Lasereth

I'm not sure why videogames get attacked so often. The MPAA does an OK job at rating movies for theatrical viewings. Kids can't watch adult movies unless their parents attend the viewing with them. The same rating system is already created for videogames, but it's simply not enforced as it should be. Kids shouldn't be able to buy games that are for adults. Kids can't watch movies for adults. It's all with the parents. Parents should decide which movies their kids can see and which games they can play. The rating system is already here, it simply needs to be enforced.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

ARTelevision

I don't have a need to justify my aesthetic generalizations. That is part of my point here. I state my aesthetic views and do not attempt to justify them. The fact is my own opinion, which is beyond the scope of this thread, is that most artwork is mind dulling nonsense - no matter what the medium.

The discussion, debate - the point of the thread is that there are some video games (a generalization) - or broadly any media content - that has deleterious effects upon children. That's the point. Is it so difficult to concede that point? Evidently it is for those who love the most violent of them. (See many posts above).

I used one post to indicate simply that I have no problem with stating that some things I like very much - are garbage. I think it would be a better and more honest world if some of the rest of us were willing to let go of passionate defenses of things we are addicted to.

__________________
create evolution

yatzr

I refuse to accept it because I've played video games for the past 16 years of my 20 year life, and I KNOW that it was never deleterious to my best interests. I give credit to video games teaching me to be a logical thinker, to do things in a systematic way (as well as teaching me to think "outside the box"). I now (well...always have) excel in math and logic. I easily get A's in all of my college calculus/difeq and math based engineering classes. Maybe I was born with those skills, but video games definately helped tone them. So I say that video games are not mind-dulling (although, since this again is only personal experience, I'm sure it will have absolutely no bearing on your opinion). They challenge the mind to think more than any other media. Even the most violent games challenge your mind to come up with the best solution. I fail to see how that is harmful to a child as long as they know it is not real life.

I know nobody is trying to take adult content from adults. But when I give my kids a video game, I don't want people yelling at me that I don't know my kids' best interests. Video games (no matter how violent) are not going to hurt my kids. What would hurt my kids would be my not taking the responsibility to teach them what is right and wrong and show them that video games are not real life. I understand this. People that attack video games do not.

__________________
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

DelayedReaction

The problem is that you're attempting to make this statement SO broad that it no longer has meaning. Yes, there are some video games out there that have no value whatsoever. Back in the day there was a video game where you played a Nazi and you got to shoot jews. But that one game (whose title I do not remember) does not represent the genre as a whole. That's like saying that some people are bad; it's a generalization that is so diluted it no longer has meaning.

This thread is not simply about admitting that there is a possibility that some video games may cause harm; it is about a group of individuals wanting the state to step in and ban a game because it makes you a hired assassin.

Having played and thoroughly enjoyed the entire Hitman series, I can say it has not affected me in a negative manner. I was entertained, and had the most fun playing in a manner that resulted in NO unnecessary deaths.

More importantly, these games are designed for adults. Most stores won't sell MA games to children, and parents are responsible for deciding what visual input is allowed. The state should not decide what adult material is suitable for child consumption; that's solely at the discretion of the parent.

So yes Art, some video games may have a negative effect on some children. So what? These games are not designed for children, the majority of gamers out there aren't children*, and most stores won't even sell these games to children. But politicians won't see that, and will take an admission by the gaming community as an excuse to ban video games.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

ARTelevision

Yeah, I just think the impassioned defense of this stuff is silly.

When I used to like candy bars I knew they were garbage. But I liked them and I ate them. It would have been silly to make a big defense of them, talking about their possible minor good points and go on and on about it. Besides that, I think its fine for people to try to get things banned.

__________________
create evolution

Trisk

I firmly believe that most video games should not be banned. I am a gamer and I would defend a lot of games because I think it's stupid when people throw around accusations that simply do not hold much value when it comes down to it.
The real issue here, though, is that, as others have said, there are already ratings on the games. If a 12 year old walked into a store and tried to buy a game rated M for mature, he would not be allowed to. However, many kids play these games. If they have access to these games, it is most likely that their parents are allowing them to play it. And who is the government to tell the parents how to raise their kids?
Once the government starts getting involved in banning materials that can go into the hands of their citizens, you are on a dangerous path. It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be banning rpgs because they cause animal violence, they'll be banning porn for rape, books with curses, books with sex, books with violence etc etc etc until we're living in 1984 by George Orwell.
Maybe I'm getting a little bit carried away. But we have to be careful about where we're heading with things like this. Nobody wants the government running our daily lives. America is a free country. If you want your government controlling what you can do or see, perhaps America is not the best place for you to be living .

As for the candy bar analogy...most people here are, really, just saying they like video games because they're fun....but they're also aware that video games can have the wrong influence or effects in the wrong hands.
Same thing with candy bars. For most people, candy bars taste good...but if someone doesn't understand moderation, they might eat wayy to many candy bars and get fat and then die of clogged arteries. Does this mean we should ban all candy bars? No. Candy bars aren't meant to be eaten by the box. And games aren't meant to be taken seriously or played 24 hours a day. It comes down to personal responsibility for both things.

NotMinus

I think Videogames are a credible medium to teach, to entertain and excite someone. These three things are what I strive to find in my entertainment. I would also say that entertainment is not something that I find silly in my life. It is not silly to be passionate about what you enjoy. It is a quality I admire in people. I have a passion for many things including music, autoracing, design and videogames to name a few. Although videogames are not an important aspect of my lifestyle I enjoy it enough to justify feeling strongly about it.

We have gotten away from the origonal disscussion though. I think this censorship stems from accountable blame. I was raised in a fashion to take responsibility for my actions. When I make a bad decision I take responsiblity for my actions and don't run from blame or discredit my own actions as being influenced elsewhere. These people protesting violent video games are protesting that they be removed completely because they feel the exposure to them has caused their attackers to due wrong to them. They can't accept that their attackers wronged them due to their own decisions and huamn behavoir so now, instead of responsiblity laying on the criminals and their decisions, it is now the fault of aggresive and violent video games for forcing them to go out and hurt these people emtionaly or physicaly. It is hard to completely vilify a person but easy to do to a videogame. They have shifted the blame to a object that is easier to manifest as evil. I think these people are using videogames as a scapegoat so they don't have to deal with the problems in society that really are causing people to harm others.

Arsenic7

Aggressive people will play video games that allow them to take out that aggression.

I don't think your average kid will be influenced too heavily by video games, at least not enough to change their moral values and basic behavior (though my growing collection of nintendo apparel might refute that idea.)

__________________
This is no sig.

Arsenic7

I think there is a difference between stating that a game in which you play a serial killer or rapist is ok for the kiddies and stating that it should be allowed to exist.

The original poster seemed to have intended this to be a debate on whether video games affect the behavior of children AND whether those games deemed reprehensible should be made or not.

To me, many of the people who lobby against violent games are spending way too much time on something that should really be a non issue. If a game is violent it obviously is not for children, as enforced by the parents.

These games shouldn't need to be defended in the first place so I think defending them or stating that they can't be defended is sort of silly.

__________________
This is no sig.

filtherton

Would you say that a passionate defense of ones ability to look at adult entertainment is silly too? I'm sure you'd agree that most adult entertainment is incredibly mind dulling. Are you saying that you'd have no problem if some pandering politician decided that porn/erotica are the next great corrupter of our society? You'd just sit back and say, "Well, he does have a point." Or would you formulate an argument counter to that and claim that there is some value in adult entertainment?

What's silly is the idea that videogames by themselves can have some sort of deleterious effect on anyone.

It seems like you just want everyone to admit that videogames have no inherent value to society as a whole. The fact that many of us won't you attribute to some sort of intellectual dishonesty. If you're going to take that position tell me what leisure activity does have value to society? If i were to claim that you were dulling the minds of society and causing more harm than good how would you refute my statement? How would you do it without being silly?

ARTelevision

Actually I would agree that most adult entertainment is mind dulling and I would never defend its accessibility by young people. Adults can do what they want within the law. I'm not interested in defending things like this. The last time I checked, the world was full of people who promote the things they love and make giant rationalizations for why they are worthwhile. I just don't feel a need to join that chorus. It's loud enough already - and from the looks of things, it always will be.

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

Oh, I do want to address the questions you asked me at the end.
I don't think I do much good for society.

__________________
create evolution

Jam

most entertainment is mind dulling? shakespear is entertainment... you have a problem with that too?

SecretMethod70

The problem is, ART, we're not debating about the accessibility of violent video games to young people. No one here has said "I want 10 year olds to be able to play Hitman." Instead, we're defending the rights for this stuff to exist. Just like erotic material is marked as such, violent video games are as well. Stores will not sell video games rated MA to any 10 year old that walks in, just like they won't sell Debbie Does Dallas to them.

The "passioned" debate comes in this fact. The debate is not "10 year olds should have access to this," but, rather, it is "adults should have access to this." The politicians and lobbyists involved in attacking video games are not arguing that children should not have access to hitman. While that may be what they layer their arguments with, because children are a popular tool to getting what you want in the world of politics (a disgusting practice that is threadworthy in its own right), the real argument they make is that NO ONE should have access to this material. It's akin to someone saying "erotic material is bad for children, so all erotic material should be banned from everyone everywhere."

Many people have problems with the fact there are rating systems for things such as video games and music CDs. While it may be appalling to have someone else deciding, by their own set of rules, how "good" something is, the ratings systems are ultimately good to have. Without ratings on video games, then 10 year olds could go out and buy Hitman themselves without parental approval. Of course I agree this is not a desirable situation. However, the debate being made is not about ratings systems - because we already have them - it is that, now that the ratings systems exist, they would like to see any game that would be rated Mature be banned instead of restricted access. That is wrong.

So, the passionate defense doesn't come from any delusion that video games - especially violent ones - serve some greater good or are not "mind dulling nonsense." That passionate defense comes from the fact that it is a defense against people who want the government to legislate morality not to children, but to adults.

EDIT: For example, you don't think you do much good for society as a whole (this is probably true for most individuals). I suspect, based on that belief, that if someone tried to limit your interactions with society for this reason, you would not fight it. They are allowing you to exist but basically saying you contribute nothing so you shouldn't be allowed access to mediums in which people who do not expressly choose to interact with you may end up doing so. That's basically what we have now with a ratings system.

Now, if, instead of limiting your access because you don't contribute much good, let's say people were fighting to have you killed because of it. You do not contribute good to society, therefore you should not exist and your life should be taken. I think you would attempt to defend yourself against this. This is basically the argument that's being made against violent video games. Not that they should not be accessible by children - they already aren't - but that they should simply not exist.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ARTelevision

Yes. I leave that stuff to the politicians and the political process. I vote for things that appear on ballots, etc.

Curiously, I've had to defend myself and my work in the legal system more than once. I take that on as an individual and existential responsibility when it comes up.

__________________
create evolution

Jam

it is enforced for the most part... just as much as movies are, some minimum wage kid at walmart decides whether or not to card someone... my brother got carded for halo or something... they do enforce it, but maybe the min. wage employee just doesnt care... or thinks you look old enough

filtherton

Cheers, me neither.

bonehed1

The people that blame games for violence are retarded. The people to blame our the parents for not teaching kids the difference between reality and fantasy. A game might bring a thought in your head but I doubt it will influence you to do what you see on the computer screen and that depends on the state of mind you are in and you have to be one messed up person then.

__________________
Stuff is Good