Why Does It Feel Good To Kill In Video Games?

[Rudolph]

You know, I love Doom and plenty other video games (including family-friendly ones like Super Mario Bros), but whenever I speak aloud of what I do in these games (e.g. "So I shot him in the face with a shotgun blast.", etc.), I cannot help but hear myself and feel like I am some sort of psychopath. Now, do not get me wrong: I am not arguing that video games cause violence - at least, directly - or that violence is bad. I just wonder why it is that it feels so satisfying to kill/destroy things in video games when it clearly is not the case in real life. 

 

Does anyone have any idea? Are there scientific researches out there that provide explanations in that regard? 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Rudolph

[GarrettChan]

Don't really know. I guess it's good to have a place for you to do non realistic things, like games in a fantasy world or something.

 

Like, I love to play rogues or other classes based on dexterity/agility because in real life, I'm really clumsy :P

Edited January 20, 2022 by GarrettChan

[Rudolph]

Sure, but nobody gives you a weird look when they hear you talk about doing acrobatics in video games.

 

Or at the very least, not the "Oh my god, is this person a serial killer?" kind of weird look. :P

Edited January 20, 2022 by Rudolph

[Nine Inch Heels]

23 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Now, do not get me wrong: I am not arguing that video games cause violence - at least, directly - or that violence is bad. I just wonder why it is that it feels so satisfying to kill/destroy things in video games when it clearly is not the case in real life. 

Because many games make it a guilt-free, and sometimes even "morally just" kind of experience - and that's on top of the fact that you know that all you really did is just shifting a bunch of 1s and 0s around...

 

From a slightly deeper psychological POV there's also an argument to be made that it is a cathartic experience to have an outlet for pent up frustration that may or may not be somewhat realistic...

Edited January 20, 2022 by Nine Inch Heels

[GarrettChan]

17 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Sure, but nobody gives you a weird look when they hear you talk about doing acrobatics in video games.

 

Or at the very least, not the "Oh my god, is this person a serial killer?" kind of weird look. :P

TBH, I really think the FPS or whatever game leading to violence or whatnot is exaggerated. To me, this needs to be addressed by proper education instead of simply demonizing video games, which is just a lazy policy. On the other hand, there are many ways to "kill" (or just hurt) you slowly in real life compared to actual violence, which could be the stem of many other problems. Video games seem like one instance they are correlated, which is also dumb nowadays because probably there is a super big number of player bases, and people who don't play games at all seem to be minority. I don't know how to properly word these, but I guess you can sort of understand what I mean here.

Edited January 20, 2022 by GarrettChan

[Gez]

Children have pretended to kill each others in pretend fights long before humans figured out how to generate electricity to power video games. Simulated combat is just one of these things that are wired into our brains. It's an animal instinct to train ourselves for real combat if we're ever attacked by a bear or a wolf pack or a rival tribe.

[Rudolph]

5 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

TBH, I really think the FPS or whatever game leading to violence or whatnot is exaggerated.

Oh, I agree! As I said in the OP, I do not think it leads violence either - at least, not directly.

 

I will never forget the time when as a child I told my dad about my experience playing the Duke Nukem 3D shareware. He was half-paying attention to what I was saying, so when I told him about killing someone in a bathroom stall, he suddenly looked at me with a confused and worried look.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Rudolph

[Nikku4211]

It feels good to kill in video games because they often present a challenge, and killing plenty of stronger enemies signifies overcoming certain challenges presented by the game.

 

If the game's challenge was something else, then most people would have a similarly positive feeling upon completing said objectives.

 

Now as to why games where you kill exist in the first place, video games are often a reflection on human culture, and one thing shared by all human cultures is bloodlust. It's how we've evolved to behave in the face of limited resources, and it's how people have always dealt with so many needs/desires.

 

Even knowing we're just shooting tiny bits of thin rectangles on a vacuum tube, which merely represent bytes in our computers' RAM, seeing a lot of stolen human bodies and aliens (be they from Hell or some other place) being mowed down with guns (or chainsaws) can still satisfy our primal bloodlust.

[Nine Inch Heels]

12 minutes ago, Gez said:

Children have pretended to kill each others in pretend fights long before humans figured out how to generate electricity to power video games. Simulated combat is just one of these things that are wired into our brains.

The problem here is that whether or not it actually feels "good" is very different question, and it's still quite debatable as to what the answer to that question is, because contradicting studies on that subject exist... With one study pointing towards adrenaline responses, which induce a "mild high" paired with a dopamine response, other studies suggest that fighting or shooting games induce negative emotions, such as anger... So there's no clear-cut answer at the moment...

 

Furthermore, the difference between kids having a blast while doing their rough-and-tumble plays and somebody pointing their cursor at something on a screen while sitting in a comfy chair are two vastly different, and impossible to compare situations with regards to psychological and also physical "stimuli"...

[MFG38]

I'd argue it's also partly because video games are a form of escapism, letting us do things in them that we wouldn't do in real life (barring a few edge cases) without feeling bad about it.

[hybridial]

7 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The problem here is that whether or not it actually feels "good" is very different question, and it's still quite debatable as to what the answer to that question is, because contradicting studies on that subject exist... With one study pointing towards adrenaline responses, which induce a "mild high" paired with a dopamine response, other studies suggest that fighting or shooting games induce negative emotions, such as anger... So there's no clear-cut answer at the moment...

 

I think that has a lot to do with how "healthy" the outlet is, because videogames as much as other things can be a venting tool, and in that regard can be very helpful. Like any activity however the potential is there to become unhealthily attached to it. The context or subject matter ultimately I think matters very little, a person's own psyche and needs are more likely to be the root cause of problems if they're not addressed. 

[Morpheus666]

I personally think it's a personality thing, from me personally i don't get any "good" feelings from killing enemies in games, what makes it feel good i think is the sense of accomplishment you get from clearing out a area of enemies and surviving against it (especially if it's a difficult challenge). The whole idea behind the psychology of how video games shape people's morality/emotions is a long and winding tale which predates the 1990's, namely in part due to a lack of understanding and religiously motivated propaganda which attempted to demonize games instead of actually addressing the real problems in the world.

 

Games in general are a double edged sword, on one hand they can allow people a peaceful way to let out there emotions in a good way, while it also can become a obsession and can ruin someone's social life.

 

The human race in general is a very violent species, and the fact that Violence is a "normal" part of life now is because of our desensitization to it by the Movies,games, Tv shows we watch. I think the massive appeal of hyper-violent games are the difficulty/challenge they pose, the act of killing itself isn't something that gives the player pleasure (at least most people),

 

So what does this long winded dribble mean?

 

The Short answer: It's the satisfaction of overcoming the odds and beating a challenge the game poses.

Long answer: Because violence in our society is considered a "normal" part of life

Edited January 20, 2022 by Morpheus666

[Doom_Dude]

It feels good to crush your virtual enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of the NPCs.

 

Otherwise it's just another boring day of not getting to crush your neighbors and stuff.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Doom_Dude

[Nine Inch Heels]

4 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

I think that has a lot to do with how "healthy" the outlet is, because videogames as much as other things can be a venting tool, and in that regard can be very helpful. Like any activity however the potential is there to become unhealthily attached to it. The context or subject matter ultimately I think matters very little, a person's own psyche and needs are more likely to be the root cause of problems if they're not addressed. 

Most psychological studies ever conducted to check if "stimulus X" causes "response Y" are done after all participants have been checked for their mental health, with those who don't register as "healthy" and "stable" being ruled out before anything in the way of tests even begin. This is common practice, because if you want to find out how most people respond to something, you have to operate under the assumption that most people are also not psychopaths... And if you wanted to find out how psychopaths respond, then you'd be testing psychopaths primarily, not your average joe...

 

Some video games are literally designed to "scare" players, and cause at least a mild stress response, and while that is something some people are looking for in their spare time, it doesn't mean that the person's response to a stressor in that moment "feels good" - at the very least not entirely. You may feel different/better/whatever, after watching for example a horror movie, because of the adrenaline responses you experienced, but that doesn't mean that the body and the brain are actually "wanting" to get these buttons pressed. The reason you have an adrenaline response in the first place is because your brain tells your body to be ready for a possible "emergency" (even if watching a movie poses no actual threat to your life, same as playing a video game)...

 

Arguments made in favour of "beating the odds" are shaky, and often made by those who look at the outcome only, while disregarding what happened on the way to that outcome. Gratification is not a "newtonean" phenomenon where more stress equals a proportionally higher degree of "satisfaction", having beaten a tough section in a video game can also just result in a feeling of relief that it's finally over, rather than providing a psychological response that "offsets" the experienced frustration entirely... If you're looking for extreme examples, look at speedrunners... You get hours/days/months worth of salt for a high that's gonna last less than 2 hours sometimes before the magic wears off... You look at the outcome, and think to yourself "yeah, totally worth it", even the person doing the speedrun sees it that way in that moment, but that's because of a "that was then, but this is now" kind of perspective that is actually built into most people's minds as a protective mechanism to keep people "functional" despite their hardships... That sort of "hardwired ignorance" was an evolutional necessity, and without it we might not even exist today... But regardless of how much your mind may be playing tricks on you, it doesn't change how the mind and the body respond to stress in that moment, and how long-term stress can have negative consequences, even on a perfectly healthy person...

 

Concerns regarding how "healthy" some person's "gaming habits" may or may not be are not relevant to this discussion, because video-game addiction is a different topic altogether, which has nothing to do with the kinds of "triggers" that Gez pointed out, and it also has nothing to do with what the OP is looking to discuss...

 

If you ever feel the urge to educate yourself:

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00967/full

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7

 

 

[ApprihensivSoul]

I really like this last response, I think it covers alot of the basic elements that go into this concept. It's not so much the violence itself that feels gratifying, but the emotional catharsis that the violence represents in context. 

Funnily, I get alot fewer weird looks talking about execution moments in games than I would talking about acrobatics or stuff like that. Games let you do some really strange stuff, and I think violence might be closer to the more socially acceptable range of the spectrum in context.

[thiccyosh]

Haha shotgun go boom

[7Mahonin]

It was either exploit killing or exploit fucking; the two most essential things to mankind since before fire and the wheel were figured out. I don’t think deathmatch would be quite as sensational if it was about who can screw the most rears in a virtual orgy compared to who can kill the most or survive the longest in virtual combat. 

[Noiser]

A lot of animals play and have fun simulating hunting and killing. Cats and dogs do the same thing - and we did it even before videogames by playing tag or hide-and-seek. I think it's 100% instinctive, a way of training our brain for survival.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Noiser

[Gez]

51 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Some video games are literally designed to "scare" players, and cause at least a mild stress response, and while that is something some people are looking for in their spare time, it doesn't mean that the person's response to a stressor in that moment "feels good" - at the very least not entirely. You may feel different/better/whatever, after watching for example a horror movie, because of the adrenaline responses you experienced, but that doesn't mean that the body and the brain are actually "wanting" to get these buttons pressed. The reason you have an adrenaline response in the first place is because your brain tells your body to be ready for a possible "emergency" (even if watching a movie poses no actual threat to your life, same as playing a video game)...

That's the whole concept of catharsis. Safely experiencing intense emotions so as to "purge" your mind.

[SleepyVelvet]

I'm not competent enough to deconstruct things to the level others, but imo:

For a sportsman-like game (either singleplayer or multiplayer): If you're killing in the context of the game and killing is the win/progress condition you've set up in your mind in the first place, then you've already set yourself up to be satisfied with the kill.  And then layering on Gez's point: Why play Dodgeball when you can play Virtual Killball!  Some games also layer haptics/indicators on top of all this too.  For example, Overwatch gives you a *ding* every time you hit a headshot, making you feel tingly.  Though this could be considered more of a bow on top that wraps everything else up into a nice sensory package.

Then there are the games that lean more into "roleplay" rather than sport:  It's fun to act out depraved acts that you shouldn't do in real life sometimes.  Letting your inner Joker out, decompressing, etc.  And sometimes doing something evil-in-a-fake-way is a good way to excersise the fact that it's bad in the first place... hopefully.  (besides other things besides killing: Driving cars into the ocean for fun, or making a cheese fort around a guard in Elder Scrolls, or driving a military-tank off a skyscraper onto an unsuspecting crowd of civilians... some things being more dark than others.)

[yakfak]

i think it feels bad to kill animals in video games
no matter if it's a giant green frog 100' down the mines of moria or a big visceral 3d beastie from a recent survival/sandbox game
it just makes me feel sad and regretful

[Yumheart]

I don't really think it's the killing itself that feels good in Doom. It's in the fun combat, the crunchy sound effects, the great-looking animations.
Fe, I think of gibbing a bunch of low-tier enemies as comparable to those "strangely satisfying" kind of videos, humans just like seeing things move in certain ways.

[Doomkid]

..because they almost always tried to kill me first?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(lol)

[Nine Inch Heels]

50 minutes ago, Gez said:

That's the whole concept of catharsis. Safely experiencing intense emotions so as to "purge" your mind.

Catharsis means different things depending on where you're coming from... This idea that is "guiding an audience through intense emotions to provide some relief" is one Aristotle came up with way back when, so that's already debatable in value, not only because Aristotle knew less about psychology than anybody with a bachelor these days, but also because a significant chunk of the emotions that are being released after a play have also been induced or at least provoked by it, but without actually addressing the root-cause of the problem...

 

Then there's catharsis theory, which has been used in the early days of psychology for therapeutic reasons... That one did not entail subjecting the patient to additional stressors, but rather making them perform "some act of aggression" (be it screaming, breaking something, etc) to release emotional pressure.... And then there's also the part of therapy where the idea of catharsis is, more specifically, to re-live experiences and their respective emotions in order to express them while going under the assumption that it solves the problem...

 

All things considered, the net-value of catharsis (theory) is dubious (yes, something has been "released", but at what cost? was it really overall a positive experience?), as many studies suggested that "catharsis", as per any definition you want, does not deliver long-term results as far as for example a reduction of future aggression is to be considered... As such, the therapeutic value is often considered to be based on "pseudo-science" rather than being based on anything that resembles measurable metrics. The fact that bottling everything up is unhealthy is also not something that grants any additional credibility to catharsis (theory) from a therapeutic point of view, because "doing the exact opposite of thing that makes you feel bad" is not good enough to even be considered a rule of thumb for mental health...

 

Going back to video games, the benefits of subjecting oneself to stressors not related to the issue one actually may have are not of any measurable therapeutic long-term value, and the short-term relief people experience sometimes is a band aid at the best of times, or the gateway-drug to becoming a video-game addict in the worst case... So any arguments made in favour of gaming-induced catharsis, and how beneficial it might be, are thus far unsubstantiated as far as I am aware...

EDIT: That's not to say that I think catharsis does not take place at all, or that it doesn't "feel good" the moment it actually occurs (the release of tension, not the induction thereof!), but it is a way less significant deal than some people make it out to be...

Edited January 20, 2022 by Nine Inch Heels

[Doomkid]

Something I wanted to mention after actually thinking about this: sometimes, killing in video games doesn't feel good/fun/<insert positive descriptor here>. Even modern games have AI that is primitive compared to an actual human, and yet I still feel some odd level of guilt for killing innocent/bystander background characters, even though they're obviously just 1s and 0s. I don't like the idea of being some cold, ruthless killer and no game I've enjoyed portrays the main character in that light. I'm not morally opposed to it in game/film form of course, but it just doesn't appeal to my sensibilities (the only game I can think of like that is 'Hatred' anyway).

 

For me, killing only feels good when the aggression and intent to kill is at least mostly mutual. Even then, I can laugh at running over a bunch of pedestrians in GTA, but only because I know they aren't real - and part of me recognizes that it's good old-fashioned gruesome comedy, and I of course would be forever traumatized to see such a thing in reality.

 

Anyway I think the reason Gez gave sums it up pretty well - even though playing a computer game is not identical to playfighting as kids, there's clearly some deeply rooted desire in humans to kill that goes back to our hunter/gatherer days. Incarnations of that desire seem to result in a number of things: playfighting as kids, boxing/MMA, sport hunting, and in the last half-century, "killing" sprites on a computer screen.

 

None of these activities (necessarily) come from a place of hate or anger, much in the same way that killing animals to survive doesn't. There's an inherent thrill in that hunting/fighting/killing process for our species because it enables our survival, so doing a "lite" version and simulating it to some degree in computer games, free of all the other strings that are attached in the real world, is a pretty unsurprising thing.

 

I won't comment on the psychological effects because I'm not psychologist, but I would assume that like most things, doing it in moderation is fine (and for me is certainly enjoyable), but overdoing it likely has various effects on various people depending on their genetic background, general constitution, etc.

[Rudolph]

40 minutes ago, Yumheart said:

I don't really think it's the killing itself that feels good in Doom. It's in the fun combat, the crunchy sound effects, the great-looking animations.
Fe, I think of gibbing a bunch of low-tier enemies as comparable to those "strangely satisfying" kind of videos, humans just like seeing things move in certain ways.

Yeah, that might be it.

 

Weirdly enough, although I do enjoy Chex Quest for its cheesiness and sound design, I do not get the same satisfaction from "zorching" enemies. Once again, I find watching them explode in a pool of green goo to be much more cathartic.  That does bother me a bit, because part of me wishes I could play a game as addictive as Doom without having to constantly acknowledge the cognitive dissonance of playing a mass murderer. Now, I know that the game's context justifies Doomguy's actions, but like I pointed out with my Duke Nukem 3D anecdote, it can lead to some rather awkward conversations as well as some discomfort from hearing myself casually describe the ways I murder people in a video game...

[Sena]

'cause guns are cool

being able to see a sudden flash of light and loud sound lead to a visible effect of damage on target is just something that's inherently satisfying, I'd suggest it comes from that more than a desire to kill.

but the scientists from Half Life also have funny voice acting so I like killing them so I can hear it

Edited January 20, 2022 by Sena

[SuperCupcakeTactics]

Ah yeah haha I tell you h'wat I love killin' virtual creatures in the cyber realm... it's just so much gosh dang fun to blast them away in the digital world haha!!!  :)

If you want to join me for a LAN party playdate and maybe even see my rock mousetraps in action, come visit my hobby shack behind 4308 Hill Haven Drive in Sugar Land, TX 75202 -- you'll know it when you see it!! Here's a picture of it: https://ibb.co/sK7Rd8x see you there haha...!! :))

 

P.S. I do ask that you please wear a mask when on my property. Just give a knock on the bottom door when you get there!!!

Edited January 20, 2022 by SuperCupcakeTactics

[roadworx]

i think that, at least for me, what feels good is the gameplay itself rather than the actual act of killing. when i kill an enemy - this is something that especially occurs in doom btw - i don't feel "excited" or whatever. while i may have looked on in astonishment as a kid, that doesn't really happen anymore; whether that's due to desensitization or what, who knows. regardless, my excitement comes moreso from the adrenaline of the actual action itself, enhanced by audio and visual design. that, coupled with the overcoming of whatever challenge that i face, is what actually gives me enjoyment. sure, enemies gibbing can be funny at times, but...eh. that doesn't really give me the same satisfaction as gameplay itself, or at least not the same *kind* of satisfaction.

 

i will, however, say that it is heavily influenced by what exactly the act of killing is portrayed, which i guess could lend credence to the belief that i'm getting enjoyment from death itself. i'll feel genuinely bad in something like verdun or red orchestra where you have people twitching around and screaming while dying on the ground, but in a game where a death is just quick and simple, it's something that i pay no mind to. perhaps i do enjoy killing when it's watered down to the point of being cartoonish considering that the gameplay of these sorts of games do consist of killing...but i don't feel like that's really the case. i enjoy things that give me a thrill in general, regardless of if it has me set in the shoes of someone holding a gun or not, and i'd imagine that many others feel the same way. i'll feel incredibly similar when playing a game like audiosurf or one of the countless shmups that i was once really into. it stems from the same love of fast-paced action that many first-person shooters give, not from the desire to kill.

 

2 hours ago, Doomkid said:

Anyway I think the reason Gez gave sums it up pretty well - even though playing a computer game is not identical to playfighting as kids, there's clearly some deeply rooted desire in humans to kill that goes back to our hunter/gatherer days. Incarnations of that desire seem to result in a number of things: playfighting as kids, boxing/MMA, sport hunting, and in the last half-century, "killing" sprites on a computer screen.

 

None of these activities (necessarily) come from a place of hate or anger, much in the same way that killing animals to survive doesn't. There's an inherent thrill in that hunting/fighting/killing process for our species because it enables our survival, so doing a "lite" version and simulating it to some degree in computer games, free of all the other strings that are attached in the real world, is a pretty unsurprising thing. 

is that really a desire to kill tho? while killing has always been a part of our species - it is, like you said, oftentimes necessary for survival when you're not a technologically modern society - not all societies have participated in violent conflict. i feel that it has much more to do with a natural competitiveness in our species that, while not overtaking things like cooperation (not in healthy societies, anyways), is still important for our collective well-being. there's actually a lot of tribes that, instead of participating in warfare, will participate in sport instead, both to resolve disputes and for shits n giggles. that's very similar to today's society, where sport is done to fulfill this same competitive urge that humans naturally have.

 

a very telling example of this comes with the trobriand islanders, which, once colonized by the british, had their traditional tribal warfare outlawed. however, instead of simply going along with that, they took the game of cricket and actually adapted it to their customs and modified it to fit their needs. it served the exact same purpose, but didn't involve killing. another example, one which you may have heard of before due to it eventually being adopted by the european colonial powers as lacrosse, is stickball. it originated in native american tribes - don't ask which ones, i have no idea - and in some was done in place of the tribal warfare that many other tribes participated in.

 

i really don't think that there's any sort of innate urge in humans to kill, which is also why i don't think that our enjoyment of violent video games comes from any sort of fulfillment of that supposed desire.

 

edit: i completely misunderstood what you were trying to say, i am dumb

Edited January 20, 2022 by roadworx

[Nine Inch Heels]

53 minutes ago, roadworx said:

the thing is though...is that a desire to kill, or a desire to have a thrill (hee hoo it rhymes)? while killing has always been a part of our species - it is, like you said, oftentimes necessary for survival when you're not a technologically modern society - not all societies have participated in violent conflict. i feel that it has much more to do with a natural competitiveness in our species that, while not overtaking things like cooperation (not in healthy societies, anyways), is still important for our collective well-being. there's actually a lot of tribes that, instead of participating in warfare, will participate in sport instead, both to resolve disputes and for shits n giggles. that's very similar to today's society, where sport is done to fulfill this same competitive urge that humans naturally have.

There is a lot of conflation and confusion happening with some of these ideas people have...

 

No human who would be considered healthy experiences an actual desire to kill anything. People might get frustrated to the point where they utter such (oh, hey there, catharsis theory), but in the vast majority of cases, that's also where it ends. That said, if you tried to kill me, or a family member, you can bet any sum of money you want that I'll do what I can to erase you from existence. Which is to say that, usually, the stimulus that causes a feeling of anger and rage needs to be incredibly intense to reach a threshold that makes killing seem like a viable and desirable option... Humans have the capacity to want to kill, and possibly follow through, but they don't have an internal urge to do so that would somehow have to be suppressed 24/7. (If you have that urge, however, go get help immediately)...

 

Where the waters become murky is this idea of "competition"... Because competition, and being competitive to some extent, was an evolutionary engine that weeded out those unfit for survival. The stronger male gets the women, thus creating progeny while the weak ones could not, or at least less so. It's for that reason that people like to argue that the urge to "kill" is in us, even though the competition over somebody else's favour has taken on myriad different shapes over the course of time...

 

Furthermore, this competitive spirit, if you want to call it that, also served the purposes of establishing rudimentary hierarchies within tribes, where the most able ones made the important calls, while the losers had to follow suit. Having said that, there was no value in killing your competitor as long as you were able to establish yourself as the victor, and got what you wanted. In fact, if every conflict between people in the stone age ended with the death of another person, our evolution might have taken a vastly different course. Even animals are like that while they're still cubs, they act out their predatory behaviour in a playful way within the herd, rather than killing for the fun of it, and humans are no different in that regard...

 

Now here's where it gets really iffy... What if I told you that anybody who's ever shoved a BFG up a cyberdemons's ass knows that it doesn't make them a hit with the ladies and gentlemen they're interested in..? What benefit is there to being a more capable player at the bottom line? You don't get more dick, or more pussy, or ass, or all at the same time, and your boss isn't gonna hand you a promotion because you beat some level in cuphead either..? So why do we do it..? Yes, our brains are wired to play games, but only because there was a utilitarian value to it for millennia, but we're not hardwired to kill unless we're being pushed to the limit of our composure...

Butt: Scott Bigby Ph.D. pointed out that gaming caters to certain psychological needs people have, and broke those needs down into 3 main categories:

-competence (the idea of having mastered something and deriving a sense of happiness - if not self-respect - from that)
-autonomy (the need to experience what it's like to have a particular degree of control over something one does, as well as being somewhat independent)

-relatedness (the desire to matter to others, which, strangely, can also be satisfied to a slight degree by an NPC)

 

Note that none of these criteria necessarily involve killing something, and many gamers out there, or people who play any sort of game in the first place, don't require for there to be an overt expression of violence... Look at people who play chess... It checks the boxes for competence and autonomy, play it with somebody else and you have all three criteria met, no blood, no gore, not even SFX were required...

 

So no, we don't play games because we have an inherent desire to kill that somehow needed to be satisfied (because holy motherfucker of christ do I have bad news for you if you thought that was why, because both mankind and chess are way older than classic doom, and if we needed to satiate our bloodthirst regularly we wouldn't even be having this conversation today). Quick EDIT: I will concede that chess was made to have pieces that resemble "military assets" to a degree, and you could argue that that is enough of an expression of violence, but when you look at who played chess in the past, you'll notice that the game had a pull that was irrespective of how the pieces looked...

Edited January 20, 2022 by Nine Inch Heels