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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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