Lock'n Load

March 21, 2006 6:57 AM

Why do I like violence so much?

*Why am I sooooo enthralled with violence? After attending a liberal arts Univ. I fell in love with Gandhi and non-violence as a way of life. I abhor the use of force as a means to solve any problem. But I love violence as entertainment. Movies, books, TV shows, computer games, all of it....the more violent the better. It's this strange logical disconnect that I can't seem to come to terms with. I could go to a 3 hour protest aimed at tightening gun control, then go home and play 3 hours of Counter-Strike where I shoot simulated heads off of my opponents with a simulated assault rifle. Am I only paying lip service to the views I've come to cherish? Lets get personal here, I want to hear every theory you've got. Lay it on me.

Because it's probably pertinent: I'm 23 and male.

posted by Smarson to society & culture (41 answers total)

I should point out that simulated violence is not the same as real violence. You seem to be conflating the two to some extent. Playing with the sniper rifle in Counter-Strike and actually shooting someone in the head with a large gun are very different actions with very different consequences, and from your mention of non-violence doesn't sound like you'd enjoy the latter very much.
posted by killdevil at 7:02 AM on March 21, 2006

Adrenaline & Dopamine.
posted by meehawl at 7:06 AM on March 21, 2006

The same reason you like porn. That's my theory.
posted by GuyZero at 7:12 AM on March 21, 2006

You wanted to hear EVERY theory, so here's Freud's: He thought that one of the ego defense mechanisms that we commonly use is called Reaction Formation. This is when we have urges, wishes, or dispositions that we are uncomfortable with and can't accept in ourselves, we take the extreme opposite position, usually in a public sort of a context, in order to pursuade ourselves that we are not what we really are.

You may be a real violence-loving SOB, in other words, but you can't accept that about yourself so you're unconciously trying to force yourself into a different mold - fooling even yourself.
posted by crapples at 7:13 AM on March 21, 2006

If you have anger issues, you may find that watching violence, even simulated, to be very cathartic.
You may find the sim heads popping off as you squeeze the sim trigger more satisfying since no one is actually getting hurt. Completely healthy, and the dichotomy of a non-violent person engaging in violent fantasy is by no means a betrayal of your principles. Roleplay is roleplay, and as long as no one gets hurt, it's perfectly fine.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:14 AM on March 21, 2006

IN the U.S., I think people use violence as a substitute for sex. Nowhere is this more apparent to me than on network prime time TV, where we have no compunction about watching investigators poke around dismembered bloody corpses, but we raise a ruckus if we see any nookie, or any pop star's nipple.

I personally don't think enjoying fantasies of violence is particularly healthy, because I think they're masking something else that isn't being dealt with. But I could be wrong.

One theory of American culture says that we are more obsessed with violence than other cultures because we are haunted by our history of colonial oppression.

Just some thoughts.
posted by Miko at 7:19 AM on March 21, 2006

I don't mean to be snarky, but it's because your a 23 year old male. It's perfectly normal.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to save the world from aliens.
posted by kc0dxh at 7:23 AM on March 21, 2006

GuyZero: Dead on with the p orn comment. /sarcasm

Obviously simulated violence and actual violence are distinct, but if I am anti-real-violence....wouldn't it stand to reason that sim-violence should also repel me? Or is it because I watched too many episodes of G.I. Joes as a kid (damn you Cobra Commander!!)
posted by Smarson at 7:27 AM on March 21, 2006

I am not a medical-science type person, but here's my 2 cents anyhow.

Smarson, I don't think you like violence per se, you like the rush you get from experiences that, in this case, simulate violence. Roller coasters might also do the trick (but might also make you hork). You've got enough of a functioning forebrain to understand that seeking out violent experiences in the real world would have all kinds of adverse consequences (but what a rush!). On the other hand, it's conceivable that you'd find a videogame that is suspenseful and engaging but non-violent equally attractive.

In other words, what meehawl said.
posted by adamrice at 7:36 AM on March 21, 2006

Agree with what was written above--and as someone who has processed a great deal of photos of the results of violence for local (urban) police depts, I can tell you that looking at the real thing has zero entertainment value. In other words, you're not a sociopath (I'm guessing); you just like watching a simulated high-adrenaline event happen and the fantasy about whether or not you'd be able to go all Chuck Norris in a similar situation.
posted by availablelight at 7:59 AM on March 21, 2006

I wonder, Smarson, if you've ever done any physical contact sport, such as American football, boxing, or judo? It's been years since I played high school and college football, but come every spring training season, and every fall, I still have visceral memories of what if felt like to hit another sweaty body, to feel the "give" of air whooshing out of someone, to feel the pain and shock of willful concussion in my own flesh, and I miss it. In sport, you can safely do violent things enough to figure out whether you can enjoy that sense of power and passion that is sharpest when a contest is both a test of wills and skills in the physical world. You can, in sport, safely learn what losing tastes like, literally.

And you can then compare those experiences to a few hours of FPS games in front of your computer, with minimal risk of anyone dying for real. It's an awfully interesting way to get in touch with parts of yourself that you really can't imagine. So, if you really want to figure this out, get thee to a gym, and hit someone, and be hit yourself.
posted by paulsc at 7:59 AM on March 21, 2006

Hey, don't hate the player here.

I am not a psych major, so I don't know the correct terms for a lot of these concepts.

To ask why does violence stimulate you, I would (seriously) ask, in counterpoint, why does pornography stimulate you. Some people might dismiss the question as obvious, but it's not. Why does watching someone else take an action illicit a weaker, similar reaction in observers that the participants feel?

I recall from my very basic psych classes that there's a "theory of the mind" (or something) where you mind has a map of physical to more abstract concepts: nerve stimulations become "pain", scents become "good food" or "don't eat that, gross". As you map more distant perceptions of external events (say, just by watching them) into an understanding of the external world, this map is stimulated in the same way.

This is why some people find movies of people having sex more stimulating than simply looking at naked people, although the observer is, in some objective sense, receiving the same amount of "stimulation" either way.

So, to violence. If you've ever played a compatitive sport or some sort of semi-ritualized simulation of violence, like paintball, then you'll know that there's a real "rush" involved. While it's not my bag, I once met a guy who, after getting drunk, would go out looking for fights. He'd pick them. (He was a big guy). I can only assume that he did this because he got some sort of visceral thrill that offset the pain - or perhaps he liked the pain too. Anyway, the brain is stimulated watching violence, even simulated violence, the same way.

My theory is not really all that different from what meehawl or miko put forward, they just explained it more than me.

The rest of my crackpot theory is that this same porn-like phenomenom is the appeal of decorating shows on TV. Some people literally get a "high" from having a clean, well-decorated house. It's a compulsion for them. So watching other people do the same on TV gives them some of that same feeling, while at the same time doing absolutely no work.

I imagine one could do a MRI study of obsessive-compulsives watching videos of people washing their hands versus having them actually wash their hands to see what the differences in brain reaction are to illustrate the similarities and differences of how the brain processes these sorts of pleasureable events.
posted by GuyZero at 8:05 AM on March 21, 2006

games are fun. they take skill to play. Contrary to what the "moral" activists would think, games are not promoting violence. If anything, they are promoting a more realistic view of what violence means. I find people who have played a lot of violent games have the best imaginations when it comes to war. They can imagine destroyed legs and collapsed skulls.

Who said that war is fought by the unimaginative? Probably the sentiment is meant to point out that people fighting are either not willing or able to picture the results of what a rifle does to a face. Perhaps when they signed up they had no idea. but once in the throws, I think everyone has had time to think out the implications. And certainly there are people who sign up even though their imagination works fine. Those people have my respect, because I can imagine such horrible situations thanks to many hours of Call of Duty and Band of Brothers.

Couple imagination with the realization that we only get one life, and I bet game players are among the least violent people in reality.

Reality according to Big News is another matter entirely.
posted by clord at 8:07 AM on March 21, 2006

As usual the onion nails it.
posted by lalochezia at 8:08 AM on March 21, 2006

umm....what's the porn theory everyone knows about that I'm missing?
posted by stavx at 8:13 AM on March 21, 2006

On submit, what paulsc said.

And I forgot one thing: humans are visually hyperdeveloped compared to a lot of other animals. because our sense of sight is such a huge part of our perception of the external world, when we see other people performing actions, we maps these perceptions into our own mental map very strongly.
posted by GuyZero at 8:14 AM on March 21, 2006

I think that we have violent instincts. Whilst I am aware that evolutionary psychology is a minefield of made up just-so stories, I think I am on safe ground in stating that we evolved in a violent world, where we had to be good at doing violence if we were to survive. Hunting, defence from predators, and tribal conflict were all things we had to be good at or perish.
In the modern day, we don't need that so much; without wanting to sound all po-mo, we live ina socially constructed world where violence is almost always bad. This is not the world we evolved in, it's a better one that we've made up for ourselves. In the absence of a planetary-scale eugeneics programme, however, we will always keep our violent instincts.
Like you, I'm a non-violent bleeding-heart liberal pacifist who enjoys violent movies, video-games (and in my case, extremely violent music as well). I feel that that helps me get the violent urges out of my system, to the extent that most of the people I know regard me as one of the peaceful people they know and are surprised that I listen to death metal whilst playing Postal so much of the time.
For other people, competitive sports make a good violence substitute. (On preview, others have dealt with this).
Meehawl and adamrice have explained the "how"; I think that this perhaps addresses the "why".
posted by nowonmai at 8:16 AM on March 21, 2006

The same reason you like porn. That's my theory.

Please, that doesn't make any sense. Sex has nothing to do with violence unless you have a violent fetish (like S&M or something).

Besides, there's no indication that the poster doesn't like sex, so the comparison doesn't apply at all.

As far as why he likes violent entertainment? Well, I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about that, but perhaps the fact that he considers it 'taboo' makes it a little more exciting. Some of the other theories getting thrown around in this thread are pretty silly.

But maybe I'm not a good comparison. I like Mario and Gran Turismo as much as GTA or counterstrike. The violent aspects of a game don't appeal to me as much as the challenge.
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:20 AM on March 21, 2006

I think the best explanation isn't that you like shooting people it's that you like adrenaline rush that comes from being shot at and feeling scared, etc.
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:25 AM on March 21, 2006

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it already (unless I missed it), but I imagine the human mind has evolved alongside fear, danger and violence for tens of thousands of years. Seems to make sense that there lingers such primal urges for excitement and visceral experience.
posted by MetaMonkey at 8:26 AM on March 21, 2006

As others have pointed out, I think the Counter-Strike analogy is where the thought patterns diverge. One group looks at it and says "yes, you enjoy glorifying violence - that is what these games are about". Having played "violent" multiplayer PC games for the last decade, I can verify that you simply enjoy clicking on the faces of other avatars before they can click on yours. You could replace the whole damn thing with CareBear models firing beams of love and you'd still be staying up till 3AM. This time you'd just be playing Cupid from 300 yards rather than sitting behind a crate with a high caliber sniper rifle for 6 minute stretches.

If the games = violent behavior debate had any culmination it was Columbine. I also grew up playing Doom with all of my friends, and hearing newscasters speak of it as a murder simulator had my jaw on the floor. The fact that Americas Army developed as a PR tool shortly thereafter is just icing on the cake. I digress - be it Doom or CS, there is no way your experience in those games has any relative counterpart in the real world. If you really did learn how to become a killing machine by virtually circle-strafing your enemies at impossible speeds while instantly switching between a dozen weapons stocked with relatively infinite ammunition the geeks truly would have taken over by now. Headshot!

I can't speak much towards the moving pictures association though... I find depictions of glorified violence on film very hard to stomach. I can watch historical execution footage and real world tragedies without a hitch, but you start throwing up a sound track and creepy lighting and a few shots of needles and blood and I get squicked out. Conversely, I'd say it's fair that most of America enjoys digesting violent entertainment in this capacity yet is absolutely horrified and disgusted with images of war.
posted by prostyle at 8:27 AM on March 21, 2006

Very interesting, let me pose a real world example to see if this sparks any more insight. This question came to me last week while in New Orleans for Spring Break doing relief work. Most of the job was going into people's houses and cleaning out everything. In one such house, I came across a stash of w eapons (5 handg uns, 3 r ifles, 12 combat k nives, and about 1000 various rounds). Needless to say I and about 5 other relief workers (all male) ranging in age from 16 to 64 got really excited over the find and spent the next 20 min. identifying and estimating their value. Is it weird that a group of guys in the midst of what could be construed as pretty much the most non-violent act imaginable (disaster relief) could suddenly become so distracted by instruments of death?
posted by Smarson at 8:36 AM on March 21, 2006

so distracted by instruments of death

Gadget value. I have no theory to explain this one, but I chalk it up to the same impulse that gets guys talking about cars or computers or whatever fancy gadget.

My wife has a really simple theory that it an activity involves objects moving through space, boys will like it.

When you have gadgets that make objects move through space it's a double-whammy.

Plus, go read that Onion article reference earlier. It's just so... true.
posted by GuyZero at 8:43 AM on March 21, 2006

Theory One
Real violence increases your adrenaline flow but also harms other humans. Simulated violence just increases your adrenaline flow.

Because you are a good person, the pain you would get from harming other humans is greater than the pleasure you get from an adrenaline rush. Ergo, you don't like real violence.

However, simulated violence does not increase human misery. Therefore, there is nothing to outweigh the pleasure of the adrenaline rush.

Theory 2

There seems to be something hardwired into the human brain that makes us love stories. I've always believed that there is an emotional and a logical reason for this.

The emotional reason is that, as humans, we want to connect, and stories (like other art forms) is a way for us to see the world through the eyes of another. Because you see the world through non-violent eyes, you don't really need to experience non-violent art. But violent art lets you see an entirely different perspective on the world, precisely because you are a non-violent person.

The logical reason to like stories is that we learn from experience, and stories provide a highly concentrated form of experience. This is especially useful for violent and/or dangerous experiences, since by the time you learn from such an experience in real life, you might already be dead or injured.
posted by yankeefog at 8:43 AM on March 21, 2006

The Ludic perspective -- You are really good at videogames and the violent games provide you with the best opportunities for you to engage your specific video game skills.
posted by mrmojoflying at 8:45 AM on March 21, 2006

Please, that doesn't make any sense. Sex has nothing to do with violence unless you have a violent fetish (like S&M or something).

I think that the assertion that he likes violence "for the same reason as porn" is simplistic, but I wouldn't say that sex has nothing to do with violence. There is a common adrenaline denominator and both have that visceral element (also shared by contact sports) after all.

Oh, and S&M isn't necessarily violent.
posted by desuetude at 8:46 AM on March 21, 2006

Obviously simulated violence and actual violence are distinct, but if I am anti-real-violence....wouldn't it stand to reason that sim-violence should also repel me?

One obvious possibility is that you're not actually anti-real-violence. You think you are, and I apologise if I've got your politics backwards, but statements like this:

"I could go to a 3 hour protest aimed at tightening gun control"

hint at a degree of anger*, a willingness to show physical force** as a last resort when the political process has failed you, and a desire to wield force by proxy by getting the government to take guns away from people.

* Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, yada yada

** Some protests are genuinely non-violent, but most aren't, especially obstructionist protests, and those claiming to wield "people power".
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:04 AM on March 21, 2006

There have been a lot of good theories proposed, I'll just toss another one on the pile:

There is a very strong drive in males of all ages to engage in completely effective actions. To do something once and for all, and be done with it.

As you must know from your experience with the peace movement, reality doesn't really offer this opportunity. The real world is frequently very messy, and the true effects of our actions are often never even visible.

The world of violent video games is much much cleaner. You have a distinct mission, and when you finish it, it stays done.

The video sprites that you kill are absolutely deserving of death (no moral ambiguity here), and even the low-paid security guards at the front gate never have devastated families left behind.

Even when you are playing with your friends, you are put into a do-or-die situation. They're trying to kill you, so you kill them first. Very simple, very clean.

Essentially, video games present us with violence the way that it "should" be. A clean, quick solution to our problems, without all that moral ambiguity stuff. I wouldn't worry too much about them reflecting a hidden agenda on your part -- you seem to clearly understand the difference between playtime fantasy and the real world.
posted by tkolar at 9:08 AM on March 21, 2006

As a young man you are programmed to defend the pack. It is you main evolutionary purpose.* This shit comes from deep in your reptilian brain, you can't avoid it. One of the principal challenges to every society is this: How do we keep the young men from breaking everything? How do we channel all that testosterone-fueled rage and violence?

There have been many answers to this, of varying effectiveness. Declare war and have them break someone else's stuff. Sports. Hard work. Video games are another outlet.

Though there is tremendous variation between individuals, the desire to break things will settle down as you reach your 30s. In the meantime, enjoy Counterstrike.

*What follows is unprovable pop/evolutionary psychology bullshit, actual results may vary.
posted by LarryC at 9:26 AM on March 21, 2006

Anti-real-violence, Pro-fake-violence. Harmony is maintained in the universe. It's all about balance. You will like some forms of violence and the more you hate, the more you love.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:56 AM on March 21, 2006

Here's some more theories. I'm not sure if I believe any of them, but maybe they're worth thinking about. Or maybe not.

1. Some people are fascinated by porn because it acts out things that they would never do in real life. Violent video games are the same.

2. What would you be doing with your anger if you weren't killing bundles of pixels? Anger is a normal reaction to being threatened in real life, and maybe you spend your entire day deliberately suppressing any expression of anger, as a point of principle. Then you get home and create a private world where you can let it all out.

3. I'm a basically nonviolent guy who's always been fascinated by crime and prison novels. I think it's because there's a part of me that believes they describe how the world works at some basic level. Maybe you're enthralled by artificial violence because you see people being violent to each other and your idealism make it impossible for you to look at it head-on.
posted by fuzz at 10:20 AM on March 21, 2006

You want to see Dear Wendy, a 2005 movie written by Lars Von Trier (famous indie guy). All about a bunch of non-violent small town kids with gun fetishes... very sweet and thought provoking.
posted by anthill at 10:29 AM on March 21, 2006

The same reason you like porn. That's my theory.

Please, that doesn't make any sense. Sex has nothing to do with violence unless you have a violent fetish (like S&M or something).

Paris Hilton, you mean testosterone has nothing to do with it? That is what drives us toward sex, and I believe it plays a role in aggressive behavior, too.
posted by knave at 11:33 AM on March 21, 2006

Posting this question has made two things apparent to me:

1. My love of simulated violence may stem from an evolutionary/ gender trigger.

2. Apparently I like porn.....(don't tell my girlfriend)
posted by Smarson at 1:51 PM on March 21, 2006

Go out and get in a real fight. Go join a boxing gym or Mixed Martial Arts gym where they actually fight (not karate or kung-fu or any of that crap)

See what that does to your fondess to violence.
posted by tkchrist at 1:54 PM on March 21, 2006

If you'd like to assess your true feelings about actual violence, go volunteer at a hospital emergency room, or take an EMT class and volunteer on the back of an ambulance for a rescue squad or fire department.

I did that when I was a young man about your age (I'm middle-aged now), and it was a highly illuminating experience. While I haven't exactly turned into Gandhi, to put it mildly, dealing with (and cleaning up after) the direct aftereffects of *actual* violence was deeply transforming.
posted by enrevanche at 2:00 PM on March 21, 2006

Then there's the whole dealing-with-fear aspect of violent entertainment, or the "Why are (non-Disney-fied) fairy-tales so violent?" question.

One theory (Bettleheim, I think) is that children (and maybe we're children for longer than we think??) love these old tales because they need to look the dangerous world in the face, to see their worst fears manifested and even expanded upon, and to test themselves against these facts in a controlled environment where it all gets dealt with and the order in the universe is always ultimately confirmed.

I don't play computer games, but was for years as interested in violent films/books as most males. I decided that I liked them because I felt I was being shown something true about the world (it's violent and scary--I'm strengthening myself by looking at that), while I was safely and vicariously testing my capacity to handle that. I was feeling how my fear and revulsion might be overcome, if need be, in the "real" world, by my sense of righteousness and by the rush of payback; revenge tales obviously tap into deep veins of unexpressed anger and resentment over powerlessness. Gore for its own sake seemed always pretty easy to spot, and was simply not interesting, to me at least.

Eventually, tho (I'm over 50; this was about 10 years ago), I guess I'd had enough, because I began to wonder: "WHY am I spending SO much time with serial killers and sociopaths??" (I think I was watching Reservoir Dogs at the time...) "There must be other, more interesting folks to hang out with when I'm hunkering down with a story, and other kinds of drama that would more intriguingly reflect the world I actually find myself in..."
posted by dpcoffin at 6:34 PM on March 21, 2006

Obviously there’s a psychological attraction/ revulsion component (as others laid out in detail).

I think you are just feeling guilty for liking violence.

Much as I hate to slighly disagree with tkchrist - while he might be right regarding you - I try to fight seriously (that is - a strong opponent) at least once a week (that is, in training, not going out and clobbering someone in the street).
And I absolutely love it. Did I mention my front tooth is fake?
I also like violence as entertainment in a variety of forms.

But by the same token, I admire non-violence and Gandhi is one of my heroes as well.

There is no disconnect. Violence is a fact of humanity. We have canines. We have about the largest (proportionally) adrenal glands of any animal on earth. We’re wired for it in terms of both conflict and sexual tension.

In much the same way, we are built to excrete waste.
The difference is training. We don’t shit on the floor or wherever we like. A socialized person is trained so well in knowing violence in certain situations is inappropriate that it’s unconscious. I also train others to do violence and obviously it can be abused, but it’s most likely not to.

I think a knowledge of and experience with violence aids in appropriate outlets for the feelings and appropriate uses of it. Knowing how bad you can hurt someone tends to limit usage if the situation isn’t serious. It’s the amateurs that tend to get into trouble.

What perhaps hangs you up is that we are all capable of appalling amounts and kinds of violence from cold blooded murder to furious beatings. Some of us choose to abuse our capacity for violence and idealize.
Indeed, a man is often seen as powerful because of his capacity to do violence.

But that is as ridiculous as feeling guilty for having those feelings and limiting them to appropriate outlets - because again, everyone is capable of it. Your not special because you can or do kill a bunch of people. Neither are you special because you feel bad for secretly enjoying violence.

Both perspectives are based on false expectations of who we should be rather than acceptance of ourselves as primates.
It is what we choose to make of ourselves beyond that, that differentiates us from other animals.
Given you choose not to do violence to anyone but a pixelated artificial person, and in fact are investigating those feelings of violence rather than acting them out, I’d say you are not a beast.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:03 PM on March 21, 2006

but I imagine the human mind has evolved alongside fear, danger and violence for tens of thousands of years. Seems to make sense that there lingers such primal urges for excitement and visceral experience.

There seems to be something hardwired into the human brain that makes us love stories.

I'm late here, but I have to endorse these two comments strongly, and elaborate just a bit. Whether or not we're required to engage in it for survival or social purposes, violent conflicts in stories/media serve as a way of communicating conflict, struggle, and (hopefully) the process of overcoming obstacles and achieving a goal. The thing is, it's far more visceral and commanding and easily signified than other forms of conflict. So while you could have made a story like The Matrix in which there's no physical conflict, just a machine pole struggling against a human pole to find the best rhetoric with which to control the social narrative of what's going on, the story given in the actual film is so much more engaging and immediate to most people that it's almost an entirely different level of storytelling.

There are stories that are largely devoid of this mode of exposition for struggle and conflict. Take a movie like An Ideal Husband or pick a Jane Austen novel. They can still be quite good and meaningful, quite possible more meaningful than a cheap good guy vs bad guy fight. And yet, hardly ever anywhere near as universally engaging. Violent conflict and physical struggle are probably the easiest connections we have to the general concepts of conflict and struggle.
posted by weston at 7:25 PM on March 22, 2006

I completely agree with prostyle.

Counter-Strike (and any other videogame) can be divided into two parts: graphics and gameplay. You can change the graphics of CS to whatever you want ("CareBear models firing beams of love"), but the gameplay will always remain the same.

People don't play Counter-Strike because they like shooting other people. They play CS because they get to compete and see who has the better skillz (in this case, hand-eye coordination and teamwork).

In my experience, the more you play games the less you care about the graphics. This is the reason why professional Counter-Strike and Quake players always use the lowest possible settings. Anything that brings them closer to the gameplay while removing extraneous cruft is good.

It is also part of the reason why anti-videogame activists exist. Most of them have never played a single videogame in their life, so when they see someone else gaming they only understand the graphics.

Or, like Raph Koster said:
Picture an MMORPG just like the ones today, but everywhere you see combat, replace it with healing. A six-man encounter would be a surgical operation that required teamwork. Soloing would be a brilliant doctor doing drive-by diagnostics. Raids would be massive experimental treatments.

Rather than spawning mobs, spawn ill people. Instead of weapons, have medicines. Instead of managing aggro, manage fever. Instead of armors, we have disinfectants.

Quests would include tasks to find and gather new plants for pharmaceuticals, and bespoke missions to fix the sanitation in a remote village. Puzzles might involve finding the standing water where the mosquitoes are breeding.

You can level up by building up immunity to the most common diseases. Your abilities are new forms of intervention and diagnosis; some classes might use homeopathic medicine, others might be trained in a Western mode. And death? Well, that would be a case of fighting off the infection youself, and failing.

You could go pretty psychedelic and “virtual” on the visuals, if you chose, with plenty of full-screen particle effects to keep the “fight” interesting. You could even, if you wanted to betray the Hippocratic Oath, have Dr vs Dr combat biowarfare.

How would it play?

Exactly the same.
posted by A Kingdom for a Donkey at 8:11 AM on March 23, 2006

These are fascinating observations, but there's been lots of empirical research carried out along lines that address the question.

Just saying.

Humans do have things called......errr.....ummmm....

Instinct.



That's not our fault and far from bad, but better forearmed.
Lock 'n load: knowledge.
posted by troutfishing at 10:02 PM on March 26, 2006