I am a loser: I don't like violent video games [Archive]

W.P.

06-19-2007, 08:21 PM

A while ago I was at a friend's house and we were playing Xbox 360. Nice system, I like the controller, and best of all, Viva Piñata is great campy fun. As we were in the basement, my friend decided to pull out Gears of War and let us all give it a try. I thought to myself "Ugh, murder simulation, but what the hey? No harm done." I was playing it and seriously, how do you people play this stuff? I don't care about good gameplay, this was disgusting. I said to my friend "Look, I really can't play this." I just watched my other friends play with him. It was awful. The graphics were realistic but I never really went "wow" since there was really nothing to say "wow" about. The atmosphere was so damn one-noted and the stages so repetitive that there wasn't really much to be impressed by passed the first 10 minutes of the game. Probably my least favorite thing about the game was the whole chainsaw-on-big-gun-weapon. It kind of brings sadism to a whole new level. My friend kept laughing manically whenever the blood got splattered onto the screen. The guy who helps me do homework and lets me hang out with him is laughing at this horror? I had to leave. I got sick, and not dizzy-sick, just plain faint. I have been offending like that in very few moments in my life.

Though, perhaps I am a hypocrite. I do enjoy all the "kiddy" games like Donkey Kong 64 (the best), Super Mario Bros-anything, and of course, the slimy Metroid. The games all feature killing and are pretty unrealistic with their handling of the topic, but I never felt that it was pro-war or even more offensive than your average Looney Tune short. I have been watching cartoon animals beating the crap of each other for most of my childhood and I have never laughing manically at...oh wait, I forgot about Goldeneye. When I was eleven or so, I used to play Goldeneye with cheat codes and just go on a virtual killing spree. It made me feel on top and in control. Looking back on that I feel that I and all the other 11-year-olds, or even 30-year-olds out there could do much better than that. It might just be a game, but it is sick and uncivilized.

Also, let's look at the science. There are studies that show that video games make kids more aggressive (http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html). I know that all kids who play violent video games are not guaranteed to commit aggressive acts, but it also doesn't mean that kids aren't guaranteed to not commit violent acts. I compare it to smoking pot. If someone has a joint at a party, it doesn't mean that they are going to become total potheads. However, if they smoke pot for a consistent basis, they are going to be a total burnout; permamently.

I know that there will be satirical sarcasm and many people calling me an idiot without any backing of any sort, but I ask you politely to at least try to rebuttal with some backing. You might say "There is no direct link to delinquency and video game violence" (even though there is (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/) or "There are other problems out there" (even when video game violence is one of those many problems) or perhaps my favorite, "They are just pixels" They might just be pixels, but we are also just atoms. You have to look at the big picture. There are worse things out there, but that doesn't mean that Gears of War is cool.

Now let's all play Tetris.

kupomog

06-19-2007, 08:38 PM

Get out of my forum.

No but I do agree with you to an extent. I get sad sometimes when violence is toned down (ala Tomb Raider Anniversary...if you fall on a spike, you should get impaled, you do not bounce off and fly several feet away like a ragdoll, that's just dumb) but I do not care for completely grotesque and over-the-top stuff to a certain degree and I certainly don't find myself attracted to games just because of the violence. I would never chainsaw someone to death and enjoy it while laughing in glee (but like...if you're some punk ass police dude trying to beat me to death because I banged into your car, well, you know, I'm gonna have to cut'ya and cheer for my victory). On one hand I want deaths to make sense, on the other hand, I don't want them to be too graphic or realistic 'cause that would certainly turn me off. If I have to knife someone to get past I don't really need to see guts spilling out all over the place, etc. But I would at least like to see a little blood stain on a shirt 'cause that should happen. It's a really awkward relationship I have with the violence.

Your friend sounds really, really weird and I hope those kinds of killings are not the only reasons he plays stuff like Gears 'cause there's more reason to enjoy it than "omg blood yay." I do play quite a few violent games, but most of those games practically pale in comparison compared to certain games I can think of. Postal games are pretty tasteless even though you could conceivably get by with as little rampaging as possible, but I really can't see myself wanting to ever play that series.

Also I can remember an instance in MGS2 where my friend shot a soldier in the head and then kept shooting him over and over and over just to make blood appear everywhere. And he did that over and over with all the soldiers he could find in the tanker level, and it was more annoying than listening to Rosemary ramble the fuck on.

There's no proof that violent video games don't in some way affect the people who play it (but to blame them every single time some little suburban brat goes crazy is retarded and unresearched), but honestly, I think the people and kids that end up worse off for playing these games had something wrong with them to begin with. Anything and everything can affect someone, but I really doubt Gears of War is creating a generation of murderers.

Note: EDITS GALORE.

skittlebrau

06-19-2007, 08:38 PM

So uh, is this an anti-Gears of War thread? Or are you aiming at something else.

The kids that were brain scanned in that article had just recently played a half hour's worth of games, so of course they're gonna still be thinking about it when they get scanned. Hell, I do it all the time, sometimes even a day or two after I've played it. Studies schmudies. Bullshit.

But I will agree that over-the-top violence may be a little too much at times, and I'm certainly not going to play a game just for free-roaming the area and killing everyone and everything I see on sight while laughing maniacally.

Oh, and help your friend out any which way you can.

W.P.

06-19-2007, 08:48 PM

The kids that were brain scanned in that article had just recently played a half hour's worth of games, so of course they're gonna still be thinking about it when they get scanned. Hell, I do it all the time, sometimes even a day or two after I've played it. Studies schmudies. Bullshit.
If you mean "bullshit" as in the study doesn't how that these games will make the kids bad, then yeah, but that really wasn't the point of the study. It was just to show the connection between aggression and video games. If someone plays a violent video game only once in a great while, I still find it questionable, but hey, I really don't care. If they still keep on playing it and don't stop, however, then there is a problem, and that person is not going to feature more aggressive behavior than you remember he or she seeing. I have seen it happen and it worries me.

I am not saying that I am right and we should get rid of every trace of violence we can find in our media, but I am just stating my reason for disliking violence in video games.

skittlebrau

06-19-2007, 09:00 PM

W.P.

06-19-2007, 09:18 PM

No no, I understand, and I agree with what you're saying. However, you've gotta factor in other elements regarding the people that play these games. Upbringing, education, manners, common sense etc. Everybody's gonna have a different reaction and outcome of what a violent video game can and will do to them, and I would have at least liked to have seen something regarding that sense in that article. It's the most important facet of this topic in general, and usually the facet everyone ignores completely.
Ok, so far the things that you and Kupo have been saying are 100% true and this thread is about 10x more boring than I thought it would be, but you have to look at why people enjoy playing these games. I am sure that there could be a game just as well made as the GTA series without having the drugs and violence. Now you might say "Hey, that's no fun. I can easily do that in real life" Well, then you must consider what you thought was fun about GTA. It's very healthy to let out your adrenaline and video games can help with eye coordination, but can't sports too? Sure, you might get injured in sports a heck of a lot more than a wii-mote to the head, but at least you get some sort exercise and you get to learn about team work, good sportsmanship and all of that Field of Dreams jazz.

I know my rambling might be tedious and annoying, but all that I am saying is that watching people get a sensation out of killing virtual aliens upsets me, and what upsets me more is that kids can by these games at a store by themselves. Now that you can't support.

Ok, I'm done.

I am Lugash

06-19-2007, 09:26 PM

When I borrowed GTA3 for the first time from a friend, I had it for 2 weeks and played about 15 hours of it. Never got farther than 5 minutes into the story. Just kept putting in cheat codes and going on killing sprees. I don't know about maniacal laughter, but I was having fun. The massive in game killing doesn't affect me at all. Over the years, I've been desensitized by all the over the top violent/zombie/horror movies. I've been watching these since I was a kid and have no problem playing games that are over the top violent. I also have no problem differentiating between video game and real life violence. I get more aggressive playing competively in Mario Kart or Smash Brothers than any FPS, but any agrression stops once the game is over so it doesn't affect any other aspect of my life.

You mentioned GOW as over the top violent, where I thought it wasn't violent as it could be and all the violence was aimed at aliens. Dead Rising was the last game that even got me excited just by its gore aspect, and it delivered nicely. Dead Rising is basically a massacre-athon, your trapped in a a mall full of zombies and your given the option of hundreds of weapons as well as melee moves to dispose of these zombies. To get one of the extra weapons, you have to get the zombie genocider title by killing over 53 thousand zombies in one 6 hour game. Heres a montage of Dead Rising lightened up with some music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC2QdLxuT3U

kupomog

06-19-2007, 09:33 PM

I like driving around the cities in GTA and taking in the atmosphere of the decade they set it in, I don't play to let out adrenaline or aggression or train my motor skills and it will never be a replacement for such things in my life, ever. Killing people happens and it's neat for awhile but the combat system in most of the games suck ass to begin with and it's not exactly the most gruesome thing you could ever see compared to other games. When a new GTA game comes out the first thing I care about knowing is the setting and the characters, not "how horribly can I kill someone now??" It doesn't take that much to play a video game either. They're fun to play in my down time and I often get to experience fantastical things that I couldn't get from playing sports short of being beaned in the head with a volleyball and hallucinating for the rest of the day. I played sports all my life, video games were more interesting. Sports gave me exercise, video games gave me a life long passion.

Unsupervised kids who buy games they're not supposed to be buying is a little different of a problem, don't you think.

Channel Surfer

06-19-2007, 09:35 PM

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/19/researcher-finds-scant-evidence-linking-violent-games-with-aggressive-behavior/

Fairly recent meta-analysis of numerous recent studies attempting to find a connection between video game violence and increased aggression among players. Some of the more important parts:

Overall results of the study found that although violent video games appear to increase people’s aggressive thoughts (which it would not be surprising that people are still thinking about what they were just playing), violent games do not appear to increase aggressive behavior.

This as true for both correlational and experimental studies. Also it was found that studies that employed less standardized measures of aggression produced higher effects than better standardized measures of aggression. In other words, better measures of aggression are associated with lower effects.

Publication bias appeared to be a significant issue for studies of aggressive behavior. Thus it was concluded that there is little evidence from the current body of literature on violent video games that playing violent video games is either causally or correlationally associated with increases in aggressive behavior.

...

Part of the problem may be that video game researchers have adopted unreliable methodologies from media violence research in general… Most of the research (particularly laboratory research) employs unvalidated ad-hoc measures of “aggression”.

To make this relevant for this thread, the data trying to find a connection between video game violence (and, I'd suspect more broadly violence in media in general) needs to be looked at skeptically. Skittle already touched on the problem with alarmist sounding MSNBC brain study in particular. With a vague definition of what aggressive means (and the limitations of such a definition) in the first study and a lack of a relevant understanding of how long the effect lasts and what that translates into (meaning, does the brain registering fictional violence translate into actual or likely violent behavior) in the second, I would be very careful in assuming there is causation on any real level in such a sweeping way.

Anything else other than that is either irrelevant to that point or is simply subjective. Boring answer maybe, but still true.

Edit: I guess I'll add one other thing:

Well, then you must consider what you thought was fun about GTA. It's very healthy to let out your adrenaline and video games can help with eye coordination, but can't sports too? Sure, you might get injured in sports a heck of a lot more than a wii-mote to the head, but at least you get some sort exercise and you get to learn about team work, good sportsmanship and all of that Field of Dreams jazz.

What kupo said first, unfair comparison. Largely because games aren't simply virtual sports, at least no more so than they are simply interactive movies or virtual board games or anything along those lines. It's quite a broad medium because of the intertwining of interaction and scripting.

W.P.

06-19-2007, 09:49 PM

Unsupervised kids who buy games they're not supposed to be buying is a little different of a problem, don't you think.
I guess I'm not done. It just frustrates me that there isn't a least some sort of a fine for underaged kids buying games like Dead Rising, GTA or Serious Sam. If they are desensitized to fake violence, that doesn't mean that they will still be able to see more urgency in real life violence. They might show less interest in global matters or the problems of bullying. As you all said, it depends on the child, but you still never know if some disturbed teenager might get turned on by a Mature video game and would like to see how those acts might look like they were in real life and done to people they don't like (the "I want it to be like fucking Doom" comments in the pre-Columbine videos still creep me out).

Parents need to be more scrict with their kids and violent games. Me and my friends should not have been playing GoW.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/19/r...sive-behavior/
Interesting article, but not all too clear. It seems to be critizising other studies than presenting anything that they have done. I would think it would be hard and study several people playing violent video games over a long and daily basis. Unless I totally missed something, I couldn't find too much of any new information in that article.

Sloppy Jimbo IV

06-19-2007, 09:49 PM

Channel Surfer

06-19-2007, 09:54 PM

Parents need to be more scrict with their kids and violent games. Me and my friends should not have been playing GoW.

Hate to be like this, but if you're old enough to be concerned about violent video games and their corrupting influence, then you and your friends are probably old enough to take responsibility for choosing what games you want to play. Which is the core of what bugs me about this issue, the deflection of responsibility. As if it's the game or (depending on the circumstances) the parents or whoever or whatever's fault that a kid goes bonkers, but not the actual kid.

I am Lugash

06-19-2007, 09:55 PM

My favorite orginazation was the one that wanted to friendly up wrestling because too many kids were trying the moves on each other and it was ending in too many paralyzed dead kids.

kupomog

06-19-2007, 09:57 PM

Parents need to be more scrict with their kids and violent games. Me and my friends should not have been playing GoW.

Yeah that would be the point, in which case I still think it's more to do with the PEOPLE who buy it and the people who LET them buy it, rather than WHAT they are buying. Violent games, they are unfortunately very attractive to young people who are usually not allowed to see that stuff in media until a certain age (and probably for a good reason in some cases...), but those games still aren't meant for them and things should be done to make sure they aren't played by them. You can't stop all kids from playing these games, but I will still be very, very annoyed when the first thing that is blamed is the violence of the video game when something goes wrong.

Channel Surfer

06-19-2007, 10:08 PM

Interesting article, but not all too clear. It seems to be critizising other studies than presenting anything that they have done. I would think it would be hard and study several people playing violent video games over a long and daily basis. Unless I totally missed something, I couldn't find too much of any new information in that article.

It's a study on the studies, so it's not going to have any new information in that way. I linked it to avoid a kind of link war, where people find whatever study supports their view and move on (and there's a healthy amount to support any remotely sane view), without factoring in where it came from, how it was published, its definitions and limitations, and so on.

Gatorgod

06-19-2007, 10:13 PM

Think Of The Children!!

Thats all that needs to be said by a few fretful mom types to bring EVERY fun medium to a Molly Hatchet, censored, end.

It'll always be Monkey see monkey do for a few impressionable types. Some kid will hit someone with a Hammer or poke an eye blind after watching The 3 Stooges ..Kids will start whacking each other with sticks after seeing a light saber duel in Star Wars .. I heard a kid jumped out a high rise apartment window once after watching a Superman movie.

This blame game goes Waay back. While doing a papers on Charlie Chaplin, I had to laugh when I saw an old newspaper article about a group of angry moms blaming Charlie Chaplin for the injuries their kids sustain from imitating his tumble clown antics after seeing his latest film,.. And demanded the movies not be shown any more to protect the children :(

Violent Video games can be great fun if your in the right frame of mind. It always takes just one screw ball who doesn't get it, makes the news, then ruins it for millions. Everybody being punished for one persons mistake.

... Considering the opposite view point for a moment,
Yes, Their are times when I see stuff, whether it be street gang glorifying music videos or video games, etc etc... That make me think entertainment industries have gone to far, and want to push it further, abusing the 5th amendment for moraless gain. Not caring that their stuff might influence young people the wrong way. A child's brain doesn't fully develop until its at least 18 yrs of age. Some studies suggest that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25 (http://digg.com/health/Brain_isn_t_fully_developed_until_age_25)(sooner for girls - a little longer for boys, ..duhh!) It would be safe to assume that you cant expect a person whose brain is still forming to make the same judgment calls on violent media as an adult mind would.

Just in case their are Video game makers out there that have the marketing morales of the cigerette industry, purposely aiming their dangerous product at youths. Then I dont mind there being a rating system. wether it be for Movies, music, games, whatever, ...even if this doesnt stop the people, ... we can at least consider them aptly warned, use at your own risk. That way everybody wins!
The fretful grannies get their rating system, and the rest of us get to enjoy some kick ass cool stuff with out the absolutely nothing for nobody censorship !

W.P.

06-19-2007, 10:13 PM

im not going to rebutt your points because A) i only half read your first post and B) just look at your signature! the problem here clearly isnt video game violence, its that youre probably an extreme wuss. i mean that in the nicest way possible, but seriously dude, a lady eskimo kissing a monkey? what is that about
Hehe. Sorry, but I am a sucker for baby animals.

http://www.chooseveg.com/images/BabyCalf.jpg

to go further into this, kids who laugh maniacally over video game violence are messed up and kids who piss their pants and complain about it are lame. theres nothing wrong with extreme forms of entertainment as long as you have the capacity to understand it
I watched a lot of film and that includes many gangster flicks and gore-fests. You're right, I have the right to choose what is good for me, and just so as long as they don't glorify any immoral acts, there is nothing wrong with a little gloody film that has at least some sort of a message. Some video games I have played are just for thrills and very little of anything else.

banning and censorship pisses me right off because usually its a decision made by people who have no stake in enjoying what theyre stopping. im so sick of organizations wanting to ban video game violence because its corrupting young minds. for their information, i was killing hookers long before i played gta
I am against censorship and totally against banning any media of any sort. It is not the right of anybody to tell me what is good and what is bad before I have a chance to see it for myself. The MPAA and ESwhoeverratesgames shouldn't be. They offer untrustworthy warnings and are sometimes harder on sexuality than they are on violence and profanity. I guess that makes me a hypocrite for supporting kids gettting finds more buying naughty video games. However, I have played played violent games for myself and have made the dicision to not play them. I think parents should probably be able to see what kind of material a game has before they allow their kids to play it. Store owners especailly should take the responsibility to say "Look, this really isn't a game for you" and then recommend something else.

Sloppy Jimbo IV

06-19-2007, 10:16 PM

fair enough, glad we could (mostly) see eye to eye

http://www.geocities.com/kikgrrl/photos/cute_animal.jpg

Magnum

06-19-2007, 10:28 PM

Funny you should mention gore films though. As that's usually what gets me. The photo realistic portrayal of a person being tortured has always made me much more uncomfortable than any video game I've played. Including GoW and GTA.

SubSane

06-19-2007, 10:57 PM

Violence in games is nothing new. It's just that, as you said, these days you can shoot a guy and watch the gory innards fly. It seems to me you're more offended by simply seeing that more than you are by the theory that video games are training a generation of psychos.

Personally, I feel that reality is much worse than anything a video game can produce. If seeing your fictional game character slash a monster's guts across a TV screen is the worst you ever experience then you're doing very well. If 1 in every 1 million people becomes violent because of a video game then we as a "peaceful" society are doing just fine. More people are killed daily in far more serious matters than video game related violence, yet it seems like more and more attention is paid to this form of entertainment than any other. I've seen gruesome films and read horrid books where much worse happens, but it's fine. It's just a movie, it's just text on a page.

But, you control what you do in a video game. You choose to slice that guy up or run by and leave him be. You also choose not to run over that guy as he crosses the street on your way to work in the morning. Sane people can separate reality from fiction, and if one is not mentally capable of living civilly then one shouldn't be allowed to partake in anything that will create more instability. I absolutely believe that people are a product of their upbringing and make their choices based on personal experience. If someone becomes violent, look at his past before you look at him now.

But hey, what you wanted to hear: quit being a pussy. Visit a meat processing plant or rent Faces of Death, will ya? :)

kupomog

06-19-2007, 11:08 PM

rent Faces of Death, will ya? :)

Hahahaha he would faint and die.

Kiyosuki

06-20-2007, 12:51 AM

Aright its one of my long ass posts so watch out.

Its an eternal topic in media, especially today. Its complex because I think more so than almost any other new-age related topic there are so many different ways to look at this.

On one hand I think some of the claims against video games are somewhat valid. Those who say they have no effect on us whatsoever are extremely naive. Of course video games, and violent video games have some various degrees of effect on us. Some of the signs that studies and people have pointed out are really hard to dispute. Video games can very easilly become a harmful addiction, and not quite the same way as TV or even smoking, its a very distinct and easy addiction. All that stuff about impeding social development, becoming overindulgant distraction, causing aggression, it can all be true to an extent.

But here's the thing, a key word there is can. If someone takes the time to shift through many of the complaints and critisisms of video games they'll realize that really, anyone with an even moderatly reasonable head on their shoulders can see how overblown they tend to be and thats where the critisism stops becoming valid. I mean just look at some of the more well known cases like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Shawn Woolley, Josh and Will Buckner, Devin Moore, the infamous Chinese guy who stabbed someone else over an mmorpg trade gone bad, and of course the Korean guy who died playing Starcraft for 50 hours straight.

Okay, putting aside the fact these few going and doing something incredibly stupid and crazy isn't exactly a sign that the world is going to hell, there's the obvious fact that no matter how much people try to prevent it, unfortunatly its inevitable some will break. And its never because of one thing, its a multitude of things. Video games can potentially be a a factor in someone going something crazy, but look at these guys. A guy 25+ man stabbing someone over an imaginary video game item. Two kids shooting at cars because they saw it in a game, and someone going crazy and opening fire on police officers because he thinks life is a video game.

Folks these guys were bat-shit insane to begin with, video games in general...and violent video games as well did not single handedly distort these people's perception to that large a degree. If anyone thinks that they're just flat out delusional. If you had taken video games completely out of these equations theoretically, you have to ask would it had made much of a difference? If someone is that over the edge already (or in those two kids' case, just flat out bored and stupid.), it may not be video games but something is going to cause something to crack there no matter what if you take just video games out. The influences of human behavior is like a domino effect, you can't just try to scapegoat one single piece and suddenlly you magically solve the puzzle, many of the overblown critisisms of video games are really akin to conservative critisism of things like Rock and Roll, TV, "disturbing" literature, and if paranoia goes there then when does it stop? Ludicrousness like overt nudity, fearing entire entire ethnic groups because of stereotypes?

Fact is, is if someone wants to hate something you will find a way to try and make the hate seem valid. But that doesn't make it right. And scapegoating single things in society is just another form of feigning ignorance really. Just ask the US Department of education.
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

Thats why in the end, its complex but really its not that complicated a topic either. If someone is predisposed already to violence, almost anything can set them off. Deconstructing that behavior is not gonna happen by scapegoating the easiest target one can think of. Its just a single factor in the world out there, and fact is, is its not going away. Too much of anything is bad and games are no exception. But taking it away means we might as well deny ourselves rock music, tv, porn, alchohol, certain kinds of foods, meeting certain kinds of people and so on because thats the danger of scapegoating like that. We'll just have to deal with it as a society as a whole in time.

More personally, you're not an idiot for disliking violence in games I think. I mean, there is such a thing like Jimbo said as being too sensitive, but violence in games I think can also get pretty tasteless. I mean also like Gator up there said many view it as business, they could care less about whether its tasteful or not as long as it sells. But if someone gets attracted to a game just based off of how violent it is and not much else chances are thats not really a fault of the game, just someone trying very hard to be cool. But my point is that in the end its a matter of taste. Gears of War is a fun game but aesthetically its not exactly the freshest thing on the block, and you know its a valid critisism. But as long as you don't go crying bloody murder to anyone who does enjoy it.

Channel Surfer

06-20-2007, 04:12 AM

On one hand I think some of the claims against video games are somewhat valid. Those who say they have no effect on us whatsoever are extremely naive. Of course video games, and violent video games have some various degrees of effect on us. Some of the signs that studies and people have pointed out are really hard to dispute. Video games can very easilly become a harmful addiction, and not quite the same way as TV or even smoking, its a very distinct and easy addiction. All that stuff about impeding social development, becoming overindulgant distraction, causing aggression, it can all be true to an extent.

Yeah, I know this is your antithesis here, but there's a part of this I want to touch on slightly. You use this to build a case that (violent) video games have an effect on people, and can do all these horrible things, before tearing it down by pointing out that it's largely overblown with an emphasis on a few crazies that were probably self-destructive anyway. It's a fair enough point, but I think by lumping the crazies in (along with variations on the "too much of anything is bad" reasoning), I think it dodges the rhetorical meat of the issue - regarding whether games can be bad - because crazies are as crazies do.

In relevance to this thread, there are really two separate reasonable issues here. 1. Does violent content in video games (and similar material) cause problems in kids - and adults? And 2. Does the interactive nature of video games make them "excellent teachers", a threat completely unique from other media?

In regards to the first point, I tend to lean towards the Henry Jenkins view, that "Media’s influence is most powerful when it reaffirms our existing structures of beliefs and behaviors, least powerful when it seeks to change them." In which case any game that wants to go "Birth of a Nation" with its players speaks as much to problems in the audience as it does with the game itself (not to mention I can't think of any mainstream game that could have that kind of impact, and any game that does show up like that should be shunned). There's also the "Think of the children" counterpoint, but that is really an issue of responsibility. With the case of kids it needs to be the job of the parents to know what their kid can and can't handle.

The second point is where I draw most of my contention, and where I think the evidence is the sketchiest and most prone to hyperbole. There really just is not any evidence to support it, and even when (such as in W.P's first study) concede that whatever concerns they have with games applies to other media, the teacher argument or some variation of the murder simulator stuff still comes up, as if it's needed to legitimize why video games need to be scapegoated, regardless of whether there's any reason for them to be singled out or not. Which is a bit frustrating.

H Thompson

06-20-2007, 05:39 AM

on a related note:

The BBFC has rejected the video game Manhunt 2. This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The game was submitted in both a PS2 and a Nintendo Wii version. The decision was taken by the Director and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Lord Taylor of Warwick and Janet Lewis-Jones.

“Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board’s published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

“Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game’s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified ‘18’ in 2003, before the BBFC’s recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category.”

“Against this background, the Board’s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.” Under the terms of the Video Recordings Act distributors have the right to appeal the Board’s decision.

Note for Editors
This is the first video game to be refused a classification since Carmageddon in 1997, when that decision was overturned on appeal by the Video Appeals Committee.

Which is interesting it's hard to belive that anything can get banned anymore, which makes me think the BBFC have really thought hard about this, though I have a feeling that Rockstar will win the appeal. And regardless, it'll probably just appear on torrent sites anyway, Although I'm not really interested in the manhunt games.

Just to add something else David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said this about the influence of games on peoples behaviour.

We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality. People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggest the opposite – a range of factors seem to make them less emotionally involving than film or television.

The mayor of Albuquerque

06-20-2007, 08:16 AM

Good thread.

I would just want to mention something that has disturbed me for a while, and that's the increasing and deliberate similarity between first person shooter style games and actual modern warfare. This is covered somewhat in the movie Farenheit 9/11, and is fairly obvious when looking at Call of Duty and other games (who's names I don't claim to know). This sort of blurred reality scares me. I don't think that it's as simple as "these games are training our future soldiers", but I don't think that idea can be completely dismissed either.
Should our "games" include realistic style killing of people?

General Jack D. Ripper

06-20-2007, 08:48 AM

I've never really cared for really violent video games, but I am usually more of a nintendo guy, which tends to be more your Marios and Donkey Kongs. I woulldn't mind playing any violent video game, even though I don't even like violent movies. You should evaluate any vidoe game, no matter how violent, based on its gameplay, replayability, and even graphics. If its so violent, it makes you uncomfurtable or sick, just don't play it. But don't dismis it as a bad game because it's violent, because many violent video games have much more to offer.

Gatorgod

06-20-2007, 09:17 AM

I've never really cared for really violent video games, but I am usually more of a nintendo guy, which tends to be more your Marios and Donkey Kongs.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/gatorgod/DK-high.gif
I dont know? I think the wrong person could get in deadly trouble by taking DK's question to literally! :silly:

sacrelicious

06-20-2007, 10:01 AM

I say it's fine to not like violent video games if they aren't your thing. The fact is they aren't going anywhere, even with all the "studies" that "prove" they are mind-numbing. For one, as long as violent video games teach our youth to mindlessly kill and take orders the US Military is all for that.

I think it's fine to like violent video games as well, as long as you aren't in it for the violence. I play Halo with a bunch of friends to have fun and try to win, whether indivdually or as a team, not to get some sort of strange pleasure out of killing a video game sprite made of pixels with some 3D rendering.

morbot

06-20-2007, 10:26 AM

Violent games do not cause violent behavior... I can say that with 100% accuracy because I've been playing violent games since they came into existence, along with my brothers & our friends growing up... and none of us are violent. If they caused violent behavior... we'd all be completely nuts.

So the games themselves do not cause violent behavior... but other factors might. If your kid is apeshit insane... then maybe a violent game will set him off. Know what? So would a violent movie or book I bet. Parents should know their kids and know what they're reading, watching and playing. If some nutso kid has been reading neo-nazi shit and commits a bunch of hate crimes... no one talks about banning free speech... games are just another form of media like books.

No one would sell a book of pornography to a kid. No one should sell a ultra-violent movie to a child. I'm perfectly fine with having an enforced ratings system that could allow informed parents to make decisions... but you know what if you buy GTA for your kid and he goes nuts... don't blame GTA blame your own damn self for letting it in your house.

As far as liking violent games... it isn't necessary to be a gamer. I like all kinds of games... but every once and awhile I want to play something that feels realistic... even though I know it's not... that's the key... knowing when reality ends.

W.P.

06-20-2007, 11:36 AM

But hey, what you wanted to hear: quit being a pussy. Visit a meat processing plant or rent Faces of Death, will ya? :)
I only found out that my favorite meat sauce had veal in it and it broke my heart. :( As for FAces of Death, Cronemberg is one of my favorite Canadian directors and I loved The Fly so how bad can this movie be?

But here's the thing, a key word there is can. If someone takes the time to shift through many of the complaints and critisisms of video games they'll realize that really, anyone with an even moderatly reasonable head on their shoulders can see how overblown they tend to be and thats where the critisism stops becoming valid. I mean just look at some of the more well known cases like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Shawn Woolley, Josh and Will Buckner, Devin Moore, the infamous Chinese guy who stabbed someone else over an mmorpg trade gone bad, and of course the Korean guy who died playing Starcraft for 50 hours straight.
...And let's not forget about Berserk, the first game to ever show a death of a character. The two high score winners both died of a heart attack, not even while playing the game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berzerk#Problems_and_player_death_toll). Quite the coincidence, don't you think?

Anyhow, I am glad that this thread actually struck a pleasant note. It's my prerogative to not play the games and it's your prerogative to play the games. This whole thread was all about starting discussion and stressing my concern for people who play these games compulsivly. I guess one round-about with House of the Dead wouldn't hurt for me and others, but everyone is different.

DAntae

06-20-2007, 12:05 PM

wow way too many essays in this thread.

video games are just that, games. if anyone is effected by simulated images in games then that speaks volumes of how weak minded they are. can games be too graphic, of course. no one would ever argue against that, but even then its not enough to help anyone form ideas or opinions.

Kiyosuki

06-20-2007, 01:45 PM

Yeah, I know this is your antithesis here, but there's a part of this I want to touch on slightly. You use this to build a case that (violent) video games have an effect on people, and can do all these horrible things, before tearing it down by pointing out that it's largely overblown with an emphasis on a few crazies that were probably self-destructive anyway. It's a fair enough point, but I think by lumping the crazies in (along with variations on the "too much of anything is bad" reasoning), I think it dodges the rhetorical meat of the issue - regarding whether games can be bad - because crazies are as crazies do..

Not really. What I'm trying to say basically, is that they're a factor that can influence things, but not to the level some critics make it out to be. Of course too many video games in general, as well as continuous playing of them will enevitably have some sort of effect on you. They may influence things like your social behavior, aggression, as well as maybe positive things supposedly like planning skills or reaction, and other things but then again so can music, sports, and even studying too much.

What I'm specifically talking about isn't whether they're just good or bad, because I think thats sort of silly. Of course games can be bad in terrible moderation, everything can be potentially bad for you...fuck even water apparently. What I'm getting at is that games arn't even close to as much of a danger as some critics make them out to be. Like if someone plays a ton of Doom 3, I have serious doubts that alone is going to affect that person's behavior so much that they become wildly violent. Everyone's different so you never know, maybe it would help make a person aggressive...there's no way for me to tell that. But I think even common sense can clearly tell a person that the idea of someone being that influenced by just playing a computer game is ludicrous. Thats where the scapegoating notion comes from.

I don't know, maybe all the Jack Thompsons out there are just either trying to desperatly get control of a world they no longer understand, or they're just bat-shit crazy. But regardless I firmly believe that the effects of violent video games while not non-existent perhaps, are way overblown.

I admit I kind of regret making that post so late into the night reading it, because really while there are many ways to look at it I still don't think its all that complex a problem.

Channel Surfer

06-20-2007, 09:28 PM

Heh, I realize that my post probably came out more disagreeable than I meant it, considering I agree with everything you said.

All I was trying to get at was that the melding of many separate concerns (violent video games increase aggression, games are "murder simulators", games are addictive, games influenced so and so to do bad thing) confuses whatever points there are to these actual separate issues, as they each have different merits and different answers. In short, there is no one "violent video games" issue, despite the intended scope of that blanket label when plastered on a cable news screen or wherever. Your post was the longest to work from and you seemed to be going for more than just trying to address the irrational scapegoating. That and I know you well enough to expect that anything you're going to post on is going to be reasonably well thought out.

jim

06-20-2007, 11:31 PM

kupomog

06-20-2007, 11:38 PM

H Thompson

06-21-2007, 01:49 AM

Yeah you should definatley never play the other GoW - God of War

H Thompson

06-21-2007, 11:08 AM

The plain fact of the matter is that human beings instinctively have a blood lust. Its always been there and always will. It used to be people watching gladiators fighting to the death in Rome or the mass crowds that would turn out to watch executions in 19th century britain. Today its violent movies, veiolent games, wrestling, etc. Even the evening news. Its no accident that Saddams execution was one of the most downloaded videos in the history of the internet.

I don't think I agree with this, but I do play some violent video games. So it makes me wonder why exactly I do enjoy some of them, I think it's probably more the challenges the game presents that happen to be violent that I enjoy, although I know plenty of people do simply enjoy games for the gore factor, which is a bit sad.
I'm a little weary to just dismiss the possible effects and say "nah they don't cause violence, if someone's inspired by a game to commit violence, their already mad" because well, we would say that, we're going to have a biased opinion on the matter, it's one of those issues were no one can really speak from a completly unbiased perspective and have a well-informed opinion.
And personally I think no one can really deny the immediate effects of violent games, in the sense that I certainly get a lot more angry if I were to die playing God of War than a less violent one, although I guess that's not a very signficant point to make. But even though people may already have some violent tendancies, but the games can certainly bring out these tendancies in people even more, and the multitude of violent games on the market can mean people can surrond themselves with violent games, they can be addictive like drugs. Perfectly sane people can be fucked up by drugs, so there is possibly an argument that normal people could gradually build an addiction to violent games.

W.P.

06-21-2007, 04:44 PM

Seriously if you can't stand virtual deaths of GoW I fail to see how you could possibly sit through the real deaths of humans and animals (ugh the baby seals :'(). Even the blindingly obvious fake deaths are a bit disturbing.
I only found out that Faces of Death was a shockumentary soon after I posted that comment. Unless it is done as some sort of a protest, exploiting the deaths of people and animals is not my cup of tea. I really would not want to meet the person who would find a film like that watchable. As for my stance on movie violence, there are definitely films that push the envelope too far and get the impression that showing more guts and people crying will make a film more thrilling (I cringe a lot more at the deaths of random people in James Bond flicks than I ever did before). However, if the violence in a film is done in a way that we find it believable and un-glorified, then there is nothing wrong with that at all. I wish I could say the same thing about the violence in many games on the shelves today.

skittlebrau

06-21-2007, 05:15 PM

Faces of Death is about 85% staged deaths/suicides etc. (horribly fake and obvious) with 10% filled in with fatal news reports (which only states it was fatal, no bodies are ever seen) and the remaining 5% filled with slaughterhouse footage and common methods of killing animals for consumption in other parts of the world.

The films (which got more and more absurd) are laughably and unbelievably bad, but I cannot for the love of me sit through the animal stuff. Never never never never never :fail:

moneychair2003

06-21-2007, 05:43 PM

most new good games are violent video games. look at the past game of the year winners from any gaming site and you'll see most of them are violent.

42 Is The Answer

06-21-2007, 06:44 PM

As always, it comes down to choice.

I fully respect that many people dislike unnecessary violence, and will avoid it. However, they have no right to impose their opinion on others- it is not right to ban, say, Grand Theft Auto because some dumb kids killed some guy while imitating it- it is important that people are given a choice. I also understand and support- and here is where I'm disagreeing with quite a few earlier posts- restrictions on the sale of certain games to minors.

The ESRB is completely necessary and is doing as good of a job as they can be expected to do. The problem is that the recommendations of the ESRB are being ignored. Case in point: I was sitting outside chatting with a bunch of friends about Resident Evil 4, a game that is rated Mature for a good reason. As we're talking, my neighbor's kid comes over, and, hearing our conversation, goes into a detailed account of his experiences playing the game. The kid is 9 years old. Curious, I asked him where he had played the game, and he responded that his mom had bought it for him.

A nine-year old should not be playing a game rated M.

If this kid picks up a gun and kills somebody while imitating the game, it is entirely- entirely his parent's fault. Kids are stupid. Everybody knows that. It is the parent's responsibilty to be aware of how their child is being influenced, and to control those influences as best they can. (This kid also watches South Park, something that should not be happening.) The ESRB has very helpfully placed an indicator on the box of every game that tells parents the appropriate age groups for that game. While I disagree with some of the ratings, I do agree that the ratings should exist.

But for responsible adults, the matter is entirely different. A 24-year old should be able to walk into a store and purchase any game or movie he wants. To ban any form of media is to restrict the right of free speech, and that is wrong. Even if the game is the most sick, twisted and depraved creation in the history of mankind, it is ultimately up to the consumer to decide whether they want it or not.

Video games do increase agression. Admit it. After a long session of, say, Super Smash Brothers Melee, rated Teen, am I pumped up? Hell yes. Am I going to punch one of my friends in the face? No, of course not. I am a responsible, thinking person, who is able to discern the line between fantasy and reality. A nine-year old kid playing goddamn Resident Evil 4 may not be able to discern that line. And then it becomes the parents responsibilty to explain that line to him.

Channel Surfer

06-22-2007, 12:59 AM

And personally I think no one can really deny the immediate effects of violent games, in the sense that I certainly get a lot more angry if I were to die playing God of War than a less violent one, although I guess that's not a very signficant point to make. But even though people may already have some violent tendancies, but the games can certainly bring out these tendancies in people even more, and the multitude of violent games on the market can mean people can surrond themselves with violent games, they can be addictive like drugs. Perfectly sane people can be fucked up by drugs, so there is possibly an argument that normal people could gradually build an addiction to violent games.

This is disastrously too slippery slope minded here, and far too easy to construct inherently outrageous examples out of with other media too.

Look, there's a case to be made for the destructive effects of games on individuals. But I think people are either letting their personal subjective responses to games give way to hasty generalizations (my personal response to "God of War" for instance was not similar to your own for example, but that doesn't prove a thing, even if I know you know that example was weak) or playing into the same kind of sensationalist reasoning that enables that annoying scapegoating mentality, where possibilities stacked upon possibilities within hypotheticals give easy answers to situations most people could never hope to know a thing about. The latter is also why it's important to separate the so-called crazies from the potential real effects games could have on people in general. I mean, there's a reason I doubt most people here would think "Catcher in the Rye" is literally responsible for John Lennon's murder, or that "A Clockwork Orange" is literally responsible for the imitation crime that (supposedly) led to it not being distributed in the UK. What can these examples say other than that we're talking about some messed up fucks, regardless of whether you think there's more of a moral point to these examples or not when compared to their video game equivalents? How easy would it be for any of these people to find some twisted meaning in a game or games that is otherwise benign or harmless for most anyone else? Whereas something like "Birth of a Nation", which is often tied to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the US, only was influential to the degree that it was because people were willing to believe racist bullshit. If there is a void that is encouraging many people to become influenced to murder because of games or whatever, then that's a telling statement about a sociological breakdown right there. Fortunately, I know of no evidence to support this as a real trend.

Not to mention that, again, it's important to separate violent content having an influence on people vs. violent games specifically and uniquely having an influence on people. Because the latter is the only logical way to support both the idea of targeting games specifically and believing that they could have a brainwashing, addictive quality that could overwhelm a sane individual in a way that no movie ever could. Which is an idea I've found little support for, even with many people opposed to the number of violent video games on the market.

H Thompson

06-22-2007, 02:27 AM

Yeah I agree really, I just sometimes like to play devils advocate in a thread where everyone's agreeing with each other.

DAntae

06-22-2007, 09:10 AM

time to reel it in here...its just videogames. have your opinion, no problem. nothing in a videogame has ever grossed me out, had a few shock moments in some spookier titles but never a time when I thought that this is way too much to be viewed in a game.

H Thompson

06-22-2007, 10:19 AM

As always, it comes down to choice.

I fully respect that many people dislike unnecessary violence, and will avoid it. However, they have no right to impose their opinion on others- it is not right to ban, say, Grand Theft Auto because some dumb kids killed some guy while imitating it- it is important that people are given a choice. I also understand and support- and here is where I'm disagreeing with quite a few earlier posts- restrictions on the sale of certain games to minors.

The ESRB is completely necessary and is doing as good of a job as they can be expected to do. The problem is that the recommendations of the ESRB are being ignored. Case in point: I was sitting outside chatting with a bunch of friends about Resident Evil 4, a game that is rated Mature for a good reason. As we're talking, my neighbor's kid comes over, and, hearing our conversation, goes into a detailed account of his experiences playing the game. The kid is 9 years old. Curious, I asked him where he had played the game, and he responded that his mom had bought it for him.

9 is maybe slightly too young, but I don't really think that RE4 is that bad, (I played RE2 and the orginal Grand Theft Auto at about the age of 11 or 12) you're generally not shooting proper human beings, and the context of the game is generally kill these monsters because their going to kill you and plan to do incredibly evil things, Of course a lot of kids don't understand things like context or irony. I did from a young age and my parents generally allowed me to watch and play things rated much higher than my age. (although they did draw a line somewhere)
I mean there's equally violent actions in say, an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon.
Of course this leads to a debate over to what extent the realism and the differnce between watching and playing affects things.

And everyone always blames their parents, but maybe it's not them it's their parents fault - they didn't get a very good upbringing, and so they don't know how to be good parents themselves ;-/