PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy violence: why is it so appealing?



randomhero00
2010-10-10, 04:51 PM
Most of us love killing and looting our way to power whether we're roleplaying a good guy who justifies his actions or an evil guy who doesn't care. Why is it do you think? Cause I think its a safe generalization that most DnD players are not violent people in real life. I hate real life violence, yet love it in anime, fantasy, etc. I can't figure out why...

Skeletor
2010-10-10, 04:57 PM
because it's fantasy? escapism is awesome. :smalltongue:

Kaeso
2010-10-10, 05:02 PM
This thread will probably result in responses that delve too deep into real world politics/philosophy so maybe Roland won't approve of it...:smallconfused:

Anywho, my two cents is that violence is a part of human nature and we can't go around beating up people in a civilised society so we need an outlet for it, which comes in the form of violent video games, violent movies or pillaging and looting in DnD :smallamused:

Elfin
2010-10-10, 05:02 PM
Honestly, I'm not so sure why it's so appealing. However, there is the fact that in games, it's experienced only in a glorified, generalized way (no matter how long you spend describing blood gushing from wounds or organs being ripped out, it's still distant and impersonal); there are no actual repercussions, no deaths or injuries or maimings. It's obviously much easier to roll a die and erase some hitpoints than to actually suffer a slice across the shoulder.

Zaq
2010-10-10, 06:11 PM
Humans, as a whole, like conflict. This doesn't always mean armed conflict, but Entity A going against Entity B is kind of a thing with us. We call books poorly-written if there's no real conflict of any kind, we make all kinds of elaborately staged conflicts (what do you think sports are?) for entertainment... and it's a rare person who doesn't end up feeling like they're in opposition to anyone in their life.

Fantasy violence is a very easy and unambiguous way of having conflict-as-entertainment. There's usually a clear winner and loser, there's the promise of vicariously siding with the winner, and it's usually painted in broad enough strokes that anyone can pick it up and run with it. Few of us are novelists, and it's often difficult to come up with deep and serious psychological conflicts that are in any way satisfying... but it's really easy to say "the goblins attack the village; drive them off, heroes!" or "the dwarves are at war with the halflings, and the gnomes are stuck in the middle."

Oh, and like I said, it's unambiguous. In a roleplaying setting, it's entirely possible to have PC Bob in a social and psychological conflict with NPC Joe (or worse, with PC Tom) that has significantly more nuance than "they don't trust each other" or "they don't like each other's goals," but it's difficult, and making sure that everyone gets the same picture of it (especially as things progress and change) is dicey. Having the mighty freedom fighter chop off the elven tyrant's head once and for all is really, really easy in comparison.

So basically, it's easy. People like easy things.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-10-10, 06:14 PM
But what about people who take this sort of thing too far, like that one guy who got upset with a D&D decision, so he stalked his DM and beat him with a claw hammer until the poor guy went blind?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-10, 06:18 PM
I think he had issues before he played.
The fact that he had a claw hammer is weird.

Spiryt
2010-10-10, 06:18 PM
Just like executions, gladiators, violent movies etc. were/are appealing.

People are violent creatures to quite big extent sometimes, like many animals, because violence was crucial to survival of our kind.

Even people that generally don't act violent due to their temperament, socialization, outlook, insecurity, and many other things still like to let the primal urge go in some way, even by watching to drawn girls in skimpy clothes jumping around doing things that were vaguely inspired by sword fights.

At least I would try to answer it like that in short post.

Kaeso
2010-10-10, 06:20 PM
But what about people who take this sort of thing too far, like that one guy who got upset with a D&D decision, so he stalked his DM and beat him with a claw hammer until the poor guy went blind?

WHAT? Do you have any source to that story?
I'm not calling you a liar but that just sounds too insane to be true.

AtopTheMountain
2010-10-10, 06:20 PM
I really don't know either. I consider myself a pacifist (no discussion of religion or politics desired, thanks), and yet spend tons of time playing violent games, watching violent movies, and even studying warfare.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-10, 06:21 PM
The fact that he had a claw hammer is weird.

Wikipedia says a claw hammer is just a pretty standard hammer one would see in a household toolbox.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-10, 06:22 PM
Hmm. As far as the psychology behind it goes, I believe tabletop games are no different than computer games. It's fun to play on roles that aren't within our reach, and this goes both for what we can't do and for what we shouldn't do.

Ormur
2010-10-10, 07:44 PM
It's funny how my real life attitude to violence and killing is detached from my attitude in D&D where good people murdering sentient beings with impunity is considered normal.

I don't actually like gore and vivid descriptions of violence much but the thrill of D&D combat is mostly because risking death and trying to kill others puts the stakes so high, so even if it's only pretend the thrill is appealing. I get similarly excited about board games and computer game if they somehow convince me that the stakes are very high, but potential character death is a very good way of achieving that.

In an abstract sense violence and murder are also pretty interesting concepts. I like reading about things that shock me and make me wonder about such things. Making fun of or treating such a serious thing lightly is also a bit releasing. It's sometimes said we laugh at absurd things and violence is pretty absurd. Slaughtering a whole tribe of kobolds can be pretty funny in D&D precisely because it wouldn't be in real life.

AslanCross
2010-10-10, 08:00 PM
It's not so much that I like killing people. I like being a hero.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-10, 08:27 PM
But what about people who take this sort of thing too far, like that one guy who got upset with a D&D decision, so he stalked his DM and beat him with a claw hammer until the poor guy went blind?

If true, Im gonna guess it's no different than any other aspect of life. People snap sometimes. There's a *lot* of people who play D&D. With enough numbers, you're bound to pick up some oddballs.

Im gonna say that anyone who physically beats someone else with a weapon over a D&D decision probably has far more serious issues than D&D.

Like others said, conflict and competition are inherently interesting ideas to us. The exact form of them each person prefers might vary, but sports, board games, movies, books...it's amazingly common. The reason violence works in roleplaying is exactly the same reason violence works in other stories.

Thajocoth
2010-10-10, 08:36 PM
A variety of reasons that vary from individual to individual.

Number one... You're receiving a steady reward for continuing, encouraging you to continue. (XP, loot, ect...) These things, in turn, make you better, so you can face harder challenges.

B - You're solving and overcoming challenges. Our brains were made to solve things. It's very enjoyable.

* Action is engaging, and keeps people interested.

4: Some people are sadistic.

Also, there's the fact that you can do all sorts of things in fantasy that you can't do in reality, but may want to, which adds to the appeal.


The violence itself is mostly coincidental, really. A good story needs some sort of conflict... Battle requires the most rules to set up... People want to use what they've spent more time to learn, which means having more battles...


As for that example of real-world violence... Some percentage of people are insane. Every group of sufficient size has their share of insane people.

Matthew
2010-10-10, 08:40 PM
WHAT? Do you have any source to that story?
I'm not calling you a liar but that just sounds too insane to be true.

It is a slight misrepresentation of the story that was reported, but basically true. Here is a reposting of the source: Hammer Attack. As you might guess, these were not well mentally balanced individuals. [edit] Hmmn, actually that site is a bit weird and probably not suitable to link to, so I will just put the content in spoilers:


http://www.sltrib.com/justice/ci_13146563

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/rest_rsx/Funny%20Stuff/20090817__hammerhead_0818_P1.jpg



Print Email Font Resize
Man bound over for trial in hammer attacks
Courts Motive may have stemmed from 'Dungeons and Dragons' game and jealousy.

By Mark Havnes

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 08/17/2009 07:06:43 PM MDT

Zachary King

Cedar City When Logan Bryson suddenly awakened in the early morning of May 30, he thought he was having a bad dream until he realized someone was beating him with a hammer.

"I didn't realize I was being attacked until I fell to the floor with my arms up to defend myself," said Bryson, who took the stand Monday in 5th District Court in Cedar City during the preliminary hearing for Zachery Frank King, charged with beating Bryson and Daniel Shokrian at Shokrian's home in this southern Utah city.

King is charged with two counts of attempted aggravated murder and a count of aggravated burglary, all first-degree felonies. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge G. Michael Westfall bound King over for trial.

King, who agreed to be arraigned after the preliminary hearing, pleaded not guilty to the charges before being returned to the Iron County Jail.

Testimony Monday suggested a motive for the attacks may have grown from the trio playing the fantasy role-playing game "Dungeons and Dragons" and jealousy over a girl who King and Bryson knew.

Bryson, 23, suffered a concussion and bruises in the attack; Shokrian, 20, lost some vision and his ability to read and write, which he is trying to recover through therapy.

Bryson and King knew each other at school and had spent time the previous day playing "Dungeons and Dragons" with Shokrian, who was acting cocky during the game, according to

Detective Nathan Williams. Shokrian was directing the game as Dungeon Master, and King didn't like what he was doing with King's character, Williams said.

Detective Michael Bleak testified that during an interview at the police station, King told him he went home after playing the game at Shokrian's house, took an over-the-counter sleeping pill and went to bed. He awakened angry, found a hammer in a tool shed and drove to Shokrian's house, entering through an open window.

Bleak said King told him he went to Shokrian's bedroom and said, "I hate you," and started hitting Shokrian with the hammer. King then went to the room where Logan was sleeping and attacked him.

Bleak said that King had an issue with Bryson for dating a girl after both said they would not date her.

Picture related: it's hilarious!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/rest_rsx/Funny%20Stuff/20090819.jpg

Amiel
2010-10-10, 08:43 PM
Because it's an outlet to satisfy our own base desires :smalltongue:
The concept of physical violence a distasteful one within 'acceptable society,' however, most humans have an aggressive streak they long seek to satisfy.

Rising Phoenix
2010-10-10, 08:45 PM
It's not so much that I like killing people. I like being a hero.

This, or in my case, the Druid who constantly challenges the morality of the Paladin. :P

Snake-Aes
2010-10-10, 08:46 PM
It is a slight misrepresentation of the story that was reported, but basically true. Here is a reposting of the source: Hammer Attack (http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=669798). As you might guess, these were not well mentally balanced individuals.

This is the most important part, and videogames suffer a similar prejudice. It's easy to see a psycho kill someone and notice that he played a violent game. And the psycho who never played a game gets "I never imagined he'd be like that"?

Researchers, as a whole, state more or less this on violent games: "Violent games make people violent, except when they don't". Tautological bliss!

Thajocoth
2010-10-10, 08:48 PM
...most humans have an aggressive streak they long seek to satisfy.

I don't believe that. I know I don't have one. I tend to think that, from birth, people aren't aggressive, but may become so based on how their raised and what they experience and stuff.

Amiel
2010-10-10, 08:53 PM
I don't believe that. I know I don't have one. I tend to think that, from birth, people aren't aggressive, but may become so based on how their raised and what they experience and stuff.

Do you play a sport? :)
I think sport is another avenue that people engage in to channel any aggression into a becoming habit.

Knaight
2010-10-10, 09:01 PM
Its typical, from an evolutionary perspective people started out as hunter gatherers (hunting through what is possibly the coolest method in existence, running after something until it collapsed to exhaustion. From an efficiency perspective, its not nearly as good.), and aggression helps with hunting, as well as competition between people.

However, there are other reasons.

A) Fantasy violence represents a simple, unambiguous solution, essentially presenting some degree of black and white simplicity. Even if the setting as a whole is complex, the violence therein usually comes down to us and them. This simplicity is something lacking in real life, and thus desirable as escapism.

2) In real life, people are largely unable to effect change to any meaningful extent. We live our lives, and the world undergoes change due to our influence that is trivial for the vast majority of individuals. Fantasy violence, in its cut and dryness, usually does effect change. There is a reason the vast majority of video games involve heroism on a grand scale, D&D operates on that same assumption.

III) Connecting somewhat to the idea of aggression is that of stress relief. People who are very stressed, pissed off, whatever often want to just hit something. Punching bags are one outlet, others prefer shooting ranges, some of us just want to lob knives at a target, and of course there is violence in fantasy, particularly concerning games, but with novels and movies working as well assuming some degree of immersion.

Thajocoth
2010-10-10, 09:10 PM
Do you play a sport? :)
I think sport is another avenue that people engage in to channel any aggression into a becoming habit.

I've never liked competitive sports. I do ride a snowboard.

In video games, I generally find "vs" modes boring. Co-op > Single player > Other multiplayer.

EDIT: Add to my previous list - Because you're playing friends, and people generally like to hang out with their friends.

Drakevarg
2010-10-10, 10:13 PM
To be honest, I generally get bored in combat in DnD. I don't find it "appealing" so much as "expected." What I'm really a fan of is exhibitionism. I could care less about whether I kill those orcs on that hill. But whatever I wind up doing, I want to look really cool doing it. :smallbiggrin:

Leaving yet another room full of corpses in my wake just feels like tedious labor. Killing one person in a totally awesome manner (or doing anything in a totally awesome manner, not just the application of violence onto squishies) will have me talking about it for months. :smallamused:

Knaight
2010-10-10, 10:24 PM
Well, D&D is slow and methodical, it doesn't convey excitement well.

Drakevarg
2010-10-10, 10:59 PM
Well, D&D is slow and methodical, it doesn't convey excitement well.

Are you kidding? Last time I was actually a player, I punched my way up a cliff. Then watched our wilderness guide get in a fight with a mountain. And WIN.

Dr.Epic
2010-10-10, 11:01 PM
It's fantasy and thus romanticized. You think you could actually throw a sword and it impale someone? What about a villain liking the blood off their blade after they harm a hero? Impossible but cool to see.

Amiel
2010-10-10, 11:41 PM
Are you kidding? Last time I was actually a player, I punched my way up a cliff. Then watched our wilderness guide get in a fight with a mountain. And WIN.

Who won? The mountain or the shovel?

Drakevarg
2010-10-10, 11:42 PM
Who won? The mountain or the shovel?

To rephrase my statment, it was a Colossal+ sized Earth Elemental. :smallannoyed:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-10, 11:57 PM
It's fantasy and thus romanticized. You think you could actually throw a sword and it impale someone? What about a villain liking the blood off their blade after they harm a hero? Impossible but cool to see.

Those are both, while rather unlikely, still at least physically possible. It gets worse. For instance, my gf recently got frostmourne. It's about a 14 lb blade, balanced well forward of the handle, and is not exactly short. In game, it's treated as a 1h weapon. I expect that would only be true for size huge creatures.

Still, it looks awesome. And that's whats important.

Dr.Epic
2010-10-11, 12:02 AM
Those are both, while rather unlikely, still at least physically possible. It gets worse. For instance, my gf recently got frostmourne. It's about a 14 lb blade, balanced well forward of the handle, and is not exactly short. In game, it's treated as a 1h weapon. I expect that would only be true for size huge creatures.

Still, it looks awesome. And that's whats important.

Really? Throwing a sword so that the tip of the blade goes first into someone as if it was being driven into then by a person still grasping the sword? What are the odds of that? Also, in what realistic fight scenario is someone going to successfully going to wound someone then stop only to lick the blood from their weapon rather than keep attacking while the opponent is wounded?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-10-11, 12:05 AM
WHAT? Do you have any source to that story?
I'm not calling you a liar but that just sounds too insane to be true.
Penny Arcade did something about it once. That's how I found out about it, but I can't remember which one it was.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-10-11, 12:09 AM
Because it's an outlet to satisfy our own base desires :smalltongue:
The concept of physical violence a distasteful one within 'acceptable society,' however, most humans have an aggressive streak they long seek to satisfy.
I don't believe that. Whenever I've gotten PO about something, I don't want to attack the source of my displeasure. I want to go into my bedroom and cry.

Drakevarg
2010-10-11, 12:11 AM
Also, in what realistic fight scenario is someone going to successfully going to wound someone then stop only to lick the blood from their weapon rather than keep attacking while the opponent is wounded?

Big difference between "unlikely or impractical" and "impossible."

Tyndmyr
2010-10-11, 12:17 AM
Really? Throwing a sword so that the tip of the blade goes first into someone as if it was being driven into then by a person still grasping the sword? What are the odds of that? Also, in what realistic fight scenario is someone going to successfully going to wound someone then stop only to lick the blood from their weapon rather than keep attacking while the opponent is wounded?

Reasonably light swords can be thrown like knives. Be aware that if you try this at home, most swords are not meant for this sort of abuse, and may fail catastrophically. Had a friend break one in half this way once. However, we didn't have any problem getting them to stick into trees, which are significantly tougher than the average human.

The licking blood isn't about tactics. It's about showing off how badass you are. And in practice, if someone is wounded and bleeding, they're the one who's suddenly on a timetable. Your odds of winning do not improve as you bleed out.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-11, 12:52 AM
Are you kidding? Last time I was actually a player, I punched my way up a cliff. Then watched our wilderness guide get in a fight with a mountain. And WIN.

give me details please

Drakevarg
2010-10-11, 01:02 AM
give me details please

Happily. :smallamused:

*begins to describe it, remembers his old campaign journal, and stops.*

Hold on, I'll just fetch the link.

It doesn't actually describe the part where he wins (on account of I never got around to writing it), but basically he pulls a Colossus Climb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ColossusClimb) into a spot in it's back, and Attacks Its Weak Point (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AttackItsWeakPoint) For Massive Damage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForMassiveDamage). We later find the "Mountain Elemental's" corpse, it's arm lopped off, driven into a nearby mountainside.

We climb inside and find the guide near death inside, so we fish a really powerful healing potion (the DM called it Paragon Elixir or something like that) out of his Bag of Holding, which treats us to a rather gruesome scene of him puking out his... everything, on account of the fact that the DM likes to describe healing spells as being quite painful.

EDIT: Here you go; Northlands Campaign Journal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140256)

It happens during Session 2.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-11, 01:37 AM
NNNOOO!!! you linked me to TVTropes now im stuck thereeeeeeeeeee

Zen Master
2010-10-11, 04:02 AM
Personally I guess violence has little to do with it. I think it's all about conflict resolution, whether by force of arms or otherwise. Of course, the game has an emphasis on combat - and combat does make for more interesting challenges because diplomacy doesn't usually involve risk to the characters life.

Satyr
2010-10-11, 04:03 AM
It's actually quite simple: Roleplaying games are a form of medium for storytelling. The lowest common denominator for the creation tension and thus satisfaction in telling a story are the basic foundations: Sex and Violence. Sex in roleplaying games is a topic of its own (and can usually be summarized as "too personal in the game, because everybody is more familiar with the topic"); as such violence is a simple way to create tension and keep the audience interested in the plot.

Reluctance
2010-10-11, 04:14 AM
In games, I rarely see violence for violence's sake. Sometimes it's about power fantasies, where you hear all about the phat lewt and huge numbers on someone's character sheet. Others, it seems to be about mechanical resolution. Be it the wargaming tactics side, or more often, the op-fu and build skills to make your worldbeaters. Combat is played up simply because most games have more rules and more complexity surrounding combat than they do social interaction or inner turmoil.

In fantasy in general, you're getting into broader human questions of human nature. Being able to bend/break the rules of reality is only handy to add nifty pyrotechnics, and to turn reasonably impressive feats into really freakin' impressive ones.

Psyx
2010-10-11, 04:35 AM
To be blunt; the majority of gamers are geeks who have had sand kicked in their face for a proportion of their younger years, and many never got the chance to do it to anyone else. Gamers tend not to be alpha males, nor physically dominant.
People want to feel like to be the Alpha male, to be able to be the strongest/baddest/toughest guy and to see what it would be like to solve issues and retaliate upon the world via violence.

Our society does glorify violence, and humanity is drawn towards it, yes. But gamers -generally speaking- are more pacifistically inclined in real life, so have more violence to vent and channel in games.

FelixG
2010-10-11, 04:37 AM
The same reason why zombies are so appealing.

Zombies are pretty much people with make up on marked as "this person is ok to kill" and allows the ultimate boy vs world fantasy

RPGs are much the same way, creatures are just full of things to kill and exploit in ways that can never be realized in the real world.

Zen Master
2010-10-11, 04:52 AM
and aggression helps with hunting, as well as competition between people.

Having supermarkets, I don't hunt much (except for bargains), so I don't speak from personal experience - but at a guess I'd say patience and planning are far more important for hunting than aggression. And except for certain sports (like ... boxing?!), I think training and persistance are far more important for competition.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 05:29 AM
Having supermarkets, I don't hunt much (except for bargains), so I don't speak from personal experience - but at a guess I'd say patience and planning are far more important for hunting than aggression. And except for certain sports (like ... boxing?!), I think training and persistance are far more important for competition.

Competitiveness is enforced, and aggression is the default output to that. You think primal instincts are already gone? XD If they were, we wouldn't feel lazy, or like fatty food, or have a powerful sex drive...

Kiero
2010-10-11, 05:46 AM
Because it's simple, straightforward and an easy (if not always useful) means of resolving conflict.

And because before the modern era (and even then only in the developed world) it always remained a valid method of dealing with trouble. The past was a lot more violent than the present, one of the "successes" of modern civilisation is to rein in civil strife and move dispute resolution to entirely peaceful means.

Halaster
2010-10-11, 05:54 AM
I agree with the idea that the element of conflict and suspense involved with violence have an important part in determining its popularity. There is another thing, though:
In terms of playability, violence offers a fairly high value. Almost all games have extensive rules for combat, which cover a wide variety of situations, thus enabling the players to have a lot of diverse encounters without having to wing it too much. By comparison, other forms of conflict (investigation, negotiation etc.) have to be fairly free-form by their very nature.

In my experience as a DM, I tend to avoid too much free-form stuff, because there are simply too many ways it could go and there is no guarantee that my players will find the one that solves the issue at hand. In combat, however, anything they might do is either clearly regulated or else can be judged impossible without much discussion.

So, violence is simply easy to play, and thus comes up a lot.

MickJay
2010-10-11, 07:08 AM
I just enjoy roleplaying characters that have a mindset different to my own (and I'm generally an amiable and calm person). Roleplaying, for example, a psychotic maniac who slaughters other sentient beings just because they have scales (and are arbitrarily called "Evil", in which my character doesn't believe, but sees it as a convenient excuse) can be also fun because of how it targets the hypocrisy inherent to many rpgs. On the other end of the "violent" scale there's the cold and ruthless manipulator who will use violence whenever it brings him closer to his goals - also fun to play, since good characters rarely have an opportunity to engage in elaborate schemes.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-11, 08:00 AM
The same reason why zombies are so appealing.

Zombies are pretty much people with make up on marked as "this person is ok to kill" and allows the ultimate boy vs world fantasy

RPGs are much the same way, creatures are just full of things to kill and exploit in ways that can never be realized in the real world.

There are three things nobody ever feels bad about killing.

1. Zombies.
2. Robots.
3. Nazis.

Mix and match as you will, but they're all unsympathetic enemies labeled "kill me" out of the box.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-11, 09:25 AM
There are three things nobody ever feels bad about killing.

1. Zombies.
2. Robots.
3. Nazis.

Mix and match as you will, but they're all unsympathetic enemies labeled "kill me" out of the box.

You missed insectile-ichourous creatures (as evidenced by many cartoons).



On the note of the people who inflict real-life violence on other people due to roleplaying (et al), it is always worth pointing out far more violence in this fashion occurs in other forms of entertainment, especially sport. Football (in the UK) is notorious for it. Yet you never hear people railing against football as "corrupting the youth and making them violent (sic)". Go figure.

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 10:36 AM
The fact that he had a claw hammer is weird.Huh? There are people who don't have a claw hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claw_hammer)? It's got to be one of the most common tools around

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 01:49 PM
WHAT? Do you have any source to that story?
I'm not calling you a liar but that just sounds too insane to be true.
Googling D&D violence hammer lead me to: http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/23/3182896-dungeons-and-dragons-cited-as-motive-in-hammer-attacks... the link to the full article doesn't work though.

Edit: here's an archived one from the escapist: http://www.theescapist.com/archive-hammerattack02.htm

Knaight
2010-10-11, 05:01 PM
Having supermarkets, I don't hunt much (except for bargains), so I don't speak from personal experience - but at a guess I'd say patience and planning are far more important for hunting than aggression. And except for certain sports (like ... boxing?!), I think training and persistance are far more important for competition.

I was speaking from an evolutionary perspective. Competition has a lot less do do with modern, polite sports and a lot more to do with killing off the neighboring tribe, and patience and planning work much, much better when you have actual technology.

Grytorm
2010-10-11, 07:49 PM
It also depends on the type of hunting. My understanding is that the strategy humans used was to chase something until it died of heatstroke.

Thajocoth
2010-10-11, 07:50 PM
It also depends on the type of hunting. My understanding is that the strategy humans used was to chase something until it died of heatstroke.

I always heard we ran herds off of cliffs, then ate what we could and dragged what we could of what was left back.

And that bowling was invented at around this time to practice hitting smaller animals with rocks at a distance, as you can't always find a herd to run off a cliff.

Ormur
2010-10-11, 08:15 PM
For hunting I think our endurance, ability to work together and make traps ensured our place as the most effective predators. That way we could hunt animals much larger and faster than us. Meticulous planning and cooperation was at least as important as aggression, probably much more important. I'd guess aggressiveness was a lot more important in ensuring a place within the tribe's hierarchy than ever in providing food. That doesn't have to mean violence, just social aggressiveness, so I doubt we as a species have any special affinity for violence. Those that use it routinely are generally considered to lack the social skills that are perhaps the defining characteristic of our species.

I general I find such essentialist explanations boring and distasteful but I just wanted to offer an alternative to the ones that claim we're all hard-wired to kill, rape and plunder.

Skorj
2010-10-11, 09:40 PM
There are three things nobody ever feels bad about killing.

1. Zombies.
2. Robots.
3. Nazis.

Mix and match as you will, but they're all unsympathetic enemies labeled "kill me" out of the box.

That's hilarious. When City of Heroes come out, there were 5 factions of bad guys you'd fight at low level. Three were Zombies, Robots, and Nazis. I especially liked fighting the Nazis, and actually quit just after they re-fluffed the Nazis so they could sell the game in Europe. (Actual Nazi Werewoves for the win, and the rofl :smallbiggrin:).

houlio
2010-10-11, 10:05 PM
For hunting I think our endurance, ability to work together and make traps ensured our place as the most effective predators.

This, the archaeological record in fact shows that our ancestors were kinda pathetic scavengers up until homo erectus (where we have evidence for environmental manipulation with things like fire and buildings).

But on topic, I don't find violence necessarily tasteful even through the fantasy medium, it's all about being someone else and doing what they would do in any given situation.

Ormur
2010-10-11, 10:47 PM
There was a recent Norse horror flick with Nazi Zombies, twice as acceptable targets. I guess Nazi cyborgs would have all three elements.

Personally I find robots often very sympathetic but maybe I've just been watching or reading the wrong material.

Thajocoth
2010-10-11, 11:06 PM
There was a recent Norse horror flick with Nazi Zombies, twice as acceptable targets. I guess Nazi cyborgs would have all three elements.

Personally I find robots often very sympathetic but maybe I've just been watching or reading the wrong material.

In most fiction where robots are villains, it's mankind's fault. We attacked them first and were the ones to block out the sun in The Matrix, for example. In I, Robot, it was our limitations placed on them that came back at us. (In the movie version. In the book version, the rules were simply shown to be ultimately irrelevant and bypassable.)

I agree with you that robots who are aware enough are usually a sympathetic enemy.

...And despite that, the game I'm working on creating right now has a race of alien robots as enemies...

Though I suppose since I'M the one creating all their AI that makes sense. (New trailer coming soon!)

Grytorm
2010-10-11, 11:12 PM
Looked up persistence hunting on Wikipedia. Not the most reliable source, but it says that it was probably the earliest form of hunting we used before we developed projectiles.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-12, 12:17 AM
For anyone interested in a serious artistic exploration of this topic, I heartily recommend checking out Frank Miller's early graphic novel Ronin. Menitoned it recently on a thread about Wolverine, it especially applies there.

FelixG
2010-10-12, 01:12 AM
In most fiction where robots are villains, it's mankind's fault. We attacked them first and were the ones to block out the sun in The Matrix, for example. In I, Robot, it was our limitations placed on them that came back at us. (In the movie version. In the book version, the rules were simply shown to be ultimately irrelevant and bypassable.)

I agree with you that robots who are aware enough are usually a sympathetic enemy.

...And despite that, the game I'm working on creating right now has a race of alien robots as enemies...

Though I suppose since I'M the one creating all their AI that makes sense. (New trailer coming soon!)

...Skynet decided to smack us in the face with nukes just 'cause though :P

Thajocoth
2010-10-12, 01:15 AM
...Skynet decided to smack us in the face with nukes just 'cause though :P

I, unfortunately, wouldn't know...

What's Skynet from?

DragonOfUndeath
2010-10-12, 01:15 AM
...Skynet decided to smack us in the face with nukes just 'cause though :P

actually Skynet gained sentience and realized that humans were a threat to its existence no matter which side of the border they were on so decided to do exactly what its programming said: start a war with the threat and eradicate it

Mastikator
2010-10-12, 04:13 AM
The reason it's easy to kill in games while extremely traumatizing in real life is because NPCs aren't real people.
If you tried roleplaying your character as a well adjusted real person, and the mobs and NPCs as real, living beings, you'd end up never killing anything in most games.
But for that you must have the attitude that realism is desireable.

FelixG
2010-10-12, 04:59 AM
I, unfortunately, wouldn't know...

What's Skynet from?

Terminator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29

Thajocoth
2010-10-12, 05:22 AM
Terminator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29

I really should get around to watching the Terminator movies at some point...

Psyx
2010-10-12, 05:57 AM
What's Skynet from?

It's the satellite communications system used by the British military.

...and the hostile AI in Terminator.

...or BOTH!!!!! :smalleek:

J.Gellert
2010-10-12, 06:33 AM
It's the satellite communications system used by the British military.

...and the hostile AI in Terminator.

...or BOTH!!!!! :smalleek:

Dun dun DUNNN!!!

Interesting bit though, I wasn't aware it was inspired from a real thing.

Drakevarg
2010-10-12, 12:57 PM
Dun dun DUNNN!!!

Interesting bit though, I wasn't aware it was inspired from a real thing.

No, the British satellite came later.

It's like they WANT a robot apocalypse to happen.