The whole point of video games is that they allow you to do things you can’t or wont do in real life, it’s the crux of their entertainment value.

They let you be the special forces hero when in reality you’d wet your pants the first time someone pointed a gun at you, they let you drive super powered cars at ridiculous speeds when in reality you’d only break the speed limit if you had a police escort, they let you be a gangbanger when in reality someone in gang colours scares you witless, they let you save the universe, they let you stomp around the wild west or alien planets, shoot dinosaurs or have a conversation with an orc, use magic, fly a plane/helicopter or drive a tank, command an army. Importantly they let YOU do these things unlike films or books in which you simply watch.

You raise a good point about moral transference though, I’m guilty of it when presented with a choice in a game to do something “evil” or something “good” I almost always choose the “good” option, it’s my hero complex I guess and the fact that I grew up watching cartoons with clear distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys (cartoons just don’t do that anymore except the remakes of the old ones) I know a few people who do the exact opposite in a game but in real life they’re the nicest people you could know.

Now while what you can and can’t do in Battlefield 2 is effectively upto it’s developers when they remove things because of their moral standing and opinions they rob the consumer of something important to the experience of gaming, the ability to do something you wouldn’t (or couldn’t) do in real life.

Well, not to step all over Simon’s toes, but I suspect Patrick Bach is having flashbacks to the release of Oblivion and a few other games. Specifically, some games have been accused of inappropriate content based on what was possible within the game engine, and not even for what was possible in the normal course of the game. Oblivion had to have its ESRB re-classified in part because of controversy surrounding mods. There are also other gaming companies that have restricted the kinds of things you could do with “child” avatars. The original NWN tool box for creating modules always classified any character with a “child” appearance as invulnerable, to prevent people from making modules that involved harming children. This was not a common problem, but I’m guessing someone realized what PR fiasco it would be to have even one person create a module with player-directed violence towards a child.

While Patrick says he thinks gamers “will do bad things” he may not think everyone will, but that you will get just enough players who do them to make the game look bad in the press. That doesn’t mean I think its a wise course of action (we can debate the ethics of games that allow for the possibility of harming innocents at a later date), but I think I understand where he is coming from.

Bach’s view is limited to the world in which he invests most of his time and efforts, namely the realm of the teenage frag addict who is living out his darkest yearnings online. That’s who plays shooters more than anyone else, because they have no lives beyond gaming. They also have the biggest mouths and egos, so Bach presumes they represent the majority of gamers, rather than merely the majority of gamers he’s catering to. I’ve also noticed that people who take the low road to winning are the ones most likely to say, “well, everybody else does it.” A shrink would have a field day.

I killed someone in RDR. I stopped to help her, then she tried to con me into an ambush. At that point she passed from “innocent victim, I shall help her in a gentlemanly way” into a “my revenge for this, you monster, shall resonate in the desert”. I had to ride a long way to find the train, but it was well worth it.

And then of course you reach the end of the game.

But back on topic, there will always be people who complain that you can’t kill children in Fallout 3. I’m more concerned about the features “removed” from the PC version of BF3 than whether I can kill innocents or not. For example, in “No Russian” in MW2 I didn’t feel either way about killing innocents (done that hundreds of times in other games, such as GTA’s). I felt much strongly in “Death From Above” in MW1,k and you wouldn’t kill any innocent victims.

Last time I checked I still haven’t killed anyone.

It’s basically a waste of resources because government has regulations and lawsuits interfere with the power of the individual.

I felt a perverse sense of entertainment when I shot horses in RDR. I knew my wife would hate seeing me do it so I waited until I played alone. It wasn’t because I feel animosity towards the equine species, I simply thought it was funny to whistle for my horse then blow its brains out with a shotgun as it was running by. However, the humor only lasted a few times and then the murder of innocent horses stopped.

I did make it a point to shoot the horses of my enemies in RDR. The horses are a larger target and disabling an enemies transportation could be more beneficial than depleting my clip trying to hit a human target on horse-back.

It would be interesting to find out how gamers feel about killing other gamers, just for fun. In EVE, for instance, I get the feeling the universe is populated with profoundly disturbed people.
In there, the more anguish the victim shows, the more the aggressors seems to get off on it.
So how about it – how many people actually play in a way that does not match their inherent personality?

Quite a few i would imagine – as its a safe way to experiment without real world nasty conseqiences!

When I game, killing another gamer in a multiplayer game is far more rewarding that killing an NPC. When I kill an NPC I know that there’s no one on the other end feeling anger or frustration as a result of my kill. Killing another gamer, in game, is basically a digital slap to the face. It taps into that primal urge to compete and test your superiority over another living being.