Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
What!? He talked about broken factions and didn't mention Reilly's Rangers and Little Lamplight! Those are the king and queen of implausible factions in all video game history!
Shamus Young talks Fallout 3
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
Actually, Reilly's Rangers is one of the factions that work properly.
Pardon My Meta-Gaming
Pardon My Meta-Gaming
Possible Gambling exploit in Junk-town and/or Den.
Rewards probability exploration.
Enhances 'appropriating' items from *other* inventories.
That early game party can't get enough Doritos™ and MounTAIN DeW™!!!1!
Post Awesome Econ 101
4too
Pardon My Meta-Gaming
Crni Vuk said:
Possible Gambling exploit in Junk-town and/or Den.
Rewards probability exploration.
Enhances 'appropriating' items from *other* inventories.
That early game party can't get enough Doritos™ and MounTAIN DeW™!!!1!
Post Awesome Econ 101
4too
WorstUsernameEver
But best title ever!
Eumesmopo said:
Watching the videos, I think Shamus and the whole team just preferred to forget about Little Lamplight.
There's also some New Vegas stuff tho' it's older (2011 videos), and the overall impressions are more positive, though still mixed.
Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
Tagaziel said:
Why would anyone be interested in their maps?
Whom are they supposed to be selling their maps to (BoS was there long enough to know the city by heart, besides; a faction with so much spare cannon fodder and even a special set of armor called RECON armor ought to be able to handle it's own scouting... and the Enclave could simply use Vetibirds to get a much better read of the place. No one besides those two operates in DC.)?
Just how much work is there to be done in mapping DC ruins considering that the vault dweller can explore the whole place in a matter of hours?
Why anyone pay so much money for maps of tiny and empty ruins that it would be enough to sustain a merc squad equiped with miniguns and custom made armors?
How is anyone who actually would have a need for maps from DC even be supposed to contact RR in the first place (consider that the Vault Dweller has to venture deep into the center to reach their HQ and in the process he already gets most of the city mapped anyway)?
And most importantly: Why the hell would any faction at all outsource scouting work? Why would they trust maps made by mercenaries? Why would they not prefer to use their own scouts?
Eumesmopo said:
Factions that plan to move in the area? People who need to cross the DC ruins fast? Traders?
DC is not small. Riley is charting the entire DC area. Really, it isn't that hard: the actual size of the area is bigger than presented in the game. Riley maps the ruins, which differ quite a bit from the pre-War maps.
Has it occured to you that the contractor met the client outside DC to negotiate?
Because they aren't risking their own assets? Because they don't want to reveal themselves and prefer to work through intermediaries?
There's plenty of reasons for that, all of them related to not having to do the job themselves.
Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
Tagaziel said:
I remember more than one NPC saying that everyone other than the BoS avoids that area at all costs because they are afraid of the unending legion of mutants and etc...
Add a few more hours to the count them... The problem is that - even if we pretend that the map was the same size as real life DC - they should get the entire place mapped before too long. The dialogue and their HQ makes it looks as though they're not a travelling group of scouts-for-hire, but rather that they are settled there.
Which begs the question: How are they supposed to know when and where to meet? Without a permanent outpost outside DC the only way to contact the rangers would be randomly stumbling on one that's wandering out in the wastes.
They risk themselves far more by trusting a map made by someone else. Who's to say that a road which is marked as safe is not actually home to a huge centaur nest? Or that place marked as a safehouse is not actually a deathtrap filled with mininukes rigged to motion sensors? RR would have much to gain from the death of it's clients since they could loot the remains.
In a post-apocalyptic wasteland people are not supposed to trust one another, much less mercenaries.
Eumesmopo said:
And? There is a difference between the lumbering failures of Lyons and a small, heavily armed and highly mobile mercenary unit. Given that supermutants are utter retards, it's like navigating a jungle: dangerous, but entirely doable.
Are you honestly suggesting that mapping the entire ruins of Washington D.C., while avoiding supermutants is an easy endeavor that takes just a couple of hours to do?
Their choice of headquarters is not really relevant to their operational area.
No, they wouldn't. First, any party powerful enough to have the caps to spare for such a large assignment, is also powerful enough to exact revenge on unreliable mercenaries.
You're working off some weird assumption that the nuclear war completely obliterated the notion of human decency and asshatery is the norm, rather than exception. As human history shows, generally people understand what a contract is and don't go against it, no matter the circumstances. Furthermore, a breach of contract is so far out of character for Reilly it's not even funny.
Not really. A mercenary lives by his word. He goes against the contract, assuming that he even lives, he's not going to be hired again by anyone. Word does get around, as it did in medieval times.
Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
Tagaziel said:
Maybe. But exploring the city gives coherence to what those NPCs say: Other than the Brotherhood of Steel, the slavers at Lincoln Memorial, the Talon Company at the congress and Reilly's Rangers themselves no one is seen wandering that place.
If a guy with a blue jumpsuit and an old rifle can do it, then they can do it. No excuses.
That brings us right back to the questions I asked first:
Whom? There are no big factions in DC other than BoS and Enclave.
...and...
Why? If they have their own muscle, why would they need RR? And I don't think that avoiding risk or exposure is valid excuse since actually travelling through DC would inevitably lead to risk and exposure anyway.
"Asshatery" is the norm in our own society. All humans host destructive and self-serving desires, that's an undeniable psychiatric fact (see: Bad Man Do What Good Men Dream by Robert Simon). Without an effective system to establish law and punish crime humans inevitably end up fucking each other over anything or even nothing other than just fun. That was the basic theme of Fallout 1 and 2. Take no offense, but you don't appear to be very knowledgeable on history, I say so for you don't seen to realize that "human history" is a pleonasm. Besides that, the number of historical examples that contradict your belief is staggering, maintaining a close watch over subjects and allies to make sure that they remain loyal is a primary concern for all political leaders ever. Backstabbers can be found aplenty on every place and every period and they caused the fall of various empires, betrayal was a common ocurrence even on cultures that were big on the "honor" and "loyalty" discourses (samurais, for example, not rarely would turn their backs on their own clans). If there is one thing that history trully shows is that people are about as trustwhorty as a damocles sword and smart leaders remained in charge for they kept that in mind.
You know... the romantic idea of an uncorruptible mercenary band makes this whole RR story even more unconvincing. And then again, you seen to be suggesting that contractors are simply going to feel Reilly's aura of pure unbroken honor and trust her blindly.
The dead can't spread no words, and causing death is no big challenge when you have the opportunities to set up ambushes like RR do.
you make some good points, but for the better or the worse, RR have been one of the "better" parts of F3. At least as far as writing goes and the group it self. At least they showed some purpose. What ever if that makes huge sense or not, but it feelt better then those Talon mercs for example (or the other merc group I forgot), as those mercs dont make ANY sense at all and are nothing more then canon fodder. Always was glad to see them, because it was "hey free amo for me!" Or that stupid collecting you could do, was it ears or fingers? No clue anymore. And a lot of more stupid "lulz" stuff (Republic of Dave ...?).
I guess one could have done A LOT more with RR. Actually I would not mind to see them become one of the major groups in Fallout 4, and moving away from the BoS, Enclave etc.
I guess one could have done A LOT more with RR. Actually I would not mind to see them become one of the major groups in Fallout 4, and moving away from the BoS, Enclave etc.
Eumesmopo said:
Because the city is a ruin, hard to navigate. Is it that inconceiveable that a group of mercs is mapping the runs for a third party that seeks to move into the area, but wants to know how the area looks?
If a guy with a blue jumpsuit and an old rifle can do it, then they can do it. No excuses.
Go to DC, take a sketchbook with you and start drawing a precise map, indicating everything. Let's see how you handle it.
A faction from outside DC that wants to move into the area.
Using local mercenaries to do work for you is a better way to keep a low profile than going in yourself.
Uh, no. Asshatery is not the norm. Most people are decent and don't look to screw each other over, because otherwise, society simply wouldn't function and wouldn't exist. The economic collapse in Argentina between 1999-2002, which saw the fall of the government and implosion of the economy is another proof to the contrary, as people, instead of bickering and tearing the country's comatose body apart, worked together to reestablish social order.
Furthermore, your argument falls apart when you consider that it prevents the creation of law in the first place. As you say, the system needs a system to establish law and punish crime, but to establish the system you need laws. It's circular logic.
As human history shows, humans in general naturally gravitate towards order and cooperation, because it's simply more beneficial and profitable that war and strife.
*looks at his Master in Laws diploma with a focus on legal history*
Actually, I'm going to go with my knowledge of history and say that you don't seem to be understanding your own point. Your understanding of history appears to be a tunnel vision, focusing only on betrayal and crime, discounting everything that disproves your point.
Again, your logic is circular, and fails to account for the fact that if humans were really as crazy and untrustworthy as you paint them to be, then no system would be possible to create, as it would implode the moment it came off of the drawing board.
It's also interesting you note that you ignore the vast majority of human population throughout history that did not backstab anyone, because they just wanted to live their lives in peace.
Why unconvincing? Is it really that implausible that a contractor would actually honor the contract they are given? Pacta sunt servanda was the foundation of contract law before it was even formulated, even in the completely anarchic past, when human civilization just started.
Oh, so nobody would ask themselves a question "Gee, how did our fellas die, when the stretch of land was marked by Reilly as completely safe?"
Really, you're grasping at straws to make a counterpoint.
But you have to agree though, that the number of situations where betrayal was used is very high. Particularly on the political parquet, diplomacy and of course in wars. Whole empires collapsed because of the actions of a few individuals and in certain eras it was also rather common even. Not so much about "betrayal" but looking at the osman empire which was for its time very sophisticated, it was an usual procedure that an prince or successor would kill all of his brothers and rivals, which in turn lead Roxelane, one of the wifes from Süleyman I. to intrigue and kill or remove many of her competitors. So after all killing others or Betrayal was in many cultures rather the "norm" then the exception, if you wanted to gain power or stay in power. Even today its still very common in politics to discredit competitors, even if they don't really kill them today, they can easily kill them politicaly ending their career. Particularly in places where there is a lot of power and money involved there is as well some peculiar behaviour behind the actions even if most of the time not outright ilegal the parties involved are rather agressive in their actions. To discredit competitors at least in politics is rather normal for example.Tagaziel said:
Yes, they did. However, these are betrayals by people in power, of the political elite, perpetrated by the political elite. It's a function of dealing with power and money.
However, applying the Power Corrupts principle to the entire human race, basing on the actions of a very small group of people, is completely baseless.
It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion, as Reilly is not a political figure, or even a person of influence. She's just a woman with her four person band, doing jobs for people. A contractor.
However, applying the Power Corrupts principle to the entire human race, basing on the actions of a very small group of people, is completely baseless.
It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion, as Reilly is not a political figure, or even a person of influence. She's just a woman with her four person band, doing jobs for people. A contractor.
Crni Vuk said:
Votes in general are based on popularity, within a certain group. Fallout 3 is not popular around here, for example, but something like UnderRail probably will be.
Nothing of that sort happened with the Walking Dead, for example, and the vast majority of people are perfectly aware that graphics don't matter when it comes to writing awards. You are complaining about something that doesn't exist, imho.
No, these videos are reposts. They originally hosted these on Viddler, but they got taken down, thanks to their new bullshit service (you have to pay them for what YouTube can give you for free). Back then he said (and this should be somewhere in that Let's PLay, as far as I remember) that overall he liked the game, despite the writing. BUt I guess he has grown more negative towards it since then.
that doesn't exist? So Fallout 3 won the award because of its high quality writing I guess ... (or I get you wrong no clue).
Look. All I am saying is, there have been games with A LOT(!) better writing then F3. And even some VERY FAMOUS games had better writing. Yet F3 won. For what ever reason.
Look. All I am saying is, there have been games with A LOT(!) better writing then F3. And even some VERY FAMOUS games had better writing. Yet F3 won. For what ever reason.
Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
I still prefer the slavers and outcasts though. The Pitt DLC has some much better groups too.
True that. Their work will be harder because they ain't got no pip boys.
Why do they want to move into DC? It's an dangerous place and if it is loot they're after they don't need to settle there.
After getting their maps they would enter the area and end up getting exposed anyway.
Societies exist and function exactly because they have methods to punish individuals who go out of the line. Without those things (as it would be the case with a post-mutual-assured-destruction-scenario planet) most people would simply do whatever they want since they could get away with it anyway. That's one of the reasons why countries where murderers don't get caught or receive light penalties (such as Brazil, Mexico and South Africa) have high murder rates and countries where murderers not only get caught but also get punished hard (such as Indonesia, China and Saudi Arabia) have low murder rates.
The crisis in Argentina never got so bad as to the point to actually cause the state to stop functioning. Any news report from that time would show that riot police where out in the streets trying to keep the crowds of angry citizens from running amok and righteously beating some among the legions of looters. If we where to talk about places where states ceased to exist or downright turned rougue, Somalia and North Korea would be more accurate examples.
You don't need a system of law to create a system of law (obviously). What you need is some collective bodies who are tired of all the thievery, murder and raping and can agree to refrain from such practices themselves and also punishing any commit those crimes against their fellows. Whereas individuals have evil desires they also have fear that other individuals will exert their own evil desires upon them, thus; when working as a society and not mere individuals, humans may take decisions which are not exactly in agreement with some of their innermost desires.
Besides, sometimes human assholeness gets imprinted into the very system of law it creates. Remember slavery? Remember how it was commonly accepted and regulated in most legal systems of the past and even some contemporary ones?
I agree with that. But I would add that humans only show this behavior under the condition that they are able to share a network of moral standards which can be lawfully enforced through violence, if necessary.
That's nice and all, but academics aren't stupidity-proof (not that I'm saying you're stupid). I remember reading a book by a Harvard professor with a PhD in History (A Short History of the World by Geoffrey Blainey) where at some moment he talks about the tale of David and Goliath as though it was a real historical event.
And your view is accounting for every single existing aspect of history because...?
How come we can tell that? I was talking about people in positions of power and nobility because they are the ones who usually get the most of visibility in the historical record since they are prestigious and influential and occasionally even pay for literate people to record their lifes in the written medium for posterity. Not too many people were interested in writing about how the commoners lived and behaved. In most historical contexts the common people are a mystery, and in the contexts we have a reasonable record of, thievery and banditry tend to get mentioned.
Without a strong failsafe mechanism to deal with disloyalty, yes.
That's all conjectural and we can't really tell with the certainty you seem to have for we have no written records from the beginnings of civilization. History begins with writing (which appeared less than ten thousand years ago) and by them humanity had already went through more than a hundred thousand years of civilization and this is a period we know very little about.
That would only be the case with a faction who is big enough to afford travelling in groups.
And your appealing to a supposed large faction who's off the playable map and never gets mentioned by anyone in-game is not "grasping at straws", right?
Eumesmopo:
well you can say that all united states is dangerous, but still some group with power expands into the wasteland. NCR, Caesar legion to put two examples.
News reports can lie so i will not take their words as facts. Expecially if they tell what you are writing.
First of all the people didn’t go out in the street to kill each others or loot, we went out because we were tired of the curfew that the president order, of the way the economy was falling and the repression of the police. So we went to the Plaza de Mayo, a place the people always go to protest the government.
Second the police were trying (violently) to make the people go back to their home.
Third the president escape in helicopter that day, so i think some of the state stop working for that day.
I could correct the rest but I prefer others with better knowledge of English than me to do it.
well you can say that all united states is dangerous, but still some group with power expands into the wasteland. NCR, Caesar legion to put two examples.
News reports can lie so i will not take their words as facts. Expecially if they tell what you are writing.
First of all the people didn’t go out in the street to kill each others or loot, we went out because we were tired of the curfew that the president order, of the way the economy was falling and the repression of the police. So we went to the Plaza de Mayo, a place the people always go to protest the government.
Second the police were trying (violently) to make the people go back to their home.
Third the president escape in helicopter that day, so i think some of the state stop working for that day.
I could correct the rest but I prefer others with better knowledge of English than me to do it.
Eumesmopo said:
A map is always useful, whether you're crossing through the ruins and don't have to make a detour, or want to know which landmarks survived and may still contain stuff of value.
But not before having a complete, up-to-date map of DC showing passages, points of interest, intact buildings, etc.
It's not rocket science. Recon is an integral part of any operation and, by definition, includes a low profile.
Again, circular logic. Societies exist because they have methods to punish individuals. They have those methods ecause they exist.
Larger human societies emerged voluntarily, as peope bound together for common good, sacrificing a portion of their freedom in exchange for mutual protection and benefit. What you say is nonsensical, as it precludes formation of society in the first place.
It did cease to function temporarily, especially outside cities. You seem to be convinced that by the virtue of existing, the government is some kind of magical stabilizing force that preventspeople from degenerating into a pack of hyenas fighting over a corpse.
It isn't. While there was a semblance of government in Argentina, it had little control over the country, as unemployment skyrocketed, the economy imploded, and widespread looting and vandalism took hold. But did the country collapse? No, it did not. First, people started to reestablish order on their own, paving the way for the reintroduction of governmental control.
Even in Somalia, it was factions warring, not the common people. Common people wanted peace and once the AU pacified Mogadishu, surprise, it turned out that the destabilizing factor were factions that wanted power and control, not the common people who want a peaceful life.
Bottom line? People want to live in peace and order by default. The minority that doesn't wouldn't be convinced either way.
Not really. The key problem with your argument is that thievery, murder, and raping are default human behaviour. They aren't. I can't speak for you of course, but people I meet aren't thieves, murderers, and rapists only looking how to violate me and others. They are perfectly sane people who want to live a good life.
This is because humans are social animals, suited towards living in packs. while there will always be outsiders breaking the rules, the vast majority of humans are predisposed towards living together, forming societies for the common benefit.
Last, your argumentation is self defeating, as what benefit would a thief, murderer, and rapist have in turning his back to another thief, murderer, and rapist?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Human culture and morality is irrelevant to the topic of humans as social animals.
Uh, no they don't. Again, circular logic. Peaceful coexistence is required for laws, laws are required for peaceful coexistence.
You're constantly ignoring the instinctual avoidance of death present in animals, including humans. This instinct means that a majority of humans will avoid destructive behaviour (killing, raping, and stealing), because it is detrimental to their survival. This behaviour is also present in social animals, including apes, wolves, and dogs.
Or are you positing that humans have the mental development of a, say, fly? Incapable of causal reasoning and heading for gain along the lines of least resistance? That'd put our species below vertebrates, way, way below. For example, dogs do not understand nor have the concept of abstract law, yet they are clearly capable of observing and voluntarily participating in social order with humans.
Except it is not an academic textbook, but a popular science book, intended to provide a general overview of human history. The notion of anti-credentialism in your writing is interesting, as it seems you're equating your pet theories with works of established academicians.
And now you're moving the goalposts, demanding that I account for every single aspect of history?
No, my view includes history as it is. Which, while rich in violent behaviour, also shows a natural human tendency to create social order voluntarily.
Again, if social order could not be voluntarily established, it would not be established.
We can tell that by the fact that societies continued to grow and prosper. It's a pretty basic mechanism. Social order and stability are prerequisites for development. If people were as predisposed towards violence as you make them out to be, there'd be no society, as it could not be established.
That failsafe mechanism is called "instinctively avoiding death due to being an asshole." Also, look above.
No, human history begins with the appearance of first proto hominids. While indeed, our knowledge of the time is limited due to a lack of writing, it is by no means non-existent. Archeological excavations and analysis of artifacts created by humans show voluntary establishments of order.
So?
And your appealing to a supposed large faction who's off the playable map and never gets mentioned by anyone in-game is not "grasping at straws", right?
Yes, because (surprise) some factions do lay low. The Enclave was only known due to their eyebots, otherwise it would've been completely new to the inhabitants of the wasteland.
as far as argentinia goes. I think Yugoslavia is an better example of what can happen when the "old" rules colapse.
people which have literaly lived decades next to each other more or less peacefully started to sudenly murder each other when the war started. All because one of them was a croat and the other a serb.
I guess the situation depends a lot on the context and history of the place. I guess in an situation like in Fallout I would rather expect ALL people to be dishonest and untrustworthy for example. Just as how I would have expected in the Civill War in yugoslavia from everyone to cut my throat if I told them I was serbian - works the other way as well for the Croat in Serbia. Simply because you can not afford to be wrong here. Contracts? Honor? People going for "order"? What does that mean when someone points with an rifle on your head because you are a croat and his father or brother was killed by one and now he seeks revenge.
I admier Tagz positive vibe. But I would rather expect from the common man to be dishonest then honest. With saying that, I also believe that as groups people tend to rather go with safety and rules, if possible. Simply because that is what we have in our genes (remember humans are very similar to apes and thus gregarious animal)
I would not be so sure about that.
Stanley Milgram: Obedience to Authority Or Just Conformity?
"Many wondered after the horrors of WWII, and not for the first time, how people could be motivated to commit acts of such brutality towards each other."
...
Assuming people were not utterly convinced on an unconscious level that the experiment was for real, an alternative explanation is in order. Perhaps Milgram's work really demonstrates the power of conformity. The pull we all feel to please the experimenter, to fit in with the situation, to do what is expected of us. While this is still a powerful interpretation from a brilliant experiment, it isn't what Milgram was really looking for.
Whether you believe the experiment shows what it purports to or not, there is no doubting that Milgram's work was some of the most influential and impressive carried out in psychology. It is also an experiment very unlikely to be repeated nowadays (outside of virtual reality) because of modern ethical standards. Certainly when I first came across it, my view of human nature was changed irrevocably. Now, thinking critically, I'm not so sure.
I am sure you are used with that experiment. And the many other ones that actually try to find out more about human behavior.
Again tagz, the examples of people and the things they do to other human beings or just animals is staggering. There are for sure many examples of humans helping each other, building an society, following what we could call "good" morale. But sadly there are just as many negative examples of people committing crimes, violence, rape, thievery and worse things. Explaining it all with "those are psychos" doesn't work obviously. Of course we can not ignore the conditions. Harsh conditions particularly wars and war like scenarios have an very negative effect on human behavior. It shows usually the worst in even "good" humans.
One thing I believe is for sure though.
The need for violance, is there. Inside of us. For everyone. It has to be. If only for the purpose of defending our self or our kin from possible predators or even our own species. This "need" for violance is seen everywhere, books, movies, games (particularly games). Many of the basics sell very well, like Sex, and romance, violance and tension. Its not so much the violance alone and it sure doesnt mean that we suddenly enjoy raping someone just because enjoy an porno or that you would enjoy to torture people or animals because you enjoyed Grand Theft Auto. But the idea of violance in an very limited fashion is something that many see as entertaining. Even more so if the violance is used on groups and individuals which are clearly labed as "the bad guy". Most people though are inteligent enough to make a difference between what is fantasy, fiction and what is rea life. But imagine if no book, or move would use "violance" anymore. Boring world no :p
people which have literaly lived decades next to each other more or less peacefully started to sudenly murder each other when the war started. All because one of them was a croat and the other a serb.
I guess the situation depends a lot on the context and history of the place. I guess in an situation like in Fallout I would rather expect ALL people to be dishonest and untrustworthy for example. Just as how I would have expected in the Civill War in yugoslavia from everyone to cut my throat if I told them I was serbian - works the other way as well for the Croat in Serbia. Simply because you can not afford to be wrong here. Contracts? Honor? People going for "order"? What does that mean when someone points with an rifle on your head because you are a croat and his father or brother was killed by one and now he seeks revenge.
I admier Tagz positive vibe. But I would rather expect from the common man to be dishonest then honest. With saying that, I also believe that as groups people tend to rather go with safety and rules, if possible. Simply because that is what we have in our genes (remember humans are very similar to apes and thus gregarious animal)
hmmmTagaziel said:
I would not be so sure about that.
Stanley Milgram: Obedience to Authority Or Just Conformity?
"Many wondered after the horrors of WWII, and not for the first time, how people could be motivated to commit acts of such brutality towards each other."
...
Assuming people were not utterly convinced on an unconscious level that the experiment was for real, an alternative explanation is in order. Perhaps Milgram's work really demonstrates the power of conformity. The pull we all feel to please the experimenter, to fit in with the situation, to do what is expected of us. While this is still a powerful interpretation from a brilliant experiment, it isn't what Milgram was really looking for.
Whether you believe the experiment shows what it purports to or not, there is no doubting that Milgram's work was some of the most influential and impressive carried out in psychology. It is also an experiment very unlikely to be repeated nowadays (outside of virtual reality) because of modern ethical standards. Certainly when I first came across it, my view of human nature was changed irrevocably. Now, thinking critically, I'm not so sure.
I am sure you are used with that experiment. And the many other ones that actually try to find out more about human behavior.
Again tagz, the examples of people and the things they do to other human beings or just animals is staggering. There are for sure many examples of humans helping each other, building an society, following what we could call "good" morale. But sadly there are just as many negative examples of people committing crimes, violence, rape, thievery and worse things. Explaining it all with "those are psychos" doesn't work obviously. Of course we can not ignore the conditions. Harsh conditions particularly wars and war like scenarios have an very negative effect on human behavior. It shows usually the worst in even "good" humans.
One thing I believe is for sure though.
The need for violance, is there. Inside of us. For everyone. It has to be. If only for the purpose of defending our self or our kin from possible predators or even our own species. This "need" for violance is seen everywhere, books, movies, games (particularly games). Many of the basics sell very well, like Sex, and romance, violance and tension. Its not so much the violance alone and it sure doesnt mean that we suddenly enjoy raping someone just because enjoy an porno or that you would enjoy to torture people or animals because you enjoyed Grand Theft Auto. But the idea of violance in an very limited fashion is something that many see as entertaining. Even more so if the violance is used on groups and individuals which are clearly labed as "the bad guy". Most people though are inteligent enough to make a difference between what is fantasy, fiction and what is rea life. But imagine if no book, or move would use "violance" anymore. Boring world no :p