I remember one FFA game I played, where some players hung around the starter zone portal, killing any players trying to enter the game, and also killing any players that respawned after being killed. To me, that is almost sociopathic behavior.
Originally posted by dave6660 This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
I see what you're getting at, however, I think you may be forgetting that most criticism like this aims more at those who get off on ruining others fun. Not exactly at the PVP crowd in general. The problem really boils down to people having trouble communicating peeves in a manner that doesn't sound as though they're lumping everyone together.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by dave6660 This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
Video games lol
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.
Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.
Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Originally posted by FinalFikus Originally posted by lizardbones Just like to point out that I'm not saying killing players, ganking lowbies, or even repeatedly killing another player to ruin their game play is the behavior of a sociopath or even sadistic behavior. It's more about why people become attached not only to their own avatars, but to the avatars of other people. I had my theory, but I think some other people have presented very plausible ideas. FinalFikus and the Role Playing thing seems very feasible. Someone who's role playing will have a role play reason for killing another player. It wouldn't be random or killing just for the sake of fun. Incomparable and the idea of becoming attached to your avatar the same way we become attached to other property. In the U.S. I would liken this to becoming attached to a car and even naming it. People would feel very angry is somebody just came along and trashed their car, even if insurance could readily replace it. It's the same kind of thing with people killing someone's avatar, especially if it's just random and repeated.
Because it isn't about destroying or killing an avatar. It's about you not being able to do a thing about it. That's the fuel. That's their motivation. That's why they are hardcore. Devs will protect the hardcore, which make it even lamer.
Developers will protect their players to the best of their ability, within the boundaries setup by the game they've created. If a game has a hardcore rule set, then yes, the developers will protect their hardcore players.
This doesn't mean that all developers will try to protect hardcore players in all the games. Blizzard doesn't protect hardcore players, they created a space where hardcore players can play. In so doing they've protected the majority of their players and provided game play for the hardcore players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by dave6660 This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
Video games lol
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.
Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.
Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
Right but you and your dad were on exactly an even playing field. For some of this behavior it would be if your dad gave you a pawn and he had his full set and played you every day that way.
Originally posted by dave6660 This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
Video games lol
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.
Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.
Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
Right but you and your dad were on exactly an even playing field. For some of this behavior it would be if your dad gave you a pawn and he had his full set and played you every day that way.
Yes but the end result is the same. I lost and never had a chance in hell of winning.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Of course killing other players in a video game designed for PvP is not sociopathic. The behavior becomes sociopathic when a player persistently seeks to inflict emotional pain on other players without feelings of guilt. And of course the anonymous nature on online games can provide a sort of paradise for such people with its mostly consequence free environment. A classic example of this would be the "your tears are so tasty!" attitude. Now if you truly enjoy someone else's pain, and feel no empathy for them or guilt for enjoying it, be careful, for that fits the definition of sociopathic behavior, albeit a mild one for you are not directly dangerous to them.
Reading this thread only one guild comes to mind HOGG. If I see HOGG on the server I've picked I will promptly switch to a different server because I know what will eventually happen. I enjoy PVE and PVP in all settings. However, I do not think HOGG is filled with Sociopaths or Sadists. I think we address a game from two different vantage points. I could easily be considered a loser in real life as far as my economic situation and that could be affecting the way I play these types of games. Maybe these HOGG guys can afford to look at these games from a perspective I can not yet see.
Originally posted by dave6660 This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
Video games lol
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.
Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.
Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
Right but you and your dad were on exactly an even playing field. For some of this behavior it would be if your dad gave you a pawn and he had his full set and played you every day that way.
Yes but the end result is the same. I lost and never had a chance in hell of winning.
Exactly.
I couldn't beat my dad in chess convincingly until my first year of college. When I was much younger I would rush home from school and read up on different openings so I could be prepared for when he got home from work. In total, I must of taken about a billion losses.
Originally posted by dave6660 Originally posted by MuntzOriginally posted by dave6660Originally posted by General-ZodOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by dave6660This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games. Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.Video games lolWhen I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.Right but you and your dad were on exactly an even playing field. For some of this behavior it would be if your dad gave you a pawn and he had his full set and played you every day that way. Yes but the end result is the same. I lost and never had a chance in hell of winning.
What was the purpose of doing that? Was your dad getting enjoyment out of beating you or was he trying to teach you chess?
If he was just having fun beating a beginner at chess, then he was being sadistic. If he was teaching you how to play chess, then he wasn't being sadistic because learning at chess just involves losing a lot to better players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just because people choose to kill for no reason IN GAME, doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. It never has, and it never will.
So sure, killing players in game doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you but there are people who have things wrong with them who kill players in game.
You're both saying the exact same thing. Actually most here are, however this is a pack of some seriously polarized people.
One side sees the opposing view as "People who kill other players are never maladjusted" and the other side reads the opposing view as "People who kill other players are maladjusted."
Side A: Admit that most people doing it aren't screwed up!
Side B: Admit that some people do it because they are screwed up!
Uh... ok?
That's because I'm not disagreeing with him merely adding additonal comment.
But I can understand the confusion as some people think that any remark on these forums is just invitation to a virtual fight.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I am wierd like that, we have this sandfilled owl as a door post. I just feel sad when his face is fronted towards the door, seeing nothing. I often turn it around so it's eye's view part hallway, part bedroom.
Similar in videogames especialy a MMORPG I want to immerse myself into that virtual world. MMORPG "used" to provide me with this, there for that gameworld become's "reall" game-wise. My toon becomes me, the other players are the same.
This is different when I play a themepark game as I am less attached to my ingame character because most of what I can do is combat related. While I do care for my character I do care less for those themepark worlds. Nothing really effects the world. I could kill you or be killed in PVP and "BAM" I re-spawn with just minor penalties, easy to fix. Same feeling I have when playing a multiplayer online FPS game
In a sandbox game I rather be that "friend" to help either you or re-build society in some form and I just don't feel like killing you because of it. Because I would feel more attached.
Overall I still do not feel that killing other players is sociapathic behaviour. I do enjoy it in FPS multiplayer games and those games are build around doing just that.
Just because people choose to kill for no reason IN GAME, doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. It never has, and it never will.
So sure, killing players in game doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you but there are people who have things wrong with them who kill players in game.
You're both saying the exact same thing. Actually most here are, however this is a pack of some seriously polarized people.
One side sees the opposing view as "People who kill other players are never maladjusted" and the other side reads the opposing view as "People who kill other players are maladjusted."
Side A: Admit that most people doing it aren't screwed up!
Side B: Admit that some people do it because they are screwed up!
Uh... ok?
That's because I'm not disagreeing with him merely adding additonal comment.
But I can understand the confusion as some people think that any remark on these forums is just invitation to a virtual fight.
Agreed. The juxtoposition of your two posts seemed the best example of what's going on in the thread, albeit a bit disingenuous on my part considering the reply really wasn't in disagreement.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by dave6660 This debate also brings up another question in my mind. If you are the sensitive type (being killed by another player bothers you enough to shout "sociopath") then why are you putting yourself in a situation where this can happen?
I don't think this really happens all that much. I think the scenario is actually a forum thing, not an in-game thing. The people who aren't interested in that type of game play aren't likely to play those types of games.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
Video games lol
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.
Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.
Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
It depends.... If he played to his full skill and just trounced you immediately, he was behaving in a sociopathic way.
If he played just a little bit better than you (purposefully lowering his skill) so that you could see the way to best him and actually learn, than this was healthy.
I am a Ph.D. mathematician. If I played a math trivia game with my kids and played to my full ability, all I am being is a sadistic jerk as they have no hope of besting me and will not have any hope for 15+ years if they study steadily. Moreover, I am not actually helping them learn. If I behaved in such a way that they learned bit by bit, and let them win occasionally so that they have some confidence, then I am actually helping them learn.
I don't think this whole concept of raising kids has much to do with the MMO community, however. Basically, due to the anonymity of the internet, people often do behave in sociopathic ways in games. They are only trying to make other people feel bad, for no real benefit to themselves other than the pleasure of making other people feel bad.
Good op. I would never ever kill a robot I'm attached to. Nor would do such thing as "toturing" even any other lifeless artifical thing. For me it is sociopathic. Same in games ... even when playing on pvp servers few times in past ... if some "enemy" player was in trouble because of some pve mob, I would help him, not jump at his troath. Know many that would find joy exactly in that and I never understood it. Even after talking for awhile about this argument. But few times I had no problem to chase and "kill" (possibly with my higher alt in that area :-)) the one that killed FIRST me while I was in trouble from pve content.
Do you think that people who play SC2 are all sociopaths too? This argument makes no sense at all. PvP is a competitive mode of gameplay, you are supposed to kill the enemies, that is completely natural. The only odd thing is that someone would have a problem with this.
To the OP, I don't think you are comparing to like things. Destroying a pet robot and defeating (I say defeating not killing unless the game has permadeath) a person's game avatar are not the same thing.
I think the behavior that people do not enjoy in an open world PvP game is when high level players defeat low level players simply for the sake of ruining the other players fun because they can.
i dont think right off the back it should be the thought or the person being a psychopath its ok to kill your enemy ,but i i dont think or like when people are on your team are friends and they turn around and kill you just for the point
More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not?
This article from the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515400/The-rise-machines-It-okay-torture-robot.html) talks about an experiment where people were given robotic pets, and once they became attached to them were asked to torture or kill the robots. Most of the people in the experiment would not do it. Now, these are robots. They don't feel pain and they aren't alive. Of course, the Daily Mail tries to sensationalize this and make it out like robots will kill us, or we'll cede power to cute robots or something. But that's not the point.
Here's what I think.
The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels.
Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply.
Or not. :-)
What do you think?
**
One assumption we need to make here is that the people we're discussing are not sadists or sociopaths. They are all perfectly normal people who's behavior is only really different inside video games.
First of all I would note that the Daily Mail is toilet paper. In fact that description is offensive to toilet paper. I would not trust their reporting on any subject.
Secondly people are very aware these days of psychological experiments; particularly infamous ones like the Milgram experiment; and will make quite a conscious decision not to repeat those results.
Thirdly, if the report is correct the experiment is so fundamentally flawed in its conception as to be meaningless.
Originally posted by LittleBoot First of all I would note that the Daily Mail is toilet paper. In fact that description is offensive to toilet paper. I would not trust their reporting on any subject. Secondly people are very aware these days of psychological experiments; particularly infamous ones like the Milgram experiment; and will make quite a conscious decision not to repeat those results. Thirdly, if the report is correct the experiment is so fundamentally flawed in its conception as to be meaningless.
Yes, the Daily Mail is pretty much garbage in regards to news. It does offer entertainment value, and it's possible if you look past their sensationalism that the news they link to is worthwhile though.
Not sure what you're getting at with points 2 and 3. The experiment wasn't about authority, it was about emotional attachment to inanimate objects. It's interesting because people have no issues with throwing out vacuum cleaners, yet they won't throw out or 'kill' cute machines.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here.
Video games lol
I see what you're getting at, however, I think you may be forgetting that most criticism like this aims more at those who get off on ruining others fun. Not exactly at the PVP crowd in general. The problem really boils down to people having trouble communicating peeves in a manner that doesn't sound as though they're lumping everyone together.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time.
Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess.
Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Developers will protect their players to the best of their ability, within the boundaries setup by the game they've created. If a game has a hardcore rule set, then yes, the developers will protect their hardcore players.
This doesn't mean that all developers will try to protect hardcore players in all the games. Blizzard doesn't protect hardcore players, they created a space where hardcore players can play. In so doing they've protected the majority of their players and provided game play for the hardcore players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Right but you and your dad were on exactly an even playing field. For some of this behavior it would be if your dad gave you a pawn and he had his full set and played you every day that way.
Yes but the end result is the same. I lost and never had a chance in hell of winning.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Sociopath and Sadistic?
Reading this thread only one guild comes to mind HOGG. If I see HOGG on the server I've picked I will promptly switch to a different server because I know what will eventually happen. I enjoy PVE and PVP in all settings. However, I do not think HOGG is filled with Sociopaths or Sadists. I think we address a game from two different vantage points. I could easily be considered a loser in real life as far as my economic situation and that could be affecting the way I play these types of games. Maybe these HOGG guys can afford to look at these games from a perspective I can not yet see.
Exactly.
I couldn't beat my dad in chess convincingly until my first year of college. When I was much younger I would rush home from school and read up on different openings so I could be prepared for when he got home from work. In total, I must of taken about a billion losses.
Reading this thread made me wonder if some of the people making these ridiculous claims realize it is a "video game" we're talking about here. Video games lol
When I was kid, I used to play chess with my dad almost every day. And he would beat me every day for quite some time. Was he (a) a sociopath, or (b) better than me at chess. Yeah, I think it would help if some players got out of house more and gained a little prospective.
Right but you and your dad were on exactly an even playing field. For some of this behavior it would be if your dad gave you a pawn and he had his full set and played you every day that way.
Yes but the end result is the same. I lost and never had a chance in hell of winning.
What was the purpose of doing that? Was your dad getting enjoyment out of beating you or was he trying to teach you chess?
If he was just having fun beating a beginner at chess, then he was being sadistic. If he was teaching you how to play chess, then he wasn't being sadistic because learning at chess just involves losing a lot to better players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That's because I'm not disagreeing with him merely adding additonal comment.
But I can understand the confusion as some people think that any remark on these forums is just invitation to a virtual fight.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Personaly:
I am wierd like that, we have this sandfilled owl as a door post. I just feel sad when his face is fronted towards the door, seeing nothing. I often turn it around so it's eye's view part hallway, part bedroom.
Similar in videogames especialy a MMORPG I want to immerse myself into that virtual world. MMORPG "used" to provide me with this, there for that gameworld become's "reall" game-wise. My toon becomes me, the other players are the same.
This is different when I play a themepark game as I am less attached to my ingame character because most of what I can do is combat related. While I do care for my character I do care less for those themepark worlds. Nothing really effects the world. I could kill you or be killed in PVP and "BAM" I re-spawn with just minor penalties, easy to fix. Same feeling I have when playing a multiplayer online FPS game
In a sandbox game I rather be that "friend" to help either you or re-build society in some form and I just don't feel like killing you because of it. Because I would feel more attached.
Overall I still do not feel that killing other players is sociapathic behaviour. I do enjoy it in FPS multiplayer games and those games are build around doing just that.
Agreed. The juxtoposition of your two posts seemed the best example of what's going on in the thread, albeit a bit disingenuous on my part considering the reply really wasn't in disagreement.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It depends.... If he played to his full skill and just trounced you immediately, he was behaving in a sociopathic way.
If he played just a little bit better than you (purposefully lowering his skill) so that you could see the way to best him and actually learn, than this was healthy.
I am a Ph.D. mathematician. If I played a math trivia game with my kids and played to my full ability, all I am being is a sadistic jerk as they have no hope of besting me and will not have any hope for 15+ years if they study steadily. Moreover, I am not actually helping them learn. If I behaved in such a way that they learned bit by bit, and let them win occasionally so that they have some confidence, then I am actually helping them learn.
I don't think this whole concept of raising kids has much to do with the MMO community, however. Basically, due to the anonymity of the internet, people often do behave in sociopathic ways in games. They are only trying to make other people feel bad, for no real benefit to themselves other than the pleasure of making other people feel bad.
Do you think that people who play SC2 are all sociopaths too? This argument makes no sense at all. PvP is a competitive mode of gameplay, you are supposed to kill the enemies, that is completely natural. The only odd thing is that someone would have a problem with this.
To the OP, I don't think you are comparing to like things. Destroying a pet robot and defeating (I say defeating not killing unless the game has permadeath) a person's game avatar are not the same thing.
I think the behavior that people do not enjoy in an open world PvP game is when high level players defeat low level players simply for the sake of ruining the other players fun because they can.
new to site
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiTrsBZd7cE
My wild guess is this is where they satisfy their craving for death without going to jail. And those unfortunate to do so end up there.
Or maybe they just enjoy the competition among other players from around the world...
First of all I would note that the Daily Mail is toilet paper. In fact that description is offensive to toilet paper. I would not trust their reporting on any subject.
Secondly people are very aware these days of psychological experiments; particularly infamous ones like the Milgram experiment; and will make quite a conscious decision not to repeat those results.
Thirdly, if the report is correct the experiment is so fundamentally flawed in its conception as to be meaningless.
Yes, the Daily Mail is pretty much garbage in regards to news. It does offer entertainment value, and it's possible if you look past their sensationalism that the news they link to is worthwhile though.
Not sure what you're getting at with points 2 and 3. The experiment wasn't about authority, it was about emotional attachment to inanimate objects. It's interesting because people have no issues with throwing out vacuum cleaners, yet they won't throw out or 'kill' cute machines.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.