(no subject)
Violence satisfaction in media
"Guns vs. masses" and "Two skills vs. each other"
"Guns vs. masses", e.g. "man vs. zombies", expenditure of ammunition is roughly equivalent to number of zombies. But in "two skills vs. each other", expenditure of effort to eradicate merely one opponent is greatly magnified over "masses". For example, in one man vs. one very skilled zombie, the expenditure of ammunition is grossly out of proportion to the number of zombies, one.
Do these two styles cater to two different types of people, or to two moods?
Unexplored: Explosion count and explosion size; collateral damage vs. actual damage. If a character can take a lot of damage, does it make up for collateral damage in terms of violence satisfaction? In other words, does the focus of collateral damage move from the character's surroundings to the character itself? (Detailed bodily damage, with the character's self as the core that has not yet sustained actual damage. Because of this introspective approach, is it less appealing to extroverts?)
"Guns vs. masses" and "Two skills vs. each other"
"Guns vs. masses", e.g. "man vs. zombies", expenditure of ammunition is roughly equivalent to number of zombies. But in "two skills vs. each other", expenditure of effort to eradicate merely one opponent is greatly magnified over "masses". For example, in one man vs. one very skilled zombie, the expenditure of ammunition is grossly out of proportion to the number of zombies, one.
Do these two styles cater to two different types of people, or to two moods?
Unexplored: Explosion count and explosion size; collateral damage vs. actual damage. If a character can take a lot of damage, does it make up for collateral damage in terms of violence satisfaction? In other words, does the focus of collateral damage move from the character's surroundings to the character itself? (Detailed bodily damage, with the character's self as the core that has not yet sustained actual damage. Because of this introspective approach, is it less appealing to extroverts?)