Wait a second, I never said that the game is exclusively about killing other players???
I don’t know why you would think your statement should be read any other way. Its not like you even mentioned options such as industry, mining, socializing with corp mates, clearing systems of dangerous NPCs, running structures, playing markets or any of the dozens of other options you have.
We can only go by what you write and what you don’t write. You said this game was one of the ones that is “about killing other players”. You seem to be asking for a lot of special interpetation if you want to claim its about more than just that.
Plus there are many kinds of “other players”. There are those who are threatening you, those who are not, those minding their own business, those stealing from you, those in rival corporations, friendly players, new players, old players…but you made no distinction. Its just “kill other players”. Okay. But that’s your choice and I don’t think you should blame game designers for that.
Because I think that any reasonable person doesn’t need to be explained that a game like this has more than one activity in it.
That said, conquest is obviously EVE’s central activity driver, and a good argument can be made that it’s the game’s core focus. I’m not wrong when I say that the game is about killing other players. It’s a game about killing other players in which you can perform other activities if you want to. So at this point, you’re just arguing about the meaning of the word “about” and nothing else.
Almost every single item produced by industry in the game is some kind of implement of violence. It’s not like we have the option of building furniture for our space houses. And killing NPCs is still violence. Saying that it’s okay to fire your gun at some things but not others is a bit hypocritical.
I think that a good psychologist would ask me if the entities I’m shooting are on my team or not, and would make a judgement based on that, instead of whether or not I’m shooting anything at all.
“Players” just became “things”.
I have no idea what your opinion there is based on.
I think a good psychologist would ask a lot of questions about a lot of things. I think he or she would be far less interested in WHO you shoot (unlike a politician or military leader) and much more interested in your personal reasons, interest, and pleasure derived from shooting people in a video game. He or she would also be very interested in your frequency and dedication to achieving that goal. And as much or more than that, how much if at all, you attempt to get that person to express grief over what you have done.
That said, I feel like we are talking more about psychaiatrists now than psychologists.
Yet if I said farming was about the pleasure of growing vegetables I have no doubt you would waste no time chastizing me for not saying it was also about having food to eat for survival.
You are free to claim you centralized one aspect of this game over the others for whatever reasons you want. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions about it. I have drawn mine and I think you are wasting time, as well as digging a hole, trying to steer me away from a conclusion I have not even clearly defined.
That’s the best point of evidence that you have offered for what you said. I will add to that that non-violent forms of game play are less than compelling. This game is centered on violence and destruction, and we are all being steered toward it.
That’s why the choice of violence in this game is not very conclusive.
I suppose I could say hitting a ball with a baseball bat is too. But that seems unlikely to be indicative of a sociological issue. Paint a face on the ball though, and that changes a bit. Paint a certain person’s face and it changes more.
NPCs are only pretend people. Also they don’t offer quite as compelling game rivalry as a human player. Its hard to tell if someone chose to fight humans over NPCs because they want to grief people or they wanted more compelling game play. This point is also inconclusive.
“Things” again. And NPC is little more than a glorified paper target. But when a person is flying that target its different. And in most games it would be much like a competing in a game of one on one basketball. And in this game sometimes it is. However in this game you also might be on the court alone, and you see some guy in a suit walking by. So you bean him in the head with the ball, knocking him out, grab the ball, dribble around him, then go make a lay up and say the score is one to zero.
Well, that situation is definitely full of red flags but its common in this game. However the red flags pile up when the guy in the suit wakes up and you start digging into him, calling him a loser and telling him how he needs to learn to play basketball. And the longer someone keeps doing that the red flags eventually reach a level of true evidence.
In fact they also pile up if you keep doing for a long time completely quietly or in a dismissive way when the guy wakes up and maybe complains.
In short its the long term pattern of behavior and lack of empathy are where the hardest evidence of being a sociopathic bully lies. In real life, it can be proven faster.
this is a high effort post, I commend you for taking the time to post individual card images
That is a ridiculous straw man argument, and you know it.
And so is this.
If you play a game of chess, you don’t have to capture the opponent’s pieces. I know, some people think it’s all about PvP, but you can actually just choose to move your pieces around without engaging in violence. Most professional psychologists would agree that only real-life sociopaths and psychopaths are interested in actually ‘winning’ the game. It just makes me SICK to think of how many griefers play chess.
When I was a child, I remember shooting other kids with my Super Soakers and Nerf guns.
Do I need to get diagnosed?
Can I still go to Heaven?
This one time I played Monopoly with this guy, he was SOOOO toxic, he built hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place, and then when I landed there he tried to charge me RENT. Like wtf. He said I had to pay, but I told him NO WAY JOSE. Don’t tell me how to play my game. These bullies think they can do whatever they want, but just ignore them.
No. I don’t think you know what a straw man is. I was just using an analogy to explore the degrees of violence.
I would simply be remiss if I failed to point out how you went from “players” to “things”. Thats not a strawman. Its a red flag.
Neither was my basketball analogy a straw man. That’s just essentially what’s going on.
But I will say again, its the desire to extract grief that is the main proof of simply being a bully. And that is most easily proven in chats rather than ganks.
How is consciously downloading and installing a game, making a user account, logging in, and playing it, the same thing as walking past a basketball court with absolutely no intention to play basketball?
…you are either invited to play directly or did the inviting. You are looking your opponent straight in the eyes. Nobody ever looks at you dumbfounded asking “Why did you kill my queen? She was just trying to get to A4!”
Go now, as an adult, and shoot some nerf darts at people you don’t even know.
EVE is a PvP game. If you play the game, you consent to PvP.
I routinely do that when I go paintballing.
You just changed nerf to paintball and park to some other place.
My meaning of people you don’t know is perfect stranger, not some guy you didn’t talk to but saw in the staging area.
Calm down Gnosis miner.
It’s the same thing.
Nope, a stranger is a stranger. Most of the time you can’t even see their face because they;'re wearing a mask.
That should be stated in the sign up process. But since its not, there is confusion, and therefore sometimes no consent.
I have literally advocated for pop ups to eliminate any and all confusion. Of course you can turn them off. Do you agree that measures should be taken to ensure that players are fully aware of your contention?
Everybody knows that EVE is a PvP game. You know. Stop crying.