Slashdot Mirror
Perspectives On Games And Violence
Thanks to GameSpy for their column discussing the recent news stories linking games and violence, which provides a considered perspective on stories of sniping, neglect, and sadness, suggesting that "...it makes great news to juxtapose crimes and violent games. Sadly, it appears that 'great news' coverage too often comes from making an emotional connection for the reader/listener/viewer. Not one based on facts, but emotions." There's another article on games and violence at GamerDad.com, also trying to answer this most difficult of questions: "I see [the media] blaming a hobby I love. But they could blame almost anything. But I think that no matter what they blamed, what [the perpetrators] did still wouldn't make any sense whatsoever."
Take a good look at the Columbine videos. Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games. They learned how to not be afraid of the weapons. They became desensitized to the weapons and the gore which they inflicted upon the students and teachers at Columbine.
Perhaps it wasn't the games that set them off (more like multiple swirlies and wedgies in front of girls), but the violent video games they played gave them the tools to perform their carnage.
If it didn't work so well to desensitize kids to violence, the military wouldn't be using the same type of simulations to train troops.
In the past, we had to be in order to survive. To an extent and for some people, that is still true. The next step in evolution of our society would be to remove this rather negative mark on our characters. And then, we could all gather round the N7 and play some Animal Crossing 3.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
How many murders today are attributed to the murderer? Video games, insanity, sad infancy, television and lots of other "causes" are presented to us as the real murderers.
A kid commits a violent crime. Now, in our society, it can't be the kid's fault (they're so cute and innocent) - and we must find someone or something guilty. Look at the past of this kid. What's (even in little doses) abnormal? ahHA! he plays Quake. We found a murderer, the child is thereby "innocent", everybody's happy.
The sad thing is that this principle applies to adults too. There are not any more murderers left, only bad luck, bad circumstances, bad influences.
Responsability is the keyword here, man.
When you highlight a word in bold, make sure it is spelled correctly.
Thank you.
Two Tennessee tennagers have pleaded guilty to charges of reckless homicide, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault because, last June, they thought it would be fun to fire a high caliber rifle at the highway. They killed one motorist and wounded two others. They claimed they got the idea from the game Grand Theft Auto III.
Of course they will blame video games, better than the death sentence. The legal system is full of "Pass the Buck" excuses.
It doesn't seem to matter that there's a sticker on the front of the box that says M; 13 year olds are playing this stuff, and one can see with MMORPGs that the lines between fantasy and real life are dangerously blurred for people much older than that. The industry has been warned to clean things up, and has promised to do so, but this mental sugar keeps getting dumped to the shelves because it costs less to package violence than plot (look at movies as an example.)
Maybe the development of decent games like Myst should be subsidized; maybe the distribution of violent games should be hindered for the public good? I think we've moved well beyond establishing that violent or extremely compelling video games are a danger to some individuals and the people around them: now is the time for research into potential solutions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I just watched LOTR 2 last night. There's a scene in it where a child must pick up a sword to defend himself. This is fiction, but from what I understand from history there were times on this planet where kids did have to worry for their lives. Did they have incidents like these?
I remember when Doom was blamed for Columbine. I read the journal that got that line of thought going. Nope, it didn't cause it. It was an outlet for them. To be perfectly frank, I think if those kids had played more Doom, then more of their anger would have melted away. Who knows? Enough activities like that (laser tag?) might have prevented them from carrying it out.
It's really hard for me to accept that video games cause violence while I and many others were raised on them. I've never raised my fists in anger. My friends and I never started fights. Never did the "stand toe to toe with you because I'm a bad dude" maneuver. None of us live in rage or anger.
As interested as we were in these games, you'd think we'd have been anything like those kids that shot up Columbine. None of us even had an interest in guns.
The point is you can blame it on video games or on bowling...which is where Klebold and Harris were before they went to school that horrible day.
Reading most of the for and against posts here and in the linked articles, both sides hold very binary views of the issues: it's either "The killers might have played the game, so therefore anyone who plays the game may very well kill someone", or the "I've been playing it for X years and I've not gone on a homicidal spree". Proper scientific studies seem to suggest there might be a weak causal link between games and violence, but rather than discuss the real issues, we only hear the two polarly opposed absolutes.
If it were another subject, like, say "Smoking can cause cancer", viewpoints like "Even one breath of second hand smoke will kill you!" or "My grampa puffed 20 a day and he's still a healthy 95" would be instantly dismissed as intellectually naive. Why do people seem to think this lack of deductive reasoning is acceptable to defend or condemn the issues surrounding a much more complex proposition?
Hi Mike Hawk here again to take a deep breath and not tow the party line.
I'm not concerned about violent video games today. I'm not even concerned about violence.
So the point of this post then...
What I am concerned about is our (slashdot, gamespy, the video game industry) response. IMMEDIATELY everyone has come out to say that no way video games had a part in this. My problem is, while instinct goes along way, we are not studying this enough for a possible correlation. I mean, if a kid shoots a truck to complete a goal in GTA:VC, then grabs his buddy and goes outside and shoots at trucks, noone considers it even within the realm of possibility than there was some slight connection?
But then again, I'm not saying that post hoc ergo proctor hoc either. I'd just like an intelligent discussion on the issue rather than knee-jerk from both sides as we traditionally get here.
I'd also like to see a serious independent study on the issue. I'd like to see how the brain reacts during and after playing the most violent games over an extended period. An increase in emotional release during gameplay is good; an extended tendancy toward release after play has ended and the real world has begun could be bad.
What are my solutions? I'd don't pretend to offer any. Do I think we should ban them altogether? Hell no, this is America dag nab it. Do I think we could restrict purchase to those over 18 as we do pornography? Thats again a little knee-jerk for me at this point, though there is no downside to anyone but the Entertainment Software Association and its members. (Keep your "slippery slope" and 1st amendment arguements to yourself, we already do this with porn in America and there have been no conclusive studies about that either.) Can we do nothing? I guess, until it is your kid (or you) that takes it in the chest.
I'd just like more real knowledge and less instinct running around here.
I see [the media] blaming a hobby I love. Yeah I too love to blow people into tiny bits [online]and scream: j00 5vxx0r!, but that doesn't mean I walk around town with a loaded shotgun and a chainsaw under my coat, harvesting my hate towards mankind....I swear!
It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious. -B.Hicks-
Shooting pixelimages at screen.. I just don't know how that compares to killing real people on streets. But what I have discovered that TV is sending pretty violent news stories at evening when kids are eating and watching TV. There are often very nasty pictures about war victims, people that has been shot and things like that. But all this is "old news", better to blame video/computer games, more viewers for "news" :)
You don't know what you don't know.
but the media has it the wrong way round.
It stands to reason that people who fantasise about violence will play violent computer games, just as they'll watch violent films. So it's unsurprising that the Columbine killers played DOOM, but that absolutely doesn't mean DOOM caused them to killers.
Of course common-sense arguments starting "it stands to reason" are often wrong, particulary in this area... anyone know of any research in this area?
I can't believe most are missing the whole point, if a kid goes and and shoots/mutilates/mames another human being, then the kid is f'd up, plain and simple.
Parents should take responsibility for their apparent lack of moral guidence in that child's upbringing. Yes parents, ehtics is also required reading! You can blame all the videos/games/newsoftoday that you want, but it comes down to the kids having a balanced knowledge of right and wrong. If the kid goes and does a killing spree, I think it is safe to assume that the kid has issues.
It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious. -B.Hicks-
Although I totally disagree with the "Doom made me do it" argument that these *criminals* continually spout off, and I am always sad to hear about these kinds of incidents, I don't think that this kind of coverage is a bad thing at all. It creates a whole bunch of free media coverage for games, and it makes them "cool" and "bad" for kids. It's also good for jounalists because they get more headlines. What is the problem? We (game players) all know this is crazy, so why do we care that the media brings a whole bunch of (negative) attention to games? There is no such thing as bad publicity, and I'm sure than incidents like this actually increase sales of the games in question. So why are we complaining?
Europeans have had violence selectively bred out of them for centuries, through emigration, genocide and mass starvation. Violence, self defense and gun ownership are all negative traits according to the Hague based New World Order, and Europe is the beta test in reducing humans to sheeple.
The initial secular humanist cabal was satisfied using the colonies as a safety valve to eliminate violence prone individuals, figuring that the natives in the colonies (Zulus, Iroquios, Bantu, Thugges, Pollywogs and Slantees) would kill most of them, and leave the more harmless ones in Europe. Not believing in God, they didn't take God into account, who so generously provided a fecund new Jerusalem in America, where right thinking God Fearing men could subdue and populate a whole continent, Kentucky long rifle in one hand, Bible in the other.
Once the colonies were full or free, the ruling cabal had to find another way to get rid of the free thinking men who worshipped God and not man. It's not a coincidence that the most fervent Christians in the British Empire suffered a British genrerated Potato Famine in the 1870's.
Finally, the humanists attempted genocide to purge Europe of men who would defend their rights with their lives. The Jews were the first to be targetted, one only needs a cursory glance at the history of Isreal to realize what a fierce opponent to soul degrading secular humanism the Jewish race would be.
Which pretty much brings us to today. The New World Order, based in the HAgue, is slowly grinding down Europeans into sub-humans, preventing them from fully achieving their full human potential, including the ability to fight for what you believe in. Teletubbies and happy, passive, non-violent vide games are part of the insidious conspiracy. Fortunately, there are enough God Fearing, right thinking men who will fight for the right for men to worship God instead of nebulous concepts like Gaia, ecology, feminism, astronomy and humanism in America and Israel. For those of us blessed enough to live in one of God's chosen places, all we can do is pray for the poor souls being tortured in the soul crashing socialist hellhole that is Europe, and perhaps ship them a few handguns enclosed in the cases of Budweiser that we ship overseas to sate the European hunger for fine, beechwood aged corn beer.
You know what people...i think it's time to get used to the idea that there are psychopaths in the world and that, yes, even you may be one of their random targets.
Video games are not solely to blame, parenting is not solely to blame, genetics is not solely to blame....it is a mixture of a thousand different things and a mixture that will never be understood precisely.
If you think it's bad now, wait till the current generation of gamers get out of college and realize that there are mostly shit jobs waiting for them to suck the life out of them.
How the hell do you think the economy is going to sustain itself when a generation with the attention span of a flea is in power.
Change is on the wind my friends....we are looking at the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.
And don't forget....
THE MATRIX HAS YOU!!!!!!
LMAO
... and I'll probably keep saying until I die (at which point, others will likely say it in my place): Every disease has a patient.
.01% of them are the type of person who goes for eating someone's intestines while that person is still living, that's still 600000 seriously warped individuals, enough to make a moderately sized city full.
How many people in the world are homicidal psychopaths? Seriously, think about the percentages. There's six billion people out there. If even
So of course there are incredibly violent people willing and eager to do unspeakable acts. For such people, triggers exist all around them, in every aspect of everyday life. No one plays Doom and as a result thinks "Hey, if I shoot someone with a gun, they die! And that's fun!" They already know that a bullet to the brain will kill, and just looking for a new pair of pants could trigger a psychotic episode. It could be the hangers, the mirrors, the checkout counter, anything. It certainly wouldn't be the store's fault.
At any rate, people are responsible for their own actions, period. If anyone else is to blame (in addition, not instead of) it would be their parents or legal guardians, who failed to instill in them a proper sense of right/wrong, fantasy/reality, and social responsibility.
The end.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
Since we are talking about perspectives, heres one for you:
What about if we found out the kids in columbine didnt played games or heard heavy music at all?(for any reason)
What about if their parent lawyers planted the "evidence" that was found on the web? to turn the blame on someone (something) else?
Would it make any difference
Who is to blame then?
Their parents? because they didnt know what their teenager kids were really up to?
Who is to blame then?
Do you feel the need to blame someone?.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better. It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated. If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller! I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox. The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it. You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones. You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus. Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2? Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff. Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose? Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame). It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me. "Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsuit against Son of Sam's talking dog, which would only be slightly more ridiculous than this Columbine lawsuit shit. Actually, this current one might be a little bit crazier since a talking dog is normal, but a talking video game is like CU-K
Sorry about the lack of formatting in the previous post... I guess that kinda steals the thunder from the argument, huh?
Dammit. Well, here it is formatted this time.
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better.
It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated.
If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller!
I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox.
The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it.
You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones.
You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus.
Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2?
Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff.
Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose?
Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame).
It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me.
"Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsu
I agree that violence, or more specifically, conflict, is an essential in the games we make. I also agree that there is no proof of a direct cause-effect relationship between game violence and crimes. I have seen, however, a few people who get very worked up over games. I don't know what else may have been in their lives or if they were already basically this way, but when playing violent, immersive games, they did become drugged or ultra violent. It isn't the general case, but I have personally seen it happen.
The company sometimes invite people in so we can evaulate game-play. They have cameras to observe their reactions, and record what they do, and have surveys to ask what things they don't like, any problem areas in levels, and so on. They aren't game testers, just normal joes (not many janes, but they sometimes have them) who come in and play games for an hour. They are asked to fill out a survey on the way in, play whatever game we ask them to, then fill out an exit survey. I've asked about the violence in media vs. agressive behavior before, and I was invited to come watch on some of the days that they've had people in. Also, our team is occasionally given reports back, and I've talked with other teams about their players' results.
While I don't work on violent games, other teams I work with and review results with, do. When reviewing people playing violent games, we have talked a little bit at their history (Do they watch violent movies? Do they play M-rated games?) These are the violence trends I have observed:
I have observed that on violent games, many people (usually male, we don't survey many females) who don't typically view violent material (few or no R-movies, etc) and say they are not uncomfortable with the violence in the game, but they initially look and act uncomfortable while playing. By the end of the sessions, they were more comfortable with the violence in the game. Some of these people, I would guess about 1/3, seem to get completely immersed in the game. They just lose focus of everything else. More on them later, they're the first group I'm concerned about. The rest of them just seemed like normal people. They understood when there were glitches in the games, and are basically helpful to the staff.
People who do usually view violent material but don't play violent games complained that the our games are not real enough, that is, not enough gore. When playing, these people tended to seek out more violent areas of the game and spend more time on the more graphic death scenes. From what I have seen, though, these people didn't act beligerent to the staff, nor get too involved in the games. They were like most of the people above, just normal people wanting to say "Hey, I helped play-test that game!" I was a little bothered by one guy's comment about wanting more gore, but otherwise, they're pretty normal.
Those who have an extensive history in games (both M and non-M) but don't watch violent movies, tended to be the tester's nightmare: they want to systematically go through the entire game, clean out every corner, get every item, learn the maps, etc. They don't really notice the violence, but they don't seem much affected by it. They also find the most glitches.
Those who have an extensive history in M-rated games, *and* frequently watch R-rated movies tended to do one of two things: most tend to just work through the basic plot and do very little exploring. Some (a small number) tended to just seek out violence, and became agressive or a little hostile to our staff. Most of these guys (the ones who follow the plot) don't find much as far as bugs are concerned, but they do show what is interesting and what isn't. The few people who become agressive, however, are the second group I am concerned about.
Based only on what I have seen (which isn't as much as the people who run the tests), I'm not to worried
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement