And it´s not even encouraged, because every such deeds are almost immiediatly followed by the police chasing you(and you really don´t want to get caught because that means losing money and all your weapons). You do that a few times maybe, because you can but it get´s old real fast. It maybe even is a bit too much because it can get annoying when you´re getting chased becasue you accidentally ramed a police car that came out of nowhere when you were taking a turn, when all you wanted to do was driving to a mission!
And note how people who actually have played that game mainly praise it for it´s soundtrack and setting and less for the possibility to go berserk?
I think it´s a bit like with adventure games, they make them comedies to make it more belivable that you do crazy stuff, that´s why in the most popular open world sandbox games you are a criminial because if the mechanic is realistic it allows you to do bad stuff and when you´re a criminal it´s made more believable even though it´s never encouraged (all the characters in the game tell you to keep your head down and not get noticed by the police).
According to the plot synopsis I read, the police were corrupt and in on the deal. I’ll agree that the whole thing doesn’t sound even remotely plausible. To that end it sounds a lot like the movie “The Running Man” in terms of ridiculous plot contrivances meant to service a plot.
Mhmmm. Whose this definition? I don’t find it appropriate. First of all, I don’t think that premeditation should be required. If I kill somebody without premeditation but with intention, isn’t it a murder? Even the intention is not required to a certain degree.
Then, talking about that “unlawful”… that’s a cultural matter. In some cultures ANY kind of killing is murder. And even if you live in a country which allows death penalty and/or is at war, you can consider as murder the death administered by the law in other countries, if that law doesn’t reflect your principles and beliefs.
Since the definition of “murder” varies by jurisdiction, I used the word without defining it so that anyone could cite the games that contained actions that they would classify as “murder”.
Personally, I use “murder” when the act is intentional and unlawful, as it appears in the definition given by DZ, and the more generic word “homicide” when the killing is unintentional or considered legal by the specific jurisdiction (unless there are more specific terms for that kind of homicide).
The thing that bemuses me the most is the fact that the involuntary killing of a person sounds a lot more gruesome and brutal in english AND german than the intentional variant.
Murder/Homicide Manslaughter!!!
Mord Totschlag!!!
I wonder why this is and if that´s the case in other languages.
That´s the best comparison, yes. I think both ultimatly end with the protagonist turning onto those who have forced him into the situation.
Anyway, the point is not the technical juridical meaning of murder as a crime, but murder as it is perceived by people as the intrinsically evil act of killing other human beings.
Nothing in there changes what I said (which was taken from the Oxford Dictionary, by the way).
Jurisdictions vary on what is lawful, but the point is that murder is not just killing, but an unlawful act, which is a matter of law.
Why would this matter? Because if your judicial system deems an act as “self-defense” or something like it which is tolerable by a particular law, then it is no longer murder. I would imagine that “people” would “perceive” it as such as well, because societal norms sometimes permit or accept certain acts in specific circumstances.
Manslaughter, murder, killing, death, assassination, execution, euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide, accidental death, and many more – these are not strictly synonyms; there are many nuances between them.
In the first there’s the intention. It can be with or without premeditation.
In the second there’s not the intention but the death is caused by guilt.
In the third there’s not the intention but the death is caused by a violent conduct.
Both cases 2 and 3 can be considered as case 1 in the occurring of "dolo eventuale ". When the killer doesn’t have the intention to kill, but his conduct is capable of provoking death, he is somehow accepting the risk of killing. Example: I want to injure someone hitting him in the head with a heavy object. If the person dies, my "omicidio preterintenzionale " could become “volontario” since I choose a weapon which could possibly cause death.
The closest translation of manslaughter is “strage”, which is a brutal and gruesome word, but it refers to the crime of killing several people.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, I’m just a wise-ass kid, so I might be inaccurate
I’m sorry, but the Oxford dictionary definition of murder implies premeditation, while in the URL i quoted second degree homicide is defined explicitly as an intentional killing that is NOT premeditated or planned, as opposed to first degree homicide. So, one of the two definitions must be wrong.
Yes, I agree. Yet the meaning of “murder” as perceived by people is still debatable. Even self defense can assume different meanings. In some countries, my reaction must be coherent with the offence: a deemed self defense for somebody shooting at me is shooting back. But a deemed self defense for somebody punching me is just punching back. In some other countries this proportionality is not automatic: if someone invades my property, I can shoot him in some countries, for example.
IAnd, beyond all the cultural differences, the idea of murder is, for the human nature, intrinsically perceived as wrong and evil. This is the reason why I think it is important to remember that “murder” is not only a juridical definition that can vary from nation to nation, but it is a philosophical and primal concept for human nature.
I’m sorry, I’d like my English was far better than this to better express my thoughts.
Look, my point wasn’t to discuss the nuance of the language, but to point out that the act of just “killing” anything at all in a video game does not necessarily make it a “murder simulator.”
For it to be murder, some societal and legal values need to be crossed; and I provided as an example the definition from the Oxford Dictionary.
And I would find the Oxford Dictionary definition perfect, if not for the mention of premeditation: that’s just an error. Of, if you prefer, an unaccuracy.
He somehow is watching a movie about himself turning into a werewolf, then walks his girlfriend home passing by a graveyard and turns into a zombie…but you object to his popcorn eating manners?!
Actually I asked whose definition was that because I didn’t like it since it is perfect for “first degree murder” but doesn’t fit well “murder” in general. Actually a murder can be without premeditation, and this is a fact, not my opinion. I was very surprised to discover that definition was from the Oxford, because I consider that book an authority too, but it seems obvious that in this specific case, something must be wrong somewhere. Isn’t there an English or American lawyer that could explain me if the dictionary is wrong or it’s me not getting something?
No probs, I can help: it was about chewing popcorn and wearing silly jackets…
I think you mean “homicide,” which is a more general term of a human being killing another one.
As much as she would like it to be, the word "murder "is not necessarily a strict synonym to homicide. And according to the Oxford English dictionary, there’s a very specific meaning to it.
Anyway, I don’t have a silly jacket, but I love popcorn!
