Anger about attack on video games
 

Do these people have just too much time on their hands or are they just so naive as to blame video games for everything!?!?!?

O No! I know people that have played Hitman & Hitman 2, and have achieved the Silent Assassin status. They are certified killers! Lock them up now. O horror! Think of the children!!!

article from
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...55E661,00.html

They just want something to blame. Video games are an easy target. I honestly think that movies are worse since video games (as good as the graphics are) do NOT seem like real life. Besides, anyone good enough to actually be good at these particular games (I've tried to be good, it's tough), is too busy playing them to go kill someone.

All you need to say to someone who says video games cause violence is look at Japan. Where are all the serial killers in that video game ridden country?

They said the same thing about Grand Theft Auto 3 as well, but there wasn't a surge of violent crimes due to that.

I wouldn't defend these games at all. Not one bit. That's my opinion.

If games were really so influential, I'd be going around eating mushrooms, jumping on turtles, and saving princesses in towers.

Really, like it was said above, people need something to blame. They feel it can't possibly be their horrible parenting. Nobody wants to put the blame on themselves, so they blame others.

If you don't play them or know much about them, then it's very acceptable for you to not defend them.
But it gets me angry when people who don't know about them start blaming them and use them for quick & easy scarpgoats.
I don't listen to heavy rock & metal music, and I honestly know nothing about that culture, I wouldn't defend it but neither would I blame everything on something I don't understand.

This is along the lines of blaming Pac Man for obesity in the United States...

It's ridiculous. I saw Terminator when I was 5. I've played violent video games my whole life. I've never thrown a punch at anyone in my entire life.

Violence stems from anger and a lack of support, whether it be from friends, family, or parents, not video games or any other media.

*If* it is your opinion that these games should be banned then why not go all the way? Books which contain stories about murders should be banned and burned, movies and even news containing details about such things should never be allowed to reach the public. People will not become axe murders then for the sole reason of never having heard of it before.

Come on now, do you really think these games are encouraging the player to go out and kill real people? How would you even determine that? How close does what you are shooting have to resemble a person; could it be an alien of some sort?

I think perhaps instead of infringing on the rights of gamers and game companies, there should be a very simple test given during the formative years of children, perhaps in public schools. The teachers will instruct the students that there is a red button in one or more corners of the building, which can be pressed without being very visible (except to the hidden camera). They will be informed that serious consequences will befall those who press the button for any reason, and to be sure not to do it.

Then, through the year they will be shown short video clips or games in which the objective is to press the button. If the students ask a teacher about the button they will be reminded of the consequences.

If the button is pressed the camera takes a picture, and the student or students pictured will be enrolled in a class which is aimed at teaching them how to think for themselves.

Actually it has been researched sufficiently for it to be considered to have the effect of desensitizing us to violence. It is not reasonable to believe media have no effect on us. Of course, the more impressionable are affected more than the less impressionable. It is clear to me that media have effects on us - many of which are negative. Violent media are a type of cultural programming that is best considered powerful and persuasive rather than discounted because one has a particular affection for it.

Note: I won't be responding to assertions that I have not made. I'll stand behind the things I've typed. At some point I won't pursue argumentation on the subject. I'm offering a suggestion that the potentially negative effects of media should not be discounted.

I do not agree. Violence does not stem from a lack of support from anyone. Violence stems from someone wanting to hurt someone else, and either not knowing or not caring about the consequences. I don't think that lack of knowledge is the factor, else they would be running "Don't kill people, it is bad, mmkay?" ads. If I told you to go out and kill someone, would you? Of course not! So it is absurd for you to buy a product in which people are killed and then accuse me of making you kill someone. It is your choice, and it is not my responsibility to remind you of that.

ART, although I agree with you when you put it in terms of media, I disagree that video games specifically have the effect of desensitizing. I think the only things video games have desensitized in me are violence in video games. Blood and gore in video games is nothing like that in movies or on tv. I've played video games all my life and I can't stand the sight of blood (except in video games of course). I have to look away at shows on basic cable that show people getting plastic surgery. I freak out and have nightmares for a week if I ever see a clip of a real person dieing (like the nick berg clip...even thinking about will surely give me a nightmare tonight). I am only one person though, I can't speak for all who play video games. So through my own experiences is where I get my stand on that.

Maybe this is the problem. Personally I think that if society was desensitized enough to violence where we could really look it in the face and understand what it is, what happens when someone is cut or shot, we would be better off. I think it is most pitiful when you watch a medical show where some gang member is in because they were shot or knifed. Too often there is shock in their eyes, not the medical condition, but the newfound knowledge of what it is to be really hurt in the manner they probably planned or carried out against others. By turning your eyes away you are depriving yourself of a truth that while painful to admit, is still true.

That is one thing I respect about the situation in the middle east. Everyone there knows the consequences of the violence they do; it is their decision to ignore the feelings of others in favor of their own that I have a problem with.

I agree with yatzr - I can't stand blood either and I close my eyes & squirm in TV shows where they show real surgery (medical documentaries & such).

When I saw Supersize Me, there was a scene where the guy had an operation to reduce his stomach size - I didn't even see one second of that as my eyes were closed the whole time.

It's not just because computer graphics in games aren't realistic, it's also the mindset and mentality. Gamers KNOW that games are not for real. Even if graphics are improved in the future to look realistic, gamers still KNOW the difference between games and reality.

Games are games and nothing more. Most normal people understand that. People who don't have problems beyond playing games that they should have dealt with a long time ago.

I don't think we need to worry about these things being banned anytime soon. Nobody has the statistics to prove any of this as truth. People just want something to blame other than bad parenting or something.
First of all, if a parent doesn't want to raise their children on video games, sex and violence, that's their choice. And to ensure that, they should simply not buy their kids any games, not own a television, not bring their kids to the movies, not buy them most books, not bring them outside, and not own a computer. Simple, right?
The truth of the matter is that "bad" influences are all around children all the time. It's all about how they interpret these things and how their parents raise them to think of these things that matters. Furthermore, trying to pretend that sex and violence don't exist and sheltering your kid from any contact or knowledge of it can only hurt your kid in the long run. He won't know how to deal with it once he is faced with it and he'll be made fun of in school for being so naive.


Perhaps games do desensitize people to violence or pain or death...but the same can be said for becoming a doctor or a lawyar or even living in the wrong neighborhood. When you're around *anything* enough, the impact stops being so great. But that doesn't mean that you're going to go out and kill people. All it means is that every time someone dies, you're not cringing and crying all night long.

Meanwhile, tons of these people from middle-America who want to ban video games with violence enroll their children in the military when they're old enough. They can't play video games but killing real people is just fine! Part of military training is desensitizing people to death so that they don't get squeimish when actually faced with battle.

phage, I don't think being desensitized and understanding are the same thing. In fact, I think being desensitized involves lack of understanding how bad violence is. If those kids in iraq see people killing other people all the time, they wouldn't think twice of doing it themselves. That's desensitization. They have less respect for life in that sense, and don't understand how precious it is.

What? Seeing people die all the time would, if anything, make them realize how much more precious life is. Life here in the US is something we take for granted because most people live to 70-90, thanks to low crime rates and great health care. If you live in a place where, at any moment, you might be blown up, every moment is that much more precious to you.

Trisk, I disagree.
Because we do have relatively long life expectancies and people around us aren't dropping life flies, I think we are more shocked and upset when tragic & violence occur in our lives.

In places where people have low life expectancies, where violent death is common, sure they may treasure their moments in life but they are less shocked.

I do agree that many people here take life for granted, but people here also would have to think VERY VERY hard about killing another person. Over there, it seems like it's not such a big deal. I guess we can't really state how people over there think though...it's only our opinions.

I think that the biggest problem is that parents let negative influences into their childrens' lives without being willing to be a positive influence and role model. They also allow kids to be exposed to violent images and scenarios before they have imparted a sense of reality versus disbelief or any system of values to their children. On top of that, parents just ignore kids too much in the struggle to get ahead in life.

Maybe if a parent sat down with his or her mentally ill kid when they saw him using a pipe bomb as a paperweight, he and his best friend wouldn't have shot up their school. Maybe if parents of troubled children wouldn't ignore the problem and distance themselves from the child because of the stigma associated with mental illnesses, these kids would feel loved and cared for, and less likely to imitate what they saw in a violent movie.

Short version: bad parents end up with bad kids.

You're right that it doesn't shock them as much when people die. I was just referring to the last sentance that yatzr typed:

"They have less respect for life in that sense, and don't understand how precious it is."

What's interesting is that here in our "affluent" cultures, we have "evil" luxury items like violent video games and yet we would think twice about commit acts of violence.

In countries where dying and killing is more common (African nations in civil wars, certain Middle Eastern countries etc) violent video games are not so easily available or affordable. One wonders - how are these people learning to be so violent and trigger happy without the benefit of video games?!?!

yes, i meant that for other people, not the individuals themselves. When someone doesn't think twice of killing another individual, they have less respect for life. They don't understand how precious each individual's life is. Sorry for the bad wording before.

Trisk. Sorry for misunderstaning your comment.

Extreme circumstances drive people to extreme measures.

Anyone see "Bowling for Columbine"?

I think some of the stuff Michael Moore brings up accounts for most of the violence in America.

Michael Moore is a frikkin idiot. Half of the scenes portrayed in that movie were staged. Half of the "facts" he stated in that movie were twisted and taken completely out of context. I found myself laughing or staring at my friend in disbelief many times while watching the movie. Please, take everything any extremely biased person tells you in a political film with a huge lump of salt.

www.bowlingfortruth.com

It's best to be aware of the current professional evaluations when discussing this topic.

http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm

http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/mediavio.htm

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html

If one wants to be taken seriously in defending media and video game violence, one should - at least - have an awareness of these references.

My position on this is that it is clear from the currently available research that media violence has a negative effect on human beings.

We are not arguing that media violence is GOOD or that it has no negative effect. The point is that it is hugely unfair to use video games as the scrapgoat when there are many other (& worse) forms of violent media.

Read through those articles briefly (will read them in more details when I get home).Firstly, the studies do attribute the increase in aggression to media in general, and TV in a few specific cases.

Second observation; the last article http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html
seem very biased. How is the study done!? The details of the study were very brief, only the "conclusion" was printed and then went STRAIGHT TO linking violence in video games to school shootings.
I felt the first three articles were interesting reads, but the last one was very scrapgoat style.

I have seen these effects of gaming. Divorce, obesity, poor grades and failure to progress professionally. Thankfully, I have not personally known someone that has committed violence.

IMO - Gaming is like any other facet of life. Moderation is the key. If you "need" a fix of 4 hours of gaming a day, you have a problem. Do I believe that a person that plays 40 hours a week of a violent game can be more apt to commit an act. You betcha!

games are just games unless you take it too far. Its kind of like copying a stunt from jackassl.

why blame the parents when the parents came blame the video games!

"Current professional evaluations" typically doesn't mean shit to me when talking about cultural differences in opinion. There was a time when doctors used to openly endorse cigarette smoking. For a long time, it was "low/no fat" and now it's "low/no carb", the exact opposite in perspective. Fuck that.

As for video games, it's just another thing for these people to spin their wheels on because they're so damn bored with their lives.

When the internet became available, people predicted that it would be the downfall of our civilization. They said the same thing about cellular phones when they came out, cable TV, the invention of TV itself, even the "moving pictures" when first introduced in the early 1900's.

People love a scapegoat. If they were so ineffectual in teaching their kids right from wrong that a simple video game could SOMEHOW turn them into vicious killers- well, that not only illuminates the depths of their failures as a positive figure in the kid's life, it also showcases just how gullible some people can be.

Misplaced enotions are a dangerous thing.

The same can be said about anything when not used in moderation. True, gaming can have a particularly addictive quality to it, resulting in these things but so can anything when people can't balance real life with it. An unhealthy amount of television can do the same but nobody is saying we should ban televisions. The divorce part holds no validity with me because, when about 50% of marriages end in divorce, you can't blame gaming. Obviously there is another problem. I know couples in which one or both are gamers and they are very happily married.

As for myself - I game. I have been known to sit down for 14 hours (at the longest) for a gaming session. I'm not saying it's good...but on a rainy Saturday or something, it's something fun to do. Am I obese? No. I go to the gym pretty much every day (but I won't freak if I miss a day). I eat well, I've done very well academically in the past, I read a lot and I've had no problems with relationships (both platonic and otherwise). I know how to balance my life in a healthy way and no, you won't see me running down the streets of New York trying to kill people's dogs with a sword (considering that I've played rpgs and mmos, such games would supposedly encourage me to do that if they could).

This is one of the reports that Art cited in his list of examples for why violent media has a negative effect on people.

Source: Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life , By: Craig A. Anderson, Karen E. Dill, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 0022-3514, April 1, 2000, Vol. 78, Issue 4

This was done in 2000, so the study itself isn't all too old. In essence the study says that people have aggressive thoughts when they play aggressive video games, which is not a surprise. Everything beyond that finding is conjecture.


The Senate paper that was posted also contains questionable allegations. In particular I open up this section pertaining to video games.

Source: http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/mediavio.htm

Here are those footnotes:

41 Testimony of Senator Orrin G. Hatch before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, May 4, 1999.

No offense to Senator Hatch, but I do not see a scientific reference here. We need a primary source to validate this statement.

42 Mark Weitzman, Technology And Terror: Extremism On The Internet, NCJW Journal, Winter 1998/99, p. 24.

As far as I can tell, NCJW stands for National Council of Jewish Women. Once again we do not have a primary source for the study cited, and worse yet the journal in question is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

43 Stanger and Gridina, supra note 12.

This refers to another source: Jeffrey D. Stanger and Natalia Gridina, Media in the Home 1999, The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Report Series No. 5, 1999, p. 3.

Source: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...ey/survey5.pdf

I must be blind, but nowhere in this paper did I find a reference to violent video games being similar to military simulators. Given that in 1999 the most advanced FPS game was Quake 3, I fail to see how this is a proper correlation. (Unless the rocket jump has become a valid military tactic, and nobody told me.)


Here's an interesting report that I can't access because my school hasn't renewed their subscription. At the very least the abstract is engaging.

Source: JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association; 4/21/2004, Vol. 291 Issue 15, p1822, 3p, 1c

I've seen plenty of studies that seem to demonstrate a link between aggressive thoughts and violent video games, but nothing that shows the kind of link we need before we ban a form of entertainment. The fact that youth violence has DECREASED despite the fact that video games are more realistic, more prevalent, and more popular (as stated in the abstract above) is extremely interesting. How can video games have a significant negative impact if we're seeing less violence?

Violent video games are a form of entertainment that appeals to a specific group of people. Some of those people may be imbalanced, and violent video games may either provide them with an escape or foster aggressive thoughts that lead to violent behavior. The problem is that we don't know, and the vast majority of the people out there who play games are normal and well-adjusted individuals.

The Hitman series are not realistic in any sense of the word. You do not see bald superhuman assassins wander around with bar codes on the back of their neck. Hitmen do not evade detection simply by changing their clothes. And anyone who manages to fire as accurately as Agent 47 does with akimbo 1911's is definitely not of this world.

So let's all step back, relax, and go play Doom for a few hours.

See, the thing I find which is so funny, is that they always talk about you doing the killing... You doing the violence.

Can any gamer here honestly say that they've NEVER DIED before in a game? I mean come'on, if you're going to take the game into all seriousness which many people want to do, you must take ALL of the game into seriousness. Now in any game where you can kill, you too are hunted after. The consequence is either Life(in jail) or Death. Both options aren't anything I'd go for.

If you play a First Person Shooter, sure you'll get a few kills, but sooner or later you die, even if you were playing the game perfectly.. simply because someone was playing it better than you. I've always figured that if I took video games as real, that the first thing I'd take back with me was the fact that death always occurs, and if it doesn't.. I'm always running knowing that death is chasing me. Yes, this means I play violent games.. yet what I get from it is that violence is worth shit when you get caught and you WILL get caught... once you do the game is over.

Life has no Save Points... if you don't know that.... well lets just say Video Games aren't the real issue.

Funny stuff. I still don't get why videogames are the biggest target for this kind of crap. It's pretty shortsighted to say that Videogames impart bad morals and promote an unhealthy view of reality.

It's a form of entertainment. Games aren't "How-to" guides on how to kill people. Hell, we all know, that's what Tv is for!

Tv.. Training brainwashed assassins since 1963!

I never knew shooting someone would kill them until I played video games, because that sort of thing doesnt happen on the news... or in movies or tv... only video games

Shit, since I play so much Medieval Total War, I guess I have impulses to run a country in 1100s Europe, and command armies of knights and archers. Seriously, politicians have been on this anti-video game kick for years now, starting with Sen. Lieberman. Personally, I'm not too worried about some pasty nerd coming to get me.

Does media have a negative impact on people? Sure. Do people have aggressive thoughts WHILE playing aggressive games? Most likely. But do playing video games cause people to be more aggressive - especially to the point of being more capable of killing - in real life, after playing? Undoubtedly, no.

Yes, there is lots of 'evidence' that video games can temporarily bring out aggressive tendancies in people. The first thing to keep in mind when looking at the conclusions based on the 'evidence' is that 100 years ago there was also scientific and medical 'evidence' that blacks were inferior to whites, and that women were less capable than men. Scientific fact can be utilized and twisted for any number of conlusions.

The second thing to keep in mind is the real life evidence, outside of scientific studies. The game DOOM came out in 1994. It is now a decade later, and unless I've missed something the world isn't any crazier of a place because of people who played that game. I played it, and I don't have a rocket launcher sitting around in my room, that's for sure. Nor does anyone I know who played it - and I was 11 years old when I played it! Mortal Kombat came out in 1992. It was a favorite target at the time because of all the blood and gore. I played that one too, as did many people. In the past 12 years, I have not heard of a surge in people attempting to rip the spines out of others. Grand Theft Auto III - a more recent game of controversy - has already been cited. The only spike in people getting hit by cars that I've noticed on the news is from old people and farmer's markets.

No doubt, video games - and more importantly media in general - can have an impact in how desensitized one is to violence. Perhaps people aren't as bothered when they hear about death on the news. Perhaps that's why movies must be more and more graphic to acheive the same "shock" effect.

However, there is a big difference between being desensitized and being capable to do something that is, for all intents and purposes, hard-wired into our brains as wrong. Those who do not have a natural aversion to murder and such did not become that way because they played video games. First off, study after study has shown that the majority of a person's personality - the core of it, where one's respect for life would fit in - is developed by the age of 3. If a person has no natural aversion to real life murder, it is likely because they were denied human love in the early years in some way or another. It could be mental illness as well. It could also be constant real life attacks on self-esteem, harboring self-loathing and anger. One thing it most certainly is not though is video game playing.

Correlation between violent media and desensitization to violence? Yes. Cause and effect between violent video games and violent crime? No.

I understand the reasons for the very impassioned defense of popular forms of entertainment. I don't think, however, that going as far as the research has required in admitting the way that violent media affects our population is the sort of position that reflects much interest in social responsibility.

Please everyone, continue to play the video games that are apparently so crucially an important part of our entertainment culture. However it is not terribly convincing to reflect positions that amount to the notion that it is an acceptible thing to enthusiastically promote and defend something which obviously is not a good thing for millions of young people who are far less capable of steeling themselves to its deleterious effects than proponents would like to believe. Admitting to the overwhelming message of research that violent media is a part of the problem of desensitization, alienation, and confusion experienced by youth and the weak people in our society - of which there are millions - is not a resounding endorsement, is it?

I just wonder why they would attack a game that actually rewards you for NOT going on a brutal rampage. The journalist could have pointed out that the top rating of "silent assassin" in the Hitman series is only achieved if you kill NOBODY but the person you have been tasked to kill...sometimes without a gun...in one case with a dead FISH!! (this is actually true).

<img src="http://macheath.customer.netspace.net.au/FishSlappingbw2.gif">

This issue shouldn't be black and white. It shouldn't be the "Shut down the gaming industry and go read a book" side <b>versus</b> the "<i>Adventures of Patrick Bateman 3</i> is out next week, YEAH!!" side.

In the game <i>Deus Ex</i>, The developers made it possible to play the game without killing a SINGLE person out of the hundreds of characters you encountered in the game. After learning of this on internet forums, many who played and loved the game went back to it months later to achieve this "ultimate goal". These are the kinds of games I enjoy above all others.

Why does it feel like this fascinating phenomenon has been COMLETELY ignored by many video game opponents. Wouldn't it make for a more interesting debate...to consider that games are maybe actually *evolving* without Orrin Hatch's help?

At most you can say a correlation exists between violent media and the problems you listed. It's not a question of "admitting" to anything; the research hasn't shown much more than that. They demonstrate tenuous links, using findings that show "an increase in aggressive thoughts" to theorize that all exposure is bad.

The only exception is that of desensitization; research has shown that repeated exposure to media violence desensitizes people to media violence. I have yet to hear of a study that shows that people who watch violent media become numb to real violence. It doesn't mean it's out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

Look, I'm not saying violent media doesn't have an influence on those who watch it. All stimulus does, from movies to that 8th grader down the street. The problem is that research like this is never used to say "Oh, you should let your kids watch TV in moderation." It's always used in a support of BANNING the media in question. The Lieberman's and Hatch's of this world desperately grab for any study which proves their side, and then twist it until things support their point.

70% of the gamers out there are adults (http://www.womengamers.com/articles/myths.html), and few people would argue that they need protection from violent media. For the remaining 30%, parents have the responsibility here. The government should not be in the business of "saving our children" from adult entertainment, when the parents can do it far more effectively and for less money.

A group of marines that are heavy gamers in Iraq this weekend lost their life. Apparently after encountering a group of enemy soldiers the men all started jumping up and down (to dodge bullets) while trying to shoot the enemy. One man almost escape but died when he tried to jump over a building by shooting a rocket at his feet while jumping......




In seriousness though, there was a study that showed that gamers have faster reactions and are better drivers. If video games caused people to be violent there would be a lot more crime in the world today. The people who commit crimes and blame video games are either mentally unbalanced before playing games or just looking for a scape goat.

This is just the next trend in the "pass the blame" mentality for parents that feel justified when they admit they've lost control of their kids. In the 80's we wanted to blame the heavy metal and rap, so we slapped a warning label on the CD and all was good.

In the 90's there was Beavis and Butthead turning kids into arsonists. Beavis stopped saying "fire" and all was good again. Around the turn of the millenium, movies were too violent so studios opted to turn out more PG-13 movies and all was good.

Now we have the video games ruining the country and turning us into killing machines. Slap a sticker on it and wait for the next victim to blame as the pussification of America continues.

Brining that up wouldn't support their bullshit adgenda they are trying to force us into believing. Also, it's very likely that the author never sat down and played it. The article is probably based on second-hand information.

The problem with psych issues (especially controversial issues) is that for every study that comes to one condition, there is another that equally refutes it.

I guess someone forgot about the 1st Amendment.

The research with which I am familiar on media effects and violence is weak. Most studies:
1) have unacceptably small sample sizes,
2) neglect to include female subjects,
3) do not include subjects of different age groups,
3) are unable to demonstrate an effect longer than a few hours,
4) are unable to demonstrate an effect at a magnitude that anyone should care, and
5) are unable to demonstrate an effect outside of the laboratory.

Because so many men and women are exposed to media violence every day and so few actually commit the violent acts that are causally attributed to media violence, I would guess that it's something about these individuals that's causing them to commit violent acts, rather than something about media violence.

That said, I don't discount media effects research entirely. I have seen some compelling theory and research on how media representations of women may affect the body images of girls. I've also seen compelling research on how media representations of women may affect married men's commitment to their long-term relationships and single men's likelihood of committing to a long-term relationship. (Media images of women may bias men toward pursuing short-term romantic relationships over long-term romantic relationships).

Sorry. Forgot to mention that the news article was from Australia. There IS freedom of speech and such, but we don't have the 1st Amendment. We probably have something similar to it.

The "local"context is that, here in Melbourne, there has been quite a bit of gangland shooting in the past 18 months.

hehe after reading the dont killpeople its bad mmkay i decided to append it to a video game splash screen

http://www.purgejihad.com/640X480SPLASH.PCX

On the part of desensitization? When I see that someone dies every fucking day on the news.. playing a game with graphics that aren't near as real as what I see on the news, I don't see how the game will desensitize me.

See what I'm getting at is this. I'm not desensitized becaues I play violent games. I'm desensitized because I hear about killings, murders, and deaths on a weekly basis. If I had not habituated to hearing said things, I'd be having mental breakdowns all the time. Its just like how I've habituated to semi's on the freeway which is about 50 yards away. Its not extremely loud, but if you're new to the area, you'll pick it up. Live here a bit and you get used to it and it doesn't bother you... Same with violence when you hear about it all the time.

Video Games Kill.

Someone I know had g.. err knew... had just gotten neverwinter nights and was going to another friends house of mine to show him the game on his motorcycle... when a pickup pulled out infront of him and he hit the back ....

I support the government censorship and banning of all violent video games, music, and movies... because people NEVER killed anyone before all this evil crap came along

*sarcasm*

NIB HIGHSCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!!!!!!!!!

and so do video games. and so does evolution. the weak willed, ignorant, imbalanced pussies in society will be bred out of existence eventually. we just have to have a little patience.

*looks impatiently at wrist watch*

uhh uhhh... i hate to do this... but uhh

strike 1 for video games

http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archi...dm003001c.html

You have to kill Anna Navarre =P

On this issue though, well, I can't really put anything forward that hasn't been covered.

Jam, that girl didn't push off the little boy because she had just finished playing Super Pushio Children VII, did she?

Thats the truest thing i've ever heard.

Haha thats actually kind of funny.

Games affect me. If I play driving games, then go out and drive, I generally drive faster than I usually would. I have several friends who report the same effect.

Thanks for a sources ART.

Google for B.F. Skinner, operant conditioning and army training. The basics: In WWII, firing rates, that is, "shooting to kill", were at 2%. It was because they were using bullseyes to train soldiers; due to innate empathy, an adept marksman could flake out when he actually had to point the rifle at other humans in combat. They started training with pop-up, man shaped targets, and firing rates climbed. Now, modern training methods can get firing rates above 90%.

The training, by simuating a real event, constructs a reflex that circumvents basic empathy. This is seperable from good marksmanship (which is a different set of reflexes), and it is highly likely that computer games also have a similar affect (Someone did try to blame video games for the Washington sniper, while he was still shooting people. Retarded logic...)

It should be noted that this reflex does not destroy innate species empathy; soldiers who have been trained to kill and then do so may have trouble dealing with the psychological effects of the action afterward.

I'd also like to say that I play violent games and I design levels for them. Why? Because I'm almost 100% certain that none of this conditioning actually supplies anyone with a motive to kill. It may increase their capacity to; it may also increase existing pathological desires, but I do not believe it creates the desire to kill or maim.

It seems violent games do predispose people to think of violent solutions to agitated situations, and I can see that in myself, though I can also see other likely contributing factors. I have still never resorted to a violent solution because I am able to control myself and think about consequence. I've looked too hard to believe media and entertainment have no effect on us, but I also believe people, and not media, are actually responsible for their actions.

Another interesting factor is that there is a market for violent games. People desire to enact violent situations, and it is a good point that there are countries where life is cheap, so to speak, and computer games aren't readily available. Violent media is clearly a factor, but I think something a bit deeper is going on...

Guns don't kill people, video games don't kill people.

Crappy parenting, or the complete lack thereof, kills people. ;)

I'm so tired of this argument.

There is violence in media...

*violence on TV
*violence in movies
*violence in music
*violence in literature
*violence in art
*violence in the news
*violence in theatre
*violence in the bible

Does this violence affect people? Who knows?

But if you are going to "manage" only video games you're missing the point.

Sadly, a lot of America seems to be missing the point and looking for easy targets so that they can "save the children"

Actually I remember a discussion on some forum about people who had managed to avoid her using a few gas grenades and a little luck.

It wasn't intended by the developers - really something a glitch; but a significant one.

Aaannyyway, back to the serious discussion.

:hmm:

well im: young, white, play video games, listen to rap, public enemy number one, watch out boys and girls I am one dangerous ma'fucka

Bingo. Amplifying something that is already there is hardly the video games problem. The fact is, the person's issues were already present.

Show me a well done study that shows that video games (or violent media in general for that matter) make people who would otherwise not commit violent crimes do so, and then I will stop sticking up for the industry. Problem is there are no such studies, because violent games/media do not have that effect.

well Ive been playing a dawn of the dead game... and let me tell you, if i ever see a zombie in real life.. im going to blast its fucking head off.... (supposedly thats the way to do it, not the stake in the heart hehe)

Jam, a stake in the heart is not for zombies, it is for vampires. Even then a vampire is only immobilized and you still need to chop of it's head and either fill it with garlic or burn it and mix the ashes with holy wafer.

See, if violent video games were banned the entire human race would probably fall to something as simple as a zombie invasion! Maybe those in the know should make a pamphlet...

ph crap your i should probably sleep more

but I thought you had to stake the lead vampire in order to kill them off

I think if you can reason that videogames make people more prone to violence, it could also be reasoned that pornography/erotica makes people more prone to promiscuous, unsafe sex. I'm also sure you could dig up any number of studies to support that idea. So what? I don't think society should necessarily live or die on the whims of pandering politicians or pop psychologists.

I just got done killing several of my closet friend in an online WWII game. Does that make me a bad person. No, here is why: I had these things called parents, I know that many in the world may not have heard about them but they do exist. What these folks did for me was quite simply that they parented (another foreign concept) teaching me right from wrong... exposing me to the world so that I would know the difference between games and life. I have an infant son and one day I hope to be able to do the same thing for him. I do not think that it is a case of desensitization but rather that I and many like me have the ability to separate pixels from peoples. But go ahead Tipper..... tell me how the music made me a murderer.


Kian
- surrounded by idjits.... we pressed on -
Pat Garrett - "Young Guns 2"

Beautiful, thank you.

Yeah but we don't really know the backround behind that case. If that girl went as far as to push her little brother off the balcony to avoid her mom's punishment, maybe there is something they're not telling us. I wouldn't be suprised if they found out that her mother beats her or something like that.

It's nice to know that so many other people in the world are quick on the uptake as well. This forum reassures me that we will not fall to the idiots of the world easily, if at all.

Yes well.
I'm not convinced that the proponents of video games have demonstrated anything but their passionate love for this stuff.
I think the sort of mindlessness these games promote is indefensible except by passionate devotees in terms of self-proclaimed anecdotal statements that their own minds have not been ruined by playing them. Take that as you will. But it sounds very defensive to me. That's about it.

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/c...goldstein.html

I specifically liked this part.

I disagree. This is objective, albeit unrecorded, experience:

and this is a very interesting, unsolved problem that seems to indicate that games are a factor rather than a cause:

Yes.
What I fail to understand is the need to defend the stuff.
I worked for one of the first underground comic publishers out of San Francisco. A lot of the stuff we produced was mind-numbing garbage intended for the diversion of drug-addled minds. In communities all over the country, people would picket "head shops" that sold the stuff because they didn't want their kids exposed to it. They weren't "idiots" and they were entirely right, of course. I still have a titanic collection of comic books. I have an affection for the medium. I have no problem stating that it is mind-dulling nonsense. But I like it.
Some honesty goes a long way.
Defensiveness goes nowhere.

Would you NOT have defended the right to publish these comic books at the time? While 'defending' the games themselves seems trivial, the right to have them is defensible. It comes down to parental and personal responsibility.
To many of my parental peers, I was way too liberal in what I allowed my kids to view and play. They have loved the Simpsons since they were 4-they do not torment adults ala Bart Simpson. My son plays video games, albeit not the mature-rated ones, but he does not go around wreaking havoc or or jumping off ledges.
The desensitization of our youth happens, at least in part, because there is no discussion between the caretaker and child of what is seen before them. Too many young people witness real violence in their personal lives and if no one cares, they won't.
The 'leave me out of it' mentality is epidemic. Let's concentrate on turning our offspring back into caring, responsible people and these kinds of arguments wouldn't be necessary.

So does understanding.

ngdawg, at the time, I was a jerk.

I look at my loud-mouthed, self-righteous and self-involved, elitist youth as an extended character flaw. In any event, no one here has advocated banning anything.

A lot of the work that I do now also should not be experienced by children. I wouldn't defend my "right" to shove it in front of them via all available means of distribution.

yatzr, what I fail to understand is the refusal to accept that much of what is foisted on children these days is deleterious to their best interests. No one is interested in taking adult-oriented content away from adults. No one here, anyway.

there is a rating system... just like movies.. though ratings have to be bought

I think there probably some truth to that also. While I take your point about pop-psychology in relation to video games (<-- Hey, American English is contagious :)), I assure you that Skinner is about as far from pop as you can get. An interesting couterpoint is Maslow's "Is Destructiveness Instinctive?" from Motivation and Personality. The evidence seems to be that destructiveness is not innate, but instead learned (Though he does not exlude biological determinants; he simply breaks the nature/nurture dichotomy).

Now if, on the other hand, you were saying "Pornography makes people commit rape", then you'd be making a very similar argument to "Video games cause violent rampages".

I once read an article on porn that claimed almost all rapists had looked at porn before commiting rape, therefore porn caused rape. The argument completely ignores the millions of people who look at porn and don't commmit rape, and I think that's very similar to most people's arguments against games.

It isn't tenable to make such generalisations about any medium, and sometimes even content.

For example, in looking at porn I've seen a spectrum running from people having a tremendous amount of fun in front of a camera, to people being exploited and humiliated. The medium is ethically inert; neither good nor bad.

I'd also say the same for comics:

Nabiel Kanan, Paul Pope, Terry Moore, Dave Sim, Shannon Wheeler, Judd Winnick, Kyle Baker, Art Spiegelman, Robert Crumb, Will Eisner, Scott McCloud, Dave McKean, Jim Woodring, and Chris Ware are just a few of the people not doing mind-dulling nonsense with comics. In terms of the superhero cliché, I agree with you, but there is stimlating contemporary fiction out there in the medium. Again, proving that generalisations are inadequate.

Similary, a lot of computer games are mindless drivel, but not all. I'm not defending the content of games, because I'd agree with you that most gung-ho rambo type kill-a-thons are indeed mindless drivel. I am however defending games against the gross misapprehension that they can somehow take somebody's will and control it.

The same facile accusation was levellled at comics in the 50's. Psychiatrist Fredric Wertham wrote a book entitled "Seduction of the Innocent", which implicated comics in racism, "sexual perversion", and juvenile deliquency. Comics were burned in the streets, and publishers signed up to the strict "Comics Code", which forbade:

• Gore
• Sex
• Sadistic Behaviour
• Challenges to established authority
• The unique details of any crime
• Any hints of "illicit relations" or condoning of divorce
• Any references to physical afflictions and deformities
• Merest allusions to "sexual perversions" of any kind

(Scott McCloud, Reinventing Comics, pages 86, 87)

Now, while the pulp fiction and horror of the pre-code era wasn't exactly enriching fiction, restricting it in the manner of the code did not actually lift the medium out of the gutter. It turned it into a soulless, stagnant intellectual wasteland, and to this day intelligent, talented authors and artists are struggling to earn the medium the credibility it deserves.

All of this applies to games, and when combined with the similar examples from, literature, film, music, etc, it all points to a deeper cultural or even trans-cultural cause (My money's on the latter).

A lot of games are shit; they're about simply shooting "baddies" again, again, and again. Just as with comics, there are exceptions. Creators need freedom in order to make those exceptions, and stereotyping a medium according to a sampling of its content only damages widespread perceptions and makes exceptions less likely.

All of the artists you've mentioned have created some amount of mind-dulling nonsense. This is a personal opinion. In fact, my personal opinion is that all artists create some portion of mind-dulling nonsense. That's just my opinion. The point is that adult content should be made available to adults. The rest is just matters of taste and not directly relevant.

"Some amount" does not justify wholly discounting their work or the medium. With respect ARTelivision, you just failed to justify your generalisations about the medium of comics. Stating that a medium is in itself mind-dulling nonsense may well be an opinion, but it is a patently untrue one.

What ever it is applied to, any definition of "adult content" or a threshold of "adulthood" is bound to be arbitrary and peppered by exceptions. In just the same way that games have great difficulty in simulating organic realities, so too do other artificially constructed systems encounter massive difficulty in containing them.

Also, in respect of porn or anything else generated from reality, exploitation is a matter of objective harm, not taste.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Cheers, me neither.

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.