retarded artfag wrote:Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right?
By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions? If we have reached that point already, what real objects do we value less than our data? What implications does trusting something so important to something we understand so poorly have?
... I just don't understand what kind of parallel he's trying to draw. Enemies in video games, for the most part, attempt to cause harm to the player, so you could justify killing them as self-defense if you really want to overthink your entertainment. Placing completely pacifist "enemies" in your sights, telling you that you'll actually lose your own personal possessions if you kill them? What sort of wacky reality is this a metaphor for?
