Violent Games Good for Kids

fjordboy writes "Scholars from MIT, the University of California in LA, and the University of London have worked together to oppose laws restricting children from playing violent video games. The battle is currently taking place in the US Court of Appeals and the case seems to hold a decent amount of merit. From Vnunet:"Experts on childhood and adolescence have long recognised the importance of violent fantasy play in overcoming anxieties, processing anger, and providing outlets for aggression." Similar article from Reuters as well."

Comments

Single validation not enough

[Amadaeus]

Repeated beatings of the gaming industry can't be rescued by a single validation. What really needs to be done is that society must realize that not all disasterous things int he world can be blamed on the gaming industry. When that happens, then it will be a true validation of pc/console gaming.

Re:Single validation not enough

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The problem is that Mommy and Daddy need someone to blame when little Johnny (or Eric or Dylan) goes on a shooting rampage.

Now, it's probably not Mom and Dad's fault either. Little Johnny is plenty old enough to know right from wrong and that killing his schoolmates is WRONG.

But there is a very human need to find a "reason", and video games are a convenient scapegoat. Besides, then some politician can call for banning them in order to be seen "DOING SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!". After all, he has to think of the children(tm).

Re:Single validation not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a well proven fact that depicted violence leads to increased violence in people of all ages. Keep this in mind.

No. No, such connection has ever been proven. Your opinion is not a fact merely because you want it to be. Keep this in mind.

Re:Single validation not enough

[plague3106]

Football is violent. You interact with it. So is hockey, soccer, and rugby. Yet people encourage children to play them.

I think you're stating that interactive violence is off base.

As for me, if it hadn't been for violent video games providing an outlet, i probably would have shot up my school.

Dual approach.

[Lemmy Caution]

One one hand, it's helpful to have scholars challenge the old assumption that video games create behavorial problems in the young. Japan's use of video games is definitely in the "catharsis theory" school, allowing people - often adults - to do things they can't or shouldn't do in real life. There are arcade simulators that let men grab virtual asses in simulated subways!

Ultimately, however, what will protect video games from censorship will be free speech issues, not arguments about level of or lack of harm. The fact the more and more video game players are adults will help build consensus for thinking of them as a full-fledged media, and not just a children's toy.

Poppycock

[drhairston]

Have these researchers for a moment stopped to consider that hours spent glued to some machine instead of interacting with ones peers is the cause of "anxieties", "anger", and "aggression"? While there may exist a threshold for healthy computer gaming, I am certain that I have met many young men who have exceeded it.

Re:Poppycock

[aero6dof]

Is it a cause or a symptom? For some, maybe the violent games are the root cause, but you can't generalize it to all children. I believe it causes more harm to restrict the freedoms of people (including children) unless there is a specific body of proof proving harm due to actual causation. If video games do provide a measure of relaxation, restriction of video games may actually cause a rise in agression harming others.

Re:Poppycock

[bmajik]

No.

The biggest source of anxiety in my daily life is other people that don't meet the bar for existance. You often see them on America's motorways talking on their cell phones, doing their makeup, and the like.

You see them leaning out the windows of pickup trucks yelling at people on the sidewalk. You see them standing on scaffolding at construction sites, turned towards the streets whistling at any thing that looks like it could be female from a distanec of 4 stories up.

You see them at your office wearing glasses that don't have a perscription and suspenders that dont actually hold anything up, asking female employees to make them coffee they don't even like drinking, all the while badmouthing how stupid everyone around them is and talking about how they aren't getting paid enough to show up late to work in their leased porsche with the smallest engine and steptronic transmission.

This problem is worse when you're a youth, as the people that grow up to be the people that don't meet the bar start learning through trial and error how to grow into those people in the middle and highshcool years.

People that won't get the fuck out of my way and insist on fucking with my life in an unwarranted manner cause me anger, anxiety, and aggression.

Video games cost $50 a peice. You can do a lifetime's worth of "retaliation" and "anger redirection" in a few short minutes.

Running one fucking moron off the road for the betterment of humanity costs you life in prison.

This is dumb

[FortKnox]

Parents making a decision, you just need to know one thing:
Does your child easily descriminate between fantasy and reality?

If he/she can, then games aren't going to have a detrimental effect.
If he/she can't, start the conselling early. Maybe you can make a difference if you start now.

Re:This is dumb

[Theodore Logan]

Parents making a decision, you just need to know one thing:
Does your child easily descriminate between fantasy and reality?

Interesting that the world is always black and white on Slashdot.

If he/she can, then games aren't going to have a detrimental effect.

You just pulled this one out of your arse, didn't you? Or can you back it up somehow? Can you cite any studies? Why do you find it so obvious that healthy children might not become more aggressive by constantly viewing and engaging in virtual violence? You just say that "it's dumb," but for what reason we are never told.

It says a lot about the ability of most of the Slashdot crowd to grasp the complexity of any problem that isn't hard science that this comment was modded up.

Re:Shouldn't it be

[stratjakt]

Actually the lions share of the market is over 18.

RTCW and GTA3 arent designed for little kids. If they were targetting my 9 year old, they'd be doing a piss-poor job.

He couldn't care less about the titles I enjoy.

I mean, how much money does the average 5-10 year old have in his/her pocket? Richie-Rich aside, its not enough to buy a new game every week.

New as in full MSRP on release day, they dont make money when you pick up Warcraft II BattleChest for 4.99 at babbages.

The video game industry didn't surpass the movie industry in gross sales on little Billy's allowance.

That's the reason there are so many 'Mature' games.

All this "good/bad for your kids" debate does is misdirect the public.

Video games aren't "kids entertainment", any more than all movies are "kids entertainment".

Where's the study about parental responsibility?

[marian]

This is a pretty classic example of people trying to pass the buck on who is responsible for their children and what they do. Regardless of whether violent images in video games harm, help or do nothing at all to children, the responsibility for deciding what is appropriate for each child and the consequences of that choice lies with the parents. If your kid has no friends and spends 12 hours a day in front of the tv, IT IS YOUR FAULT not the broadcasters who provide the shows. YOU should be monitoring what your child watches, just like YOU should be monitoring what your child does online. Passing the buck by enacting more useless and unenforceable legislation merely provides additional opportunity for lawsuits and does nothing at all for the children who are so easily used as examples of what is "wrong" with each industry. Those kids need involved parents, not more laws that regulate what they can do/see/say/think.

Blah blah blah

[piznut]

Probably not exactly on topic, but since when did I give a shit about my karma :P.

I have found myself getting mad at multiplayer video games. Quake, UT, Tribes, AA.

My current video game outlet is Battlefield 1942. It seems to require quite a bit more skill than most "twitch" games, and the deaths can be pretty damn funny sometimes. When I die, I usually find myself congratulating the person who killed me, and/or laughing at the way I died. You still have the occasional CS kiddie on the games, but for the most part, the crowd seems to be a bit more cordial.

I think the main draw of the game for me is the challenge of coming up with new and funny ways of killing people. Usually when I turn the game off it's because I've stayed up way too late, and not because I am frustrated. It's somewhat violent, but its not overly gory (has a 'T' rating). This game is a perfect example of a game that doesnt need shock value to be appealing and fun.

Re:Violent games do not exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's no violence in a SIMULATED BATTLE between two OPPOSING ARMIES you fool.

Re:Aggression is our ONLY advantage

[Stalyn]

Our ONLY evolutionary advantage is not big brains or stereoscopic vision or opposable thumbs.

Uhh, I'll remember to 'just get angry' if a huge gorilla comes after me instead of shooting him with a rifle.

The only reason humans dominate the world is because we can use our brains to build things. Either making a plow to farm or a spear to kill something, thats our legacy. If we couldn't create tools such as plows, spears, language, math and machine guns we'd still be picking fleas off each other.

Just like Smoking is good for you.

[Zapdos]

Smoking is good for you

Video Games may not cause cancer, but anything to excess is bad. Most gaming time can easily be spent doing something else, something better for you than the games are.

I know of several young children that have picked up the finer aspects of violent video games such as cursing, bad hand gestures, rude comments. Yes it is true that there are other sources to obtain these skills, but why add to the list?

Re:Total opposite?

[hayden]

Personally, I see some games making people more angry and edgy.

The problem isn't the game, it's the anger management issues they have. Getting frustrated when you lose means anything competitive is not going to calm you down.

P.S. Camping with the awp=sniping(fair, and expected). Camping with the mp5=camping(cheap).

The definition of camping has changed since it was first used. Early multiplayer FPS were pretty much everyone against everyone affairs or at best one group of people against another group of people. Winner is the player/team with the most kills. Camping in this situation is lame because it enhances your score without requiring very much skill.

Ever since team games starting getting objectives and ways of winning other than killing the opposing team the rules have changed. You can now win by defending an objective and so what is lame in free for all games is now good tactics. But this only applies to the side that can win by running out the clock. ie counter terrorists in blow stuff up missions or terrorists in protect the VIP mission (guarding the exit routes). If T camp in blow stuff up missions then what the CT should do is just sit tight. They'll eventually win. Sure this makes for boring games but that the Ts fault for not attacking.

The weapon you are using has nothing to do with it.