[linkeex]

Gamer's arguments have always been that shooters are artificial environments with no personality involved. In Counterstrike you're fighting against stereotypical terrorists that are in no way related to your personal life.

Here, you "kill" real people with a face. Objective? Motivation? Kill him before he kills me?

I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting.

[fastball]

I always thought the argument was "it's just a game".

If you can't separate fiction from reality, you have deeper issues than violent video games.

[linkeex]

I can, but other people might not.

[DanBC]

Hang on: why are you special?

[lifeformed]

Who?

[freehunter]

Yeah paintball and airsoft and laser tag are disgusting, no one would ever play a game like that in real life.

[comex]

My view is that it's largely about realism. Even in today's first-person shooters with fancy HD graphics, you're usually aiming at a person who pops in and out of a single cover location, conveniently waiting for you to shoot him. Even if you've killed all his buddies, he won't run away or do anything different, but just keep yelling generic insults at you. If you shoot him, but not enough times to kill him, he will start shooting you again after a few seconds, seemingly no worse off for the injury (just like your own character). If you kill him, he will make a generic yell and fall over, but never die any more gruesome way. His corpse may have some blood around it but won't look remotely realistic. Originally this was basically mandated by technical requirements, but today it would certainly be possible to go further; I suspect most games don't do so precisely because players would feel weird being more realistic killers.

That's for FPS. In this game, even though the opponent has a face on their profile, the shooting consists of hitting a button and seeing a health bar go down. It's so abstracted from any reality that it's not even close to a problem.

[downandout]

I'm deeply concerned about this and find it disgusting.

As others have pointed out, if this inspires violence in someone, they already had serious mental issues. The larger issue for this game is that it simply doesn't look very fun. I think the idea of involving one's environment in mobile games is good, but this particular implementation doesn't seem very compelling.

[DanBC]

Stop linking violence to mental illness.

[d23]

What? Why? I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability.

I see your background is mental health. Instead of just throwing out these cryptic "holier than thou" one-liners, you would do your cause (whatever it is) a lot more justice if you would actually explain your point of view rather than just trying to look like some kind of sage.

[DanBC]

People incorrectly link mental illness to violence. Most violence, even spree killings, is not committed by someone with a mental illness. Mental illness is not a predictor of violence. (A previous episode of violence is; a drug or alcohol addiction is, but a mental illness, even a severe and enduring mental illness is not) People with a mental illness are very much more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence.

By linking mental illness to violence you stigmatize people with a mental health problem. This stigma makes people less able to seek help from professionals or friends or even family. People become irrationally scared of those with a mental illness and don't know how to offer help. Employers are less likely to offer employment to those with mental illness.

> I think most of us assume people who go on mass shooting sprees have some kind of mental instability.

But that's just ignorance caused by people who continue to lazily assume and then state that anyone who is violent is also mad - even if there's nothing to support that.

This is possibly an example of the conjunction fallacy. We see violence and cannot explain it, and so when we think "is this person violent, or violent and has a mental illness?" we end up at "violent and with a mental illness" even though it's less likely than "just violent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

Linking mental illness to violent crime is as lazy and ignorant as Fox news linking violent crime to African Americans, with the same mangling of statistics and undue focus on very rare events and lack of focus on common events.

Here's some further reading with cites: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

[downandout]

Here is a small representative sample of contradictory cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

[DanBC]

You didn't bother reading the post, did you?

Tucson: "Loughner had been arrested (but not convicted) once on a minor drug charge[11]" - drug addiction combined with mental illness is the predictor here. The mental illness alone was not predictive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

> Acquaintances said that Loughner's personality had changed markedly in the years prior to the shooting, a period when he was also abusing alcohol and drugs.

Again: drug or alcohol addiction are reasonable predictors of violent behaviour. Mental illness alone is not a reasonable predictor of violence.

Mental illness is common. It would be unusual for there to be no mass murders with a mental illness. All you're doing is lazily ignoring all the very many murders committed by people who do not have a mental illnes o focus on a tiny minority committed by people who do have a mental illness; and then you're ignoring the actual predictors of violent behaviour which are previous violence or drug / alcohol addiction.

[freehunter]

There's a difference between linking mental illness to violence and linking violence to mental illness.

[DanBC]

That difference doesn't exist when you talk to people about their perceptions of mental illness and violent behaviour. They think that people with a mental illness are likely to be violent, even though that's very unlikely. They think that a violent event will have been perpetrated by a person with a mental illness even though again it's not likely.

[downandout]

Yes, because only completely sane people go on shooting rampages.

[DanBC]

Spree killings in the US over the past 30 years have killed about 550 people. Regular gun murder has killed 15,000 people per year.

If we assume that every single spree killing was committed by someone with a mental illness (and that assumption is wrong) we still only have 550 murders by mad people and 450,000 murders by sane people.

But when you look at mass murders you rarely find people with a psychotic illness operating under a psychosis. You find people who have some or no mental illness who also happen to be violent. That shouldn't be surprising - mental ill-health is very common.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-j...

> “A consequence if not a driving force of the pendulum swing away from benevolence and toward the protection of others has been increased attention to an individual’s dangerousness, with the operative presumption that dangerousness is often the result of a mental illness. But dangerousness is not always the result of mental illness. Individuals who commit violent or aggressive acts often do so for reasons unrelated to mental illness…. Research, in fact, confirms the error in associating dangerousness with mental illness, showing that ‘the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses. The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is still very small and … only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill.’ Violence is not a diagnosis nor is it a disease. Potential to do harm is not a symptom or a sign of mental illness, rather it must be the central consideration when assessing future dangerousness.”

> because only completely sane people go on shooting rampages

You don't understand why they go on a shooting rampage, and so they must be mad? That's the only explanation?