#1 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

Inspired by ajamafalous' thread on the concept in question's board, Games people have died while playing does not warrant a concept page, as it is something related to gaming culture and not any feature contained in these games whatsoever.  The fact that people have died while playing these games is merely coincidence (OR IS IT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!). 
 
Either way, this would make a fine list.  But it shouldn't be a concept.

#2 Edited by MattyFTM (14244 posts) -

Things related to gaming culture are more than welcome to have concept pages. It doesn't have to be a feature contained within a game. And I'd say this makes a pretty fine concept.

Moderator
#3 Posted by RedSox8933 (2428 posts) -

Also, some of these stories have people being murdered that were NOT playing the game.

#4 Posted by Hailinel (22752 posts) -

So if an old man keels over while playing Wii Sports bowling, or Super Mario Bros., or Quake, those games should be added to the page?
 
I'm sure that there are a number of unfortunate coincidences that would make games fit the criteria that aren't publicized, and frankly, there's a very morbid sense to the whole thing.
 
Also:

"Dude, bro!  Did you hear about the guy that totally choked to death on a chicken bone while playing Barbie Horse Adventures?"

#5 Posted by risseless (477 posts) -

Hmm, I find myself disagreeing with Matty for once. How is this concept any better than something like "Games people have watched other people play" or "Games people saw on TV before they bought them"? Those (and this) are lists, not concepts IMO. Concepts are properties of games; lists are compilations of games that meet a circumstance or opinion. This fits the latter, not the former. IMO, of course.

#6 Posted by Scooper (7882 posts) -

It shouldn't be a concept because a game's only in there if it's been reported by somewhere that someone died playing it. In that case, who reported it? Is that source credible? How do they know the person died playing the game and that it's not unrelated (dude makes a sandwhich and trips over his cat on his way back to his console) or did they just fabricate it to make it a more interesting story. How well-known does the reporting outlet have to be before it can go on this page? If I make a blog and write "my gran died while playing Custer's Revenge" does it then qualify to be on this page, what if Fox News reports that it happened, is that enough?
 
I agree with risseless that this is for a list, not a concept.

#7 Posted by Skald (4366 posts) -
@risseless said:
" Hmm, I find myself disagreeing with Matty for once. How is this concept any better than something like "Games people have watched other people play" or "Games people saw on TV before they bought them"? Those (and this) are lists, not concepts IMO. Concepts are properties of games; lists are compilations of games that meet a circumstance or opinion. This fits the latter, not the former. IMO, of course. "
I agree with this. This is about an outside factor that effects games unpredictably. While someone might say the same thing about controversy, controversial subject matter is hardwired into a game, whereas dying while playing a game typically doesn't reflect a game itself. As Hailinel pointed out, the two do not necessarily correlate at all, and as resseless pointed out, this would better fit a list. 
 
If any particularly famous instances exist, I suggest making a small note of it on the relevant page, and perhaps making a character page for someone who's death was famous enough to impact gaming on some level. I don't think this is a good concept, and I agree with the OP, and I call for a swift deletion (or relocation, over to listlandia) of this concept.
#8 Posted by MasturbatingBear (1781 posts) -

I dont see why not.

#9 Posted by Skytylz (4015 posts) -

That's interesting

#10 Posted by DanielJW (4915 posts) -

Well written page at least.

#11 Posted by roc_553 (203 posts) -

The thought of this as a concept page leaves me uneasy. 
If anyone wants my opinion. 

#12 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8060 posts) -

I'm not sure about this concept....

#13 Posted by mracoon (4915 posts) -

This should be a list.

Moderator
#14 Edited by S0ndor (2715 posts) -

Maybe respecify to "game related deaths"? There are plenty of cases where gamers have killed eachother because of an in-game argument, just not while either of them was playing a game. Many MMO related ones.
 
I seem to recall an incident where an Everquest (II?) player curb-stomped his leaderboard rival  just outside a bar somewhere, killing him.

#15 Posted by ajamafalous (11592 posts) -
@S0ndor said:
" I seem to recall an incident where an Everquest (II?) player curb-stomped his leaderboard rival  just outside a bar somewhere, killing him. "
Dude, what?
#16 Posted by S0ndor (2715 posts) -
@ajamafalous said:

" @S0ndor said:

" I seem to recall an incident where an Everquest (II?) player curb-stomped his leaderboard rival  just outside a bar somewhere, killing him. "
Dude, what? "
Hmm, I remembered wrong. It was Lineage II and the victim was kicked to death.
 
 http://www.gamespot.com/news/6235216.html
#17 Posted by Video_Game_King (34654 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
 "Dude, bro!  Did you hear about the guy that totally choked to death on a chicken bone while playing Barbie Horse Adventures?"
That's fairly easy to guard against: only deaths DIRECTLY RELATING to the game, like whenever you hear about some guy in China who died from too much World of Warcraft or something like that. Although I do see the point being made; it's not like game designers are intentionally designing their games to kill people. (Except, sort of.... and.....)
#18 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8060 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:
" @Hailinel said:
 "Dude, bro!  Did you hear about the guy that totally choked to death on a chicken bone while playing Barbie Horse Adventures?"
That's fairly easy to guard against: only deaths DIRECTLY RELATING to the game, like whenever you hear about some guy in China who died from too much World of Warcraft or something like that. ) "

That sounds reasonable to me....that should be placed in the guidlines of the page if enough people agree and the page doesn't get deleted.
#19 Posted by KamasamaK (2406 posts) -
@S0ndor said:
" Maybe respecify to "game related deaths"? There are plenty of cases where gamers have killed eachother because of an in-game argument, just not while either of them was playing a game. Many MMO related ones.  I seem to recall an incident where an Everquest (II?) player curb-stomped his leaderboard rival  just outside a bar somewhere, killing him. "
Sounds good to me. That would make it more reasonable and not so incidental.
#20 Posted by Hailinel (22752 posts) -
@Kamasama said:
" @S0ndor said:
" Maybe respecify to "game related deaths"? There are plenty of cases where gamers have killed eachother because of an in-game argument, just not while either of them was playing a game. Many MMO related ones.  I seem to recall an incident where an Everquest (II?) player curb-stomped his leaderboard rival  just outside a bar somewhere, killing him. "
Sounds good to me. That would make it more reasonable and not so incidental. "
It still doesn't seem reasonable to have a concept dedicated to games that people just happened to be playing when they died, though.
#21 Posted by KamasamaK (2406 posts) -
@Hailinel: You just described how it currently is. If I had to choose, I'd say delete it and be done with it. But necessitating the conditions of the death to be directly related to the game would at least be better.
#22 Posted by Hailinel (22752 posts) -
@Kamasama said:
" @Hailinel: You just described how it currently is. If I had to choose, I'd say delete it and be done with it. But necessitating the conditions of the death to be directly related to the game would at least be better. "
Except it's still not the games themselves that were responsible for the deaths.  People go on extended marathon sessions of games all the time, but if someone takes that to an extreme and their hearts end up giving out, that's not really indicative of the need for a concept.  That's just a list.
#23 Posted by KamasamaK (2406 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

" @Kamasama said:

" @Hailinel: You just described how it currently is. If I had to choose, I'd say delete it and be done with it. But necessitating the conditions of the death to be directly related to the game would at least be better. "
Except it's still not the games themselves that were responsible for the deaths.  People go on extended marathon sessions of games all the time, but if someone takes that to an extreme and their hearts end up giving out, that's not really indicative of the need for a concept.  That's just a list. "
Responsibility is a tricky thing. The game may not be the direct cause of death, but that doesn't mean it didn't play a role. I'm not talking about when someone is just playing the game and happens to have a heart attack, which is what would be covered now, since that would have likely happened at that time regardless of if they were playing the game. However, if the game prompted the heart attack (e.g. from a scary moment) then it would have played a role. Like Matty said, subjects on gaming culture are allowed. There is a valid concept for Movies Inspired By Games (which is a poor title but that's beside the point), because even though the game didn't make the movie it prompted the production. Although I feel the need to again say, if I were to choose it would be to just delete it.
#24 Posted by Hailinel (22752 posts) -
@Kamasama said:
" @Hailinel said:

" @Kamasama said:

" @Hailinel: You just described how it currently is. If I had to choose, I'd say delete it and be done with it. But necessitating the conditions of the death to be directly related to the game would at least be better. "
Except it's still not the games themselves that were responsible for the deaths.  People go on extended marathon sessions of games all the time, but if someone takes that to an extreme and their hearts end up giving out, that's not really indicative of the need for a concept.  That's just a list. "
Responsibility is a tricky thing. The game may not be the direct cause of death, but that doesn't mean it didn't play a role. I'm not talking about when someone is just playing the game and happens to have a heart attack, which is what would be covered now, since that would have likely happened at that time regardless of if they were playing the game. However, if the game prompted the heart attack (e.g. from a scary moment) then it would have played a role. Like Matty said, subjects on gaming culture are allowed. There is a valid concept for Movies Inspired By Games (which is a poor title but that's beside the point), because even though the game didn't make the movie it prompted the production. Although I feel the need to again say, if I were to choose it would be to just delete it. "
But there's nothing that says that any death is actually caused by a video game.  There are people who completely forget responsibility, health, and hygiene to a deadly degree, but that's a fault of the person playing the game and not the game itself.
#25 Posted by Arzen (81 posts) -
@MattyFTM said:
" Things related to gaming culture are more than welcome to have concept pages. It doesn't have to be a feature contained within a game. And I'd say this makes a pretty fine concept. "
So we can also have a concept page for "Games people have played while having sex"?  Or how about "Games people have played in the bathroom"?  I'd expect the second would mostly be handheld games, though I'd LOVE to play my 360 or PS3 on the can.  
#26 Posted by Video_Game_King (34654 posts) -
@Arzen: 
 
That brings up the question, "How are those directly related to games themselves?" With death, you can see that the game caused the person to die; I doubt games have made a person want to fuck somebody or take a dump. If they did, then a lot of us would have GIRLFRIENDS, wouldn't we?
#27 Posted by Arzen (81 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: The games didn't cause anyone to die.  Not eating and/or sleeping caused them to die.  The point was that there's no relationship between the game and whatever it is that occurred (death, sex, etc.)  Hailinel summed it up pretty well:

 But there's nothing that says that any death is actually caused by a video game.  There are people who completely forget responsibility, health, and hygiene to a deadly degree, but that's a fault of the person playing the game and not the game itself.    

#28 Edited by Lazyaza (2137 posts) -

Pretty sure wow holds the record for 'game related death', its something like 10 people by now. All dead because they got so addicted they forgot to eat/drink/move/use toilet lol
Though yeah I don't think theirs ever really been a game that specifically caused death just by being played, that like fox-news logic right there.  Stupid people cause death and games get blamed.
 
Games have directly lead to me finding a girlfriend, more friends and money though but positive stuff is boring right? lol

#29 Posted by TheHT (10318 posts) -

wtf? why not, it's a fun concept.

#30 Edited by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -
@TheHT said:

" wtf? why not, it's a fun concept. "

Because there's no defensible reason for it existing.  There's nothing about these games that have led people to die, it's the irrational and dangerous behavior they exhibited while playing it.  The simple fact is that the games they were playing don't matter whatsoever because there's no quality in said game that led to their deaths. 
 
Let's say I'm in a hospital bed suffering from terminal cancer, and I'm playing Metal Slug XX when I finally succumb to my illness and die.  Should the game be distinguished as a game that someone has died while playing even though the fact that I died while playing it is coincidental?  Likewise, if someone was playing a Game Boy Advance while driving and they got into an accident and died, would it really matter if they were playing Pokemon or Gunstar Super Heroes or Sonic Battle or whatever the hell else? 
 
There's no qualities about these games that make them any more or less lethal than any other game.  It's fun, which is why it would make a fun list.  But concepts are supposed to be about things actually in games, and this ain't.
#31 Edited by risseless (477 posts) -
@iAmJohn said:

There's no qualities about these games that make them any more or less lethal than any other game.  It's fun, which is why it would make a fun list.  But concepts are supposed to be about things actually in games, and this ain't. "

 
I completely and wholeheartedly agree. Just because this is "fun" or funny or interesting doesn't make it a concept. This is a list.
#32 Posted by TheHT (10318 posts) -
@iAmJohn: lol alright if you feel that strongly about it.
#33 Posted by mracoon (4915 posts) -

The only version of this concept I could see as being acceptable is 'Games which people have killed someone over'. That way the game is the reason why somebody ended up dying.

Moderator
#34 Posted by Hailinel (22752 posts) -
@mracoon said:
" The only version of this concept I could see as being acceptable is 'Games which people have killed someone over'. That way the game is the reason why somebody ended up dying. "
Except that still isn't a good concept, because it has nothing to do with the actual game itself.  It's still a list.
#35 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8060 posts) -

I think Jeff is going to have to give the final word on this one.