AWKWARD ZOMBIE

The problem isn't whether your in-game actions are morally justified, the problem is that the message seems to be that you solve your problems with violence. The popularity of violence as a theme in media throughout the ages could arguably be explained as war-propaganda.

A lot of conflicts can not be solved with words though. Someone who is hellbent on killing a whole bunch of people will not change their mind all of a sudden just because you tell them they shouldn't.

I understand the premice behind you just walking into any building and automatically shooting everyone up, but I garuntee it's more because of the fact that it's probably the 5th or 6th building they've walked into where everyone's automatically started kiling you. Every single game I play I always try and go the route of "always self defense" but after the Nth time that you've done just that to be met with bullets, you begin to sense a pattern. In my experience playing violent video games, it's always been that, and never that the violence has been so ingrained that I never actually think that there's a peaceful alternative.

It's why I love games like Fallout, and Skyrim...

...there actually ARE those peaceful alternatives so long as you don't just walk in and shoot everyone.

Yes, but even those games have situations where no matter what you say, it will always result in you having to fight them, showing you that sometimes there is no other solution.

Oh I know. What I'm saying is that most sane people will realize that a video game condones violence simply because it's the mechanism with which the actual game operates. When I have to shoot up a vault full of people, I don't think "This must mean I have to solve ALL of my problems with violence" I think "This vault must have a story line that can only be progressed by killing people."

And as far as walking into a situation guns blazing, that's more because I realize that the people I'm dealing with need to be shot in the face.

Like if I've been in cahoots with the NCR the whole time, those Legionaries probably aren't going to entertain the idea of sitting down to a cup of tea.

I swear nine times outta 10 violence is the solution in Fallout 3 or skyrim. New Vegas was better in that regard, you could make it through the entire game without laying a hand on anyone.

And there are a bunch of video games out there that don't have violence at all. You're limiting yourself if you only play manshooting games.

Aye. If I have the possibility, I try avoiding killing people, by using sleep darts or sneaking or whatever mechanics to non-lethaly solve the mission the game gives you. Unfortunately I suck at stealth so oftentimes I still have to kill them.

On the off-topic of RPGs where you don't have to kill people, Vampires The Masquerade Bloodlines is pretty great in that regard (up to a certain point).

Of course, but that's something else entirely than thinking of violence as the go-to method.

I'm with TheStranger on children being depraved little bastards - at least in the absence of parental/guardian/role model influence and/or education.

Left to their own devices children exhibit just how depraved and monstrous human beings can be without the teaching of morality, ethics, history, etc. - things which are not built into our DNA*.

I'm pretty tired of video games/movies/the internet being blamed for children/individuals committing acts of violence when really it's just bad parenting - the parent/guardian of the child/individual concerned ultimately being responsible for whatever that child/individual was exposed to - and whether or not that child/individual is armed with the capacity to discern between fantasy and reality - i.e. it's okay to shoot a guy in the back of the head in a fantasy video game enivronment - but it's a big no-no in everyday life.

But I guess - generally speaking - judging from the amount of times video games get blamed for this kinda thing - parents and guardians don't want to accept the blame for the misdemeanors of their children - which I guess means they never really understood the fundamental responsibilities of being a parent/guardian in the first place.


*though a psychological predisposition toward violence or compassion arguably is built into our DNA (per survival of the fittest - violence generally wins out over compassion - sadly - except perhaps in the instance of raising one's offspring (so complicated)).

This reminds me of a comic art spiegelman did

I hope it's okay to talk about in this thread, because I disagree with this.

Though things in life are always situational I know some people who feel like they're always shut in a "friendzone" but they don't want to get in the girl/guy's pants, they really feel like they'd be a good match for them. I don't agree with people feeling this way and then turning on their friend and being a jerk to them. However, I feel like if we always stereotype people who even mention the word "friendzone" and belittle them, then they'll feel like their friend is in the wrong and is a big jerk. Plus, they won't wanna listen to reason because they felt insulted.

Plus, that's kinda sexist to think just narrow "friendzoning" to guys' excuses. I do mainly see things about guys using this term, but I'm sure girls use it too. Using the term just because someone refused sex isn't necessarily true either. Maybe people just have a loss for better words, and I know some people that really feel like they're forever restricted from crossing the line from friendship to relationship.

I dunno, I just wanted to say this. I'll stop if it's not allowed, within reason. (I wasn't sure why we couldn't discuss it anyway other than it being a text screen cap thread.)

Same here. I've always felt it to be a lot more complicated than just the jerks who try to play nice to trick sex out of a girl. There are instances where a guy has tried to interact with a girl with the intention of developing a relationship, but for some reason the girl has it in her mind that he's not byfriend material. I've also seen it done where the roles have been reversed. Hell, being a guy, I've done this for a number of reasons, none of which involve sex.

Besides, I thoroughly dislike the idea that sex is the only thing that seperates it. No matter who I ask, and how many times I ask, it comes down to sex being the key factor in the "friendzone", yet when I look into what exactly constitutes a "relationship" vs a "friendship", it's always that sex is important, but not the most important factor. That's another reason I dislike it when people automatically jump on the term like a wild dog...all it tells me is that the sex IS what makes the relationship to them, depite that not being the case when pressed further. So then it is just about sex, and society is wrong, or it's more abotu sex, and it makes absolutely no sense to get so worked up about the idea of the "friendzone".

I maintain that the reason the friendzone exists is due to miscommunication in the interests of both people that is "resolved" (rather "brought into the open for both to see it's happening") only when both people are able to be frank about their feelings. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to not be attracted to someone who is attracted to them, and they should not be obligated to like that person just because that person likes them in return.

But it's stupid to discount the other side. We've all had unrequited crushes, and it sucks to be on that side of things, not because the person is a jerk for not seeing the relationship that way/wanting your naughty bits, but because your feelings aren't the same as the other person. It's the same as considering yourself a friend to someone and them telling you that you're just acquaintances and not really even friends. It can feel dismissive or even a bit alienating to go through something like that. On the other side of things, the people who "initiate the friendzone" (though it's really just bringing up the point that they're not interested in that way), also often have feelings about it. If it's a long time friend, there can be a bit of regret for not feeling the same way (not that they should feel it, but hell, everyone has these twinges against their better judgement), worry about hurting that person, and concern that this might make things awkward. It can often feel like knowing a deep secret from the other person that you don't want to feel responsible for.

It sucks for both sides of the issue, and just because there's jerks that think that being nice to people to get in their pants and getting spurned by them is terrible doesn't negate that friendzoning exists.

The operative point of friendzoning though is that people have to be legitimate friends that care about eachother for it to be a friendzone. If the person has a motive for getting close to the other person, that's being a manipulative asshole.

It's stupid to blame the other for being put in the "friendzone", you can't blame someone else for not being interested in you, and if you waste all your time trying to get with someone that isn't interested that's pretty much your own fault. The exception is that there are unfortunately people that will take advantage of a person's infatuation, leading them on to think a relationship might be a possibility so they get showered with gifts and attention.

If you look it from the "seduction" (don't really know how to phrase it better) perspective, friendzoning is usually a consequence of you failing to properly communicate your intentions, as Kamak said.

I never really saw the friendzone as just something people get overly angry about "because the other party won't love me" because even that is too restricting to what actually happens. It's more when you start developing feelings for someone you consider a close friend, and they don't reciprocate those feelings. That's always more depressing than it is angering because any sane person would realize that the other person isn't feeling (or not feeling) the way they are out of spite. It's never (or more "shouldn't") about blaming the other person, but more hating the fact that the situation even exists. It's been said before, but sometimes you can't control your feelings, whether it's feelings, or a lack of feelings for someone.