Many of the players seem to think that there is a connection between the content of the game not providing enough meaningful things to do and the reckless killing of other players. Those who become bored of the game channel their frustration towards the player vs.
This would seem to indicate that many players see the game too monotonous and want to feel the excitement the PVP has to offer. Another very common suggestion is to cut down the loot gained from other players by means of killing. One suggestion to solve the issue of KOS has been to limit the amount of weaponry in the game to bare minimum.
Especially limiting the amount of ranged weapons for players to find would force the players to encounter one another face to face, making encounters potentially more dangerous for both parties, and thus cutting down the easy KOS from a distance.
Both of these content related prospects are reflected in the post below: Besides this, it would also make looting cities far more of a tactical affair, meaning you had to avoid the horde, or go all Walking Dead and use bells to bring them from on[e] place to another. Of course zombies need to be fixed first.
Edited by sergeantwtf, 26 April - Posted 26 April - Even though the suggestions may vary from player to player, the basic outline remains the same: Large majority of the suggestions deal with the four problems presented above as the alternatives in the poll. From the perspective of the research, it would seem that these four reasons for KOS identified by the players could be understood for their different uses of violence. If survival is seen as the aim of the game then in the atmosphere of violence and KOS it seems like a solid alternative from a tactical perspective.
It would seem that the player could have more to lose than to gain from the encounter. This would mean that violence could be used as a method for successful playing of the game. This aspect is emphasized by the fact that you gain most of the equipment the other player had in the form of loot. From this perspective, it could be understood as one of those virtuous attributes players are expected to demonstrate. I will look further into this aspect in the next chapter.
Secondly, there would seem to be the purpose of entertainment. As for the bored player and those who just enjoy griefing or straightforward gunfight, violence in the form of KOS provides fun and good gameplay, and as such would be an end in itself. This aspect seems to be very close to what Reemtsma described as autotelic violence. This argument seems to have much in common with what McNamee argues with his view on sportspersonship being strong evaluation of oneself and by others.
We are then left to ask, what then, is good for the game? Posted 24 Feb - On the other hand, many claim that it is the inexperienced player who does not have the skill to avoid being killed in the first place, and the more experienced player can easily avoid getting killed.
Both of these views are part of the discussion on the blame of KOS. Even though mostly used at the opposing debaters in a provocative manner, accusing them of not having the skills to play the game as it is supposed to be played, nevertheless, the question of skill is essential to the discussion.
It seems that the players are sensitive to accusations of wanting to make the game easier, or for them not being skilled enough for the game.
DayZ is known for its unforgiving nature as a game. A high level of skill is required to survive in the world of Chernarus. There is a need to prove oneself as a skilful player, but also the awareness that others are evaluating your performance. This would seem to mean that there is an understanding with the players of a certain level of skill considering the involvement in the violence in the game.
Whether getting involved in violence or refraining from it while playing DayZ, one needs skill to be successful at it. The social and historical background of each individual player affects his view on the matter of what is considered good sportspersonship.
However, we can assume there is something in the public space of DayZ that is shared by the players and affects their view on what the moral premises for the virtual world they are participating are.
The player is forced to adjust by learning new morals as part of the world to survive in it. We discussed earlier the post written by Real Meatshield who was quoting LigerRider on the topic of whether or not one needs skills to shoot someone. Real Meatshield claims that it is a difficult task to shoot someone from a distance because of the realistic ballistics simulation of the game.
Skill can be argued to be a factor on both sides of the discussion.
Sniping is a very limited example of the multitude of possible scenarios where fighting could take place that could emerge in the game. The game can provide practically endless scenarios for fighting to occur, or for peaceful interaction for that matter. This gives all the players the same possibility of outplaying or outsmarting their opponents, within the equivalent conditions. If you are being shot from a distance all you have to do is to seek cover to avoid being shot.
As said, sniping is a challenging task. It is easy to argue that getting killed or evading death is equally skill-dependent. The more skilled and resourceful player will most likely be victorious in any confrontation, no matter the circumstances. If one knows his way around, one does not get KOS all that easily.
It is also the view of Strawman that there is a strong relation between skill and getting killed in the game. Some, for example LigerRider, argue that it is too easy to shoot someone dead from hiding.
Others, like Strawman or Alsmir, argue that, if you get killed you have not managed to play the game skilfully enough. It takes time and practice to avoid getting yourself killed. You need to know how to move around the map, where to look for loot and what places to avoid.
They expect that when they respawn the closest city to them will be quite safe and definitely safer than military bases up in the north. There is no safe zone for newbies in DayZ, no training mission. The best thing a freshspawn can do is: Leave starting areas, ignore thirst and hunger untill you reach some further villages - then start looting. It is quite unintuitional and confuses a lot of people: New player advised to look for further settlements will probably feel lost.
The map is huge. Roadsigns are in some weird language it really pays off to learn basics of cyrylic. So what will he do? Follow the road. Mistake, bam! Edited by Alsmir, 08 May - 9: Posted 08 May - 9: It can as easily be argued that it is an even more skilful feat to manage to encounter someone peacefully in the very hostile world of DayZ.
Whether or not interacting peacefully or KOS in the hostile world is difficult seems to vary more or less according to what the player sees as fun in the game. Because the game itself is rather difficult and requires skill from the player to guarantee the survival of the character, it can be easily advocated both ways, as the game is very situational.
Secondly, 2 a set of means that limit the way in which the goal is to be achieved. Thirdly, 3 rules that define the activity and the permissible and impermissible means for achieving the pre-lusory goal. Lastly 4 a disposition the game player must adopt in their attempt to achieve the pre-lusory goal.
However, there are several views on the matter and many of those are in contrast with what Strawman claims. Either the views are in total controversy or differ on the opinion of what should be regulated. It would seem that what Suits describes, is what Tavinor called a game in strong sense. This would seem to be where the virtual playfield of DayZ differs from traditional games and sports, in many aspects it is more of a toy than a game. The players are able to choose the premises from which the goal is derived in the first place.
This would seem to lead to a conflicting view on what the goals and means to achieving those goals are. Nonetheless, also arguing to change how your fellow players play, could be said to be contradictory with the very idea of freedom to choose how you play. Also this would indicate what I argued earlier in this chapter, when we try to find the virtues of a good player, instead of focusing on the particular actions of a player, we have to ask what is good for the game.
I find that fun and good gameplay are central to the measure of the virtues of a player. I argue that there is a connection for the players in the way violence is represented in the game and that of real life violence.
I continue to argue that this leads us to conclude that playing the game can be therefore interpreted as the post-secular moral search of an emptied public space, and that the game can be understood as a moral canvas for the players,.
Personality indicator? As KOS can be said to be unfair to a degree, it raises the question of the sportsmanship of the players using this method to play the game.
Some are ready even to go as far as criticizing those players who enjoy causing misery to their fellow players in the game, on a personal level. Claims of real life social issues are connected with wanting to ruin the game for others, like Strawman did in his post Or what is the relation of virtues of virtual playing to those of real life?
He goes to the length of accusing them of having social problems. He implies that KOS would be an indication of real life issues. Well I guess I am gathering all of the sociopaths because my whole crew has a metric shit ton of fun going out with the sole intent of ruining your day.
He states he finds it fun to play the way Strawman previously described as an unwanted playstyle. This would also mean that winning a gunfight in the game is an enjoyable event because the survival from a gunfight entails emotional attachment.
This, however, also means that there is a loser of the gunfight who in his turn just suffered a loss. Thus, we have two opposite and contradictory opinions, which seem to result in differing views of what are the purpose and the most enjoyable content of the game. This is a game. Making comparisons or judgements against the player who kills is completely unfounded and has no basis in reality at all.
Applying unfair tactics is merely part of the game. KOS is rather a very solid approach to winning a battle in an unfair world. Nobody cares if new features are added or more stuff to do is added. People like me will continue to kill because its fun to grief no amount of stupid features designed to stop us will do so. Simply put nothing will or stop the kos epidemic its not a problem and nothing outside of removing all firearms will stop it.
Posted 20 Apr - For some players there is enjoyment to be found in spoiling the game for others. It was enough on its own that you were able to kill without sanctions. This what they call: There are opposite ways of enjoying the game, but at the same time they are in a symbiotic relation with each other. Returning to the question, whether enjoying violence in real life and enjoying simulated violence are the same thing?
Further, if there is KOS in real life, would a person, who kills others on sight, do that also in the game and the other way around? It would seem, that the cause for the issue to arise is the fact that the context of a game is at the same time real and unreal. The actions are acted out in the make-belief setting of the world. These violent acts would not take place without the player committing them. The player is required to make an epistemic act to induce the violence. And as the loss is real and meaningful within the game, and by mimicking their real counterparts through the modal prop, it would seem that an act of violence is taking place.
This relation of real and imagined has been the interest of Jesper Juul in his work Half-Real, Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds,in which he coined the term half-real to describe the unique way of video games being played by real rules, while the actual playing takes place in an imagined fictional world.
This half-real relation is also reflected in the next section. The question whether or not KOS is a genuine part of real life, is one of them. Would someone really kill others on sight in real life? This is a much-disputed topic in the KOS-thread, and many claim that its existence in real life justifies KOS in the game. If there is KOS in real life, it should be part of the game as well.
And although i have been so repeatedly killed on sight with no questions or talking whatsoever [--]. It is like in real life! Posted 16 March - Here the players seem again to be interested in the question of violence in the game and its real life counterpart having something in common.
This interest between real life violence and the one in the game, as with the personality of the player and the way he plays discussed in the previous chapter, can be seen as part of the half-real relation of the game and real life. We can safely assume that there is some connection of real life violence and virtual violence for the players.
Look at war veterans. Are the soldiers coming home from Afghanistan in good shape? Over half of them get the symptoms of PTSD, a mental illness you get from being under that much pressure all the time. Almost everyone has killed other players. He also ponders the question of how the consequences of mental stress caused by killing should be part of the gameplay.
Strawman for example disagrees with Korsbaek. In reality people do crazy things in chaotic times. Then have faith in that the developers will tune the game into what they want it to be, which in turn will allow for certain playstyles while others will be harder to pull off.
Edited by Strawman, 24 February - Of course KoS is realistic.
Its inconceivable to think that in an apocalypse scenario, everyone is going to want to barter and trade with everyone else. There will be the roving packs of bandits and marauders who see nothing wrong at all with gunning down someone- just to see if they had beans, bullets or bandages to begin with. There are already groups in society today that operate in the same way, but they are fewer and farther between because there are measures in place to stop them and keep them in check- the police and military, which in an apocalyptic scenario, are non-existent.
When the checks and balances of a lawful society are no longer in effect, all of a sudden the lawless society blossoms.
The people will be divided into self- imposed factions and group together with like-minded individuals. Hence why you have groups like the reddit rescue squad, on one end of the spectrum; and a group like my own crew, who KoS first, ask questions later.
This is reflected in how the players perceive the changes to the game, and how they have tried to solve ethical problems arising from KOS by suggesting those changes to the game. It seems that the propositions of players for changes in the game support the previous interpretation of moral freedom being central to the game.
I argue that this strengthens the virtue ethical interpretation of epistemic virtues as opposed to external regulation of moral actions in the game. The suggestions vary largely, and so does their general approval. I also wouldn't like this [He is commenting on a suggestion made earlier for warning others via labeling a shared map of potential bandits].
DayZ is meant to be realistic and we can't change the way people play. We can only make the game itself more realistic.
Suffice to say that the suggestions for changing the game tend to fall in one of two categories. Secondly, players view that the consequences of killing others are not harsh enough to limit the amount of KOS in the game.
Right now the game makes it harder to play as a benevolent type and easier to preemptively shoot people you meet and loot their corpse. If the game would make it equally hard for both those playstyles we would soon see a better balance between the two types. I suggest patience. I also suggest one of the following two: Either accept that dying is part of the game and that you will die a lot, and try to not get too emotionally attached to your character.
Or try to avoid acting "in affect", ie letting your upset emotions drive you to post angry stuff on the forums targeting all who you feel are responsible for your character dying. A lot of the debate focuses on the question of the purpose of DayZ as a game, and how this purpose is best served from the gameplay perspective. Those, who see peaceful interaction as essential to the way the game is supposed to be played, often want those elements to be encourage by the game design.
Likewise those, who prefer more conflict oriented approach to gameplay, generally defend the current state of the game based on the freedom of choice. These questions revolve around two key factors from the perspective of game design: Is DayZ a survival simulation in a nightmarish world with people helping one another, or is it a combat simulator placed in a survivalist horror setting?
Nevertheless, violence such as KOS is seen throughout the discussion as something that is inherently part of the game. However to conclude. KoS will stay of course, and we have to learn to deal with it. It's a video game, most video games bring you up to speed with the "I am the good guy no matter what, everyone else is bad I must kill them" mentality. DayZ is a first of it's kind game there are other games out there somewhere that do the same where it introduces working together will get you farther than killing that poor fresh spawn for nothing.
RUN like chickens if the 1st shot didn't kill you. You shouldn't be aimed at in the 1st place, this proves you are not cautious or paranoid enough to survive in a post apocalypse world.
Posted 25 July — Im not sure I understand what that is supposed to mean. Are you implying that what my crew and I do is not at all what they envisioned when they decided to undertake the development of this game? If I were developing DayZ I would not like for it to become another clone of an existing game, but if the playerbase turned it into that regardless of what I did, well Here the implied undertone is clearly that there is a right and a wrong way to play the game. A death-match, as referred to by him, in which everyone is just out to kill and with no intention to interact with other players, would just be mimicking other games already available.
A plethora of ideas has been offered on how the game design should support different behaviour in the game. Many players, however, oppose to suggestions of rewarding behaviour since it would lessen the freedom of choice for the players.
The reason some players play the game as a team DM now is because the game allows it. He says the possibility to choose to KOS is an essential part of the gameplay, but at the same time he sees that there is a connection with the game design aspect of the game, which is contributing to the amount of KOS being at the level of more combat oriented games.
By manipulating the gameplay the designers have control over how the game is played; however, not all changes serve the purpose, according to players. Posted 28 April - If the consequences of an action are somehow punitive, like the sound of gunfire attracting a swarm of enemies, does one really have that freedom of choice anymore?
The players however try to find a balance for the different approaches to the game. KOSers is a part of the ecosystem in Dayz; same as carebears and zombies are. There will be more of them, and they will be more aggressive, and probably also more responsive to loud noices as gunshots. We need the aggressive players just as much as we need the defensive ones.
This game without the tension of getting killed would not be a game I would play. I agree completely. The morally worst case scenario is expected. The rules of the world are what create the setting of the game, and what the players are portrayed of being able to do and what not. Changes in those mechanics reflect the freedom to choose throughout the game. The suggestions that would limit the freedom of choice find the fiercest opposition.
The freedom of moral choice is reserved for the player. To sum up, the players want to be free to morally choose violence. The ability to choose to do violence is integral to the game. This argues in favour of the perspective that the players see the ethical choices in the game as moral canvas for self-realization, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The possible changes to the game are reviewed in the light of their quality to serve this purpose.
The nature of actions is epistemic and their free internal moral evaluation is regarded highly by the players. The opposition of external regulation of moral values speaks strongly for this. I interpret the data from the perspective of metaframe of ethics and rules. I come to the conclusion that while the emotional attachment to the game is essential for the game to be interesting to the player, it is also part of the game itself.
I argue that through the emotional connection the player is able to create a wholesome interpretation of the game, a meaningful narration of the events. As such emotions can be considered as part of the metagame of showing ones fairness as a player, or using those emotions as part of the gameplay. For this study metagaming is understood to be any action that occurs outside the defined limits of the game.
In this study and in DayZ in particular metagaming can occur on several different levels. First, metagaming inside the game, such as using the VOIP for example for asking for help in some technical issue regarding the game, or just to setup an ambush for a player-character.
Second, metagaming outside the game, such as writing on the forums trying to affect the way the players play or to ask assistance inside the game. The forums are also used for creating player clans. Clans are a way to organize group effort inside the game and to create a more secure playing environment. The emotional attachment to the game is essential for the game to be interesting to the player. The player has to want to succeed in the game for it to be worth his time and effort.
Through this emotional attachment to the game, the player feels his achievements being worth something and his failures as true failures, as Tavinor describes. Are you seriously crying? Go play Care Bears online. Being upset over a game is something almost no one seems to be ready to admit. This is of course partly due to the metagaming nature of the forum. There is also a tendency to aggravate others into showing weakness by unveiling their emotional connection to the game. This contradicts the fact that emotional elements are essential to what makes DayZ successful as a game.
The meaningfulness of loss, which in turn gives meaningfulness to survival, are throughout the discussion brought up as the enjoyable part of the game. The moral choices of the player, which make a difference, are essential to the game. Strawman expresses a contradictory tone. If no emotional attachment to the game at all exists, why would one want to continue playing it?
Strawman continues to reassert that there is certain player type or a playstyle that is the most suitable one for playing DayZ, as it will produce most fun to the players. Real Meatshield, [--] the problem with your kind - you seem to think everyone puts a lot of emotional value into what is after all just a game.
Wanna make a bet on who of the two of us grow tired of the game first? Posted 23 February - 9: Nevertheless, even if Strawman was indeed indifferent to the death of his player- character, we know that some of the players are certain to feel a sense of loss and upset from the death of their player-character.
After all, death and its evasion are only a part of successfully surviving in the game world. For the player there is a need to control the emotional aspects of the game. The player is assumed to remain in control of his behaviour throughout the event of playing.
It would seem that the emotional consequences need to be in a proper relation to the seriousness of the play. Thus one of the virtues of a player would seem to be the understanding of how to maintain the play.
This is in line what we saw with Huizinga earlier in chapter 3. Hey, hey hey hey! At all. I have accepted that. This is why we need skills! Discussing on the Internet is hard The significance of the action, however, does not necessary seem to carry over to real life.
The emotional attachment to the game is thought to be in control of the player. We saw that getting too upset over a game is considered undesirable. The player ought to be able to exercise a level of control over his emotions on losing and winning. Even though the game gets its significance through the emotions of the player it is exactly those emotions the player is expected to be in control of.
This slinging of stones over the emotional attachment can be seen as part of the metagaming of DayZ. The forums are not only a place to converse over the game but also an extension of it. The players do not participate in the conversation with their own personalities but behind forum avatars and the anonymity provided by them. The players are on the forums to affect how others play and to prove their worth, but also to create friendships and co-operation.
It appears that in-game the world of DayZ is regarded as a place without rules, whereas the metagame of the forums is seen as something following in a more direct way the norms and rules of our daily lives where one is able to be more trusting towards their fellow player. SlideShare Explore Search You. Submit Search. Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime. Upcoming SlideShare. Like this document? Why not share! An annual anal Embed Size px. Start on. Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. ToriBass Follow. Published in: Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No.
Be the first to like this. No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares.