Is it OK to Torture an NPC

[Shadow Wolf]

Clearly it’s far more then that, as people actually become addicted to those games.

There is literally nothing more to it than data.

But they are “really” playing the game, and that in itself has consequences. And if it so obviously fake, they wouldn’t get so emotionally wrapped up in it.

Playing a game doesn't make it real and the actions performed in game do nit create real world consequences.

The games themselves are doing everything possible to themselves “more then that”. To make playing them look and feel as real as possible. Including torturing innocent civilians and even sexual assault.

It's fake. Killing a digital image doesn't translate to being ok with doing real violence to people. Pushing buttons in the comfort of your home is nothing. In a video game when a hostile group approaches you it can be fun. There's no real risks. There's no real danger. Kill them all and if innocent bystanders get killed they shouldn't have been there.
A hostile group approaches you in real life? No amount of video games will prepare you for real violence because it is nothing like in video games where you sit on your rear and push buttons.

 

[Father Heathen]

Clearly it’s far more then that, as people actually become addicted to those games.

But they are “really” playing the game, and that in itself has consequences. And if it so obviously fake, they wouldn’t get so emotionally wrapped up in it.

The games themselves are doing everything possible to themselves “more then that”. To make playing them look and feel as real as possible. Including torturing innocent civilians and even sexual assault.

Sexual assault? Source?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Those two statements don't seem to match.

Nor should it.

Trevor is the torturer with a comedic ride with his victim to the airport, while I in Red Dead Redemption am basically out hunting game in a fictional wild west environment with my emphasis on quick one shot kills with my prey.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nor should it.

Trevor is the torturer with a comedic ride with his victim to the airport, while I in Red Dead Redemption am basically out hunting game in a fictional wild west environment with my emphasis on quick one shot kills with my prey.

What's the difference between Trevor doing the torture and you having your character do it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Fable games make a good point of how silly this is.
Kill everyone in town, become evil and people hate you amd fear you and run from you. In 3 after that then just give a lot if money to the kingdom, become good amd people love you. That is until you become Mr Hyde again amd wipe out tye same village for the 20th time and the cycle continues with the fake digital data people entirely unaware and only able to respond to certain variables on the game. Especially in this where all you do is give more money and all that murder and theft is forgotten.

 

[Ella S.]

Does it desensitize us to real violence? Does it stoke real aggression?

These are questions that I've had for awhile, but I've found conflicting data any time I try to research it. I do think it can make someone more familiar with (and therefore more comfortable with) the idea of torture, at least. It might not lead to them torturing someone in reality, but it might make them less opposed to torture ideologically, so they might support their own government using it for interrogation more, for instance. It demystifies and partially defangs the act.

By rewarding aggression, and by giving people an avenue to vent their aggression through a violent power fantasy, it does seem like this would lead to increased aggression in general and also make people more familiar with the idea of venting that aggression through violence. Maybe, for most people, video game violence is compartmentalized in an entirely separate category and they never become immersed enough in a game that the violence feels real enough to become associated with real acts of violence. I doubt that's true for everyone.

I think most people recognize this to some degree, but they will go on to say that video games aren't causing violence. It's just that some people are predisposed to violence, and exposing them to violent media is the problem. They should take more personal responsibility for their actions.

But, here's the thing, right? Video games are known to lead to compulsive behavior, similar to gambling or internet addiction. And most people start playing video games as children. Can we really blame someone who doesn't know of their predisposition for aggression who becomes addicted to these games when they're young? I'm not sure.

In my experience, "gamer" communities are filled to the brim with toxic aggression, especially towards women. Is that really a surprise, though? Don't these games reward aggression and reduce its negative consequences?

Maybe some activities damage our character in ways that have more subtle, indirect consequences like this. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe the video game industry and its addicts profit off of sweeping the potential problems under the rug, and that's why it's so hard to find consistent findings on the topic. Maybe I just haven't looked in the right place and my suspicion, while warranted, is ultimately misplaced.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By rewarding aggression, and by giving people an avenue to vent their aggression through a violent power fantasy, it does seem like this would lead to increased aggression in general and also make people more familiar with the idea of venting that aggression through violence. Maybe, for most people, video game violence is compartmentalized in an entirely separate category and they never become immersed enough in a game that the violence feels real enough to become associated with real acts of violence. I doubt that's true for everyone.

Nothing is rewarded. You beat a game like a ton of other people. Big whoop.
But sometimes it's just to see a different ending, making it more akin to an interactive cinema at that point (as video gaming is generally a story telling medium).

I think most people recognize this to some degree, but they will go on to say that video games aren't causing violence. It's just that some people are predisposed to violence, and exposing them to violent media is the problem. They should take more personal responsibility for their actions.

They aren't causing violence. Lots of countries have lots of them but America is an outlier with tye violence. Ergo it isn't the video games or Canada, Japan and Sweden we could expect to have similar or even worse violence (for those who play more video games). At the end of the day what we have little of are studies comparing multiple countries and comparing violent rates to video game consumption.

Video games are known to lead to compulsive behavior, similar to gambling or internet addiction.

Evidence?

In my experience, "gamer" communities are filled to the brim with toxic aggression, especially towards women. Is that really a surprise, though? Don't these games reward aggression and reduce its negative consequences?

I see this more revolving in the reality that video games have largely revolvee around around and for the longest time aimed exclusively towards males. Girls liked them too, but that wasn't to be, so much so I remember a video game magazine about 20 years ago making a misogynist comment about if you see a girl at a video game convention she's obviously only there for her boyfriend.

Maybe the video game industry and its addicts profit off of sweeping the potential problems under the rug, and that's why it's so hard to find consistent findings on the topic. Maybe I just haven't looked in the right place and my suspicion, while warranted, is ultimately misplaced.

It seems the issue is how you see gamers as "addicts."
Why there is conflicting evidence is the bar for what counts as violence is incredibly low in most of those studies (like choosing to feed a spicy snack to someone who is believed to has stomach issues and is taunting you) and the lab results just aren't being seen in the real world. There's also newer studies that reproduced the aggressive responses from participants by having them playing nonviolent but very difficult games while entirely failing to get the responses from people who played a violent but considerable easier game.
If you want an example of how the video game industry does misbehave a good place to start is looking up stuff on EA and loot boxes. They're so insidious and manipulative they are banned around Europe. They are so foul that after you pay real money for an in game item the game will put you against weaker players who lack such equipment so you can be given a significant advantage and feel your purchase was worth it.

 

[Ella S.]

Nothing is rewarded. You beat a game like a ton of other people. Big whoop.
But sometimes it's just to see a different ending, making it more akin to an interactive cinema at that point (as video gaming is generally a story telling medium).

You don't think video games reward and reinforce aggression? Do you know how much thought video game designers put into making their gun firing sound snappy and feel responsive? The fun of those sorts of games is a direct consequence of rewarding aggression through scores, sound design, feedback, etc.

I think your entire reply is disingenuous.

 

[libre]

There is a big difference between simulating the appearance of people and simulating people.

Killing an NPC has less moral considerations that tearing up a drawing of a person.

I can imagine torture simulators being incredibly bad for the human psyche though.

 

[Stevicus]

The Fable games make a good point of how silly this is.
Kill everyone in town, become evil and people hate you amd fear you and run from you. In 3 after that then just give a lot if money to the kingdom, become good amd people love you. That is until you become Mr Hyde again amd wipe out tye same village for the 20th time and the cycle continues with the fake digital data people entirely unaware and only able to respond to certain variables on the game. Especially in this where all you do is give more money and all that murder and theft is forgotten.

Well, I suppose that's one aspect where video games reflect real life. If you bribe enough people, all your crimes can be forgotten and forgiven.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't think video games reward and reinforce aggression?

No, they don't.

Do you know how much thought video game designers put into making their gun firing sound snappy and feel responsive?

And yet it feels nothing like firing a real gun. I've never pointed one at a person, but I imagine that too is nothing like pushing a button on a controller.

The fun of those sorts of games is a direct consequence of rewarding aggression through scores, sound design, feedback, etc.

Have you even ever played these games? I tried getting into Call of Duty to play with my nephews. Those games are so unrealistic that you can take some bullets and keep going like nothing happened.

I think your entire reply is disingenuous.

If you think so. But I've done some studying of the topic and had a teacher who did some of the research herself.

 

[Glaurung]

I 'unno. Back when I was a WoWer, I used to hit on one of the NPCs endlessly(he always rejected my advances). I don't see why not.

I never bothered with NPCs. I would hunt down Alliance players and slay them wherever I found them. They picked the wrong faction, so I was justified in everything I did to them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's the difference between Trevor doing the torture and you having your character do it?

Well here's Trevor taking his torture victim to the airport.....

Here's Red Dead with hunting rabbits...

 

[Stevicus]

I suppose another aspect of this question may not necessarily involve "NPCs," but AI-generated deep fakes of real people. It would still be just ones and zeros, but it would still seem different than an NPC.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

If you don't hafta do it to complete a goal and don't want to, then don't do it if it bothers you. If a game requires actions that bother you, don't buy or play it. It's really that simple.

But consider that most games, even the most innocent games have you murdering hordes of whatever to get to your goal, be it mindless goombas, or people trying to gun you down. Does that mean you're a heartless serial killer or animal murderer? Of course not! That's just as silly as claiming that anyone who watches horror films is a violent psychopath.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well here's Trevor taking his torture victim to the airport.....

Here's Red Dead with hunting rabbits...

It's all 1s and 0s in the end. What's the difference? Yes, one is made to look like people and the other like rabbits, but both are made in computers, created by art programs, and coded to just do certain things (unlike real living beings who brain chemistry and structures can change and cause different sets if behaviors and responses). If our arms get ripped off we bleed and experience pain. An animated graphic has to have the blood, bones and everything else added and experiences nothing but instead can only do what it's programed to do. There is no life, no agency, no conscious awareness. It's just 1s and 0s.