killing

If this wasn’t terrorism...

He sat among them for an hour plotting their execution. An hour listening to them pray and hold service and discuss God’s good grace. It did not humanize them in his eyes. He felt no sympathy. He stead fast in his mission and he shot them down. Not only that but he intentionally left one alive so she could tell people what he did and then he made a bomb threat.

If that’s not a textbook definition of “terrorism” then you need a new fucking dictionary.

pastemagazine.com
Violence is Boring: The Tedium of Violence as Progression

We’re tired of these beautiful videogame worlds being used solely as background for violence, where gorgeous walls are there only to have blood splattered on them

“You died,” Bloodborne screamed at me for the 500th time, as I was dealt murder instead of dealing it. I died because I failed to kill. I was denied continuation of a game because I did not successfully perform the game’s central progression act: killing.

I’ve been wondering: how often has that been the case, considering my graveyard of abandoned games—due to not killing fast enough or stylish enough.

Look at this screenshot for when I Googled “games of the year 2014.”

Those are well-known games. Almost all involve killing and harming another person or entity to continue.

Why? Why does this have to involve harm or killing? I’m not squeamish (I love horror and am halfway through Bloodborne); I’m conveying how bored I am of seeing killing as the only way to progress in games.

Read the rest at Paste Magazine…