It's the same when a gamer blog's about gaming and brings in real world views (like this post). Peoples views on all matter of subjects in broader social media can be even more extreme.
I've no great viewer/readership but I've noticed (mainly on twitter) that if I post/link or share content that's considered bloody, gory and violent, such as Domina or Battlefield 1, I'll see a shift, views may go up, likes may be given but followers will go down. It's an interesting subject all in itself this gaming of analytics and "social media" stuff. Maybe it's all just coincidence. Lies damn lies and statistics as the saying goes. But it's had me thinking all the same. The attitudes between gaming, ethics and social media are so grey. Pushed to the fore in my mind more so since I saw the first episode of pacifist Fortnite from Vlogbrothers John Green.
It's been interesting to see how his attitude to the way he played the game has changed. He won't shoot/kill pacifism has morphed into I'll shoot in self defence etc.
I'm a person with my own set of beliefs and values yet I do like to see all the angles weather I side with them or not. Perspective and choice.
So if a person see's my blogs, or follows me on twitter but then see's that I've liked something (gaming or non gaming) that they don't like then they will un-follow. Twitter is more reactive in that way. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it's more obvious to see than numbers on steam about games.
So many types of ethical questions, so many types of ethical answers....
Time to really waffle.
Pacifism.
As a dictionary explanation pacifism is described as the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
Sounds straight forward but Pacifism has so many nuanced variations it's mind boggling.
Pacifism in gaming mainly boils down in my view to how you apply your own levels of personal ethics. Not just in how you view a game but how/if you play it as well.
Choices. Choices. It's all about choices.
Sometimes the human stories can be the most memorable.— GOG.COM (@GOGcom) October 6, 2018
Firewatch (-75%) https://t.co/uSDb0aGuoG
Part of the 10 Years of GOG sale. pic.twitter.com/LrSGbSDtP5
Game stories and experiences that I find "striking" are more in the form of thought provoking rather than offencive. I don't think I've seen anything in a game that's "triggered me". There is a difference between liking/not liking a subject and finding a subject distasteful or shocking.
Gaming, I see it all as pixels. I like what I like and I ignore what doesn't interest me. Sometimes I'm surprised that I like a game about driving trucks, planting crops or that I start to dislike playing FPS games. Personal tastes change. I can get more role play-esque and run with "what would I do" in that situation of a game. If the situation of that role-play takes me down the dark jedi path I'll roll with it. But I won't get into any form of existential crisis about it. Pacifism can be done with realisation that pixels are pixels, for fun. When it's taken seriously and for "real", is when it makes me really roll my eye's. Blaming first person shooters for gun crimes etc. With so many road collisions and road death's caused by drivers, where are all the denunciations of driving games (including simulations). That's not to say that some games don't take the simulation route and require "players" to do insanely detailed accurate actions as if in real life operation, so in that way "teaching", but still! I've played many a space game and in no way feel qualified to be an astronaut; In a good or bad way.
In gaming (I think) applying real world pacifism is a stretch. Because I say again, it's all pixels, right...? No matter what the subject or theme.
I mean a hardcore environmentalist would have more of a problem with the carbon footprint of a PC running Euro Truck Sim 2; Rather than saying driving the truck in the game was a breach of their environmental ethics. Wouldn't they.....
----------------------------
I've looked at the games I play and there are distinct ways you can look at categorising them under the broader understanding of pacifism. I'll be taking it to mean "to do or allow violence/harm to be done". I've grouped games that give you the choice for violence as being true to pacifism.
Because choice does matter.
Some games are good in that regard. Battlefield 1 may be all about weapons and war but it can let me play as a medic. Doing only medical things that help and not harm is a choice. As irritating as it can be to not take any other action than to heal, revive and throw smoke grenades. Sure I have weapons, I dont' have a choice to not have any, but I don't have to use them.
Could throwing a smoke grenade be against pacifism. I can run around with a syringe and revive/heal my team without harming anyone. But is that a form of allowing others to do harm to others, is that an acceptable form of pacifism. I think I just went from the tall weeds to the quicksand of this thought process.
The non-combat, combat medic:
I'll not be doing that in BF1 again....
Other games are pacifist by their very nature. Mini Metro, Euro Truck Sim 2 and Farming simulator don't have any options whatsoever in game to hurt or harm your pixelself or any other pixel npc.
Just truck'in in ETS2:
There are games that allow you to directly and indirectly affect the lives of you and "your" pixel people. You make a choice to carry out actions that are implemented. Democracy 3, Banished, cities skylines may all be broad overview management/god games, but your choices cause harm as well as good. A change to a law in Democracy 3 can cause oppression. You chose to do that. Sending a citizen to mine in a quarry in Banished can cause their death from falling rocks(all to often). And pollution in Cities skylines can be as hazardous to citizens as if you were taking a bat to them yourself. But it's all pixels, there is a disconnect between reality and the world of pixels; it's supposed to be escapism.
That violent or gory games induce a person who plays them with some form of mental corruption is down to a persons mental condition/state and not the fault of the game. If your easily influenced then any influence will tip the balance for you. If there was no game they would be induced to do things by something else. Like reading about something in a book.
If it's not detectable by my wafflin I in no way believe that games or game content have anything to do with
Speaking of triggers. The classification of being triggered is a whole other thing that today has moved from trauma victims to everyday actions.
So instead of a legitimate physiological trauma victim being re-traumatised by something in daily life; A 'normal' person see's an egg in their salad and is "triggered". Choice is not a trauma.
I'm just waffling.
I post what I play because I play what I want and what I feel like sharing. I'm not a social attention seeking person, I'm a casual carebear. While I like watching a lot of youtubers as they game, usually as I game. I doubt I could do what they do. Not without the right motivation for the effort. That type of social interaction isn't me; And I wouldn't go out of my way to play a game, comment as I do so just for views. I'm not in it for the money or notoriety, big or small, it's all a hobby. That's not to say I wouldn't interact at all....
I've waffled enough........
----------------------------
A comedic take with : Jonathan Pie
No comments:
Post a Comment