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 don't think the goal of military training is to desensitize troops to violence, if it was, why hasn't animal slaughter been a part of military training in the past? The military wants soldiers that can think/act/fight under pressure and make wise tactical decisions quickly. It is the training of tactics (as well as how to operate machinery) that the military uses simulators for. While you could argue video games made the Columbine kids better tacticians, playing elaborate games of capture the flag could've produced the same results.
"Those Klebold and Harris learned how to handle those weapons from video games."
That is one of the most retarded comments I've ever heard.
*Sigh* well I might as well feed the "interesting" troll here.
1.) There are major, and I do mean major differences between pointing a gun with a mouse in an easy-to-use arcade scenario and holding a gun. Saying that FPS shooters improved these kids' abilities is like saying the Jetsons taught me how to live in the future.
2.) If something like Quake is such a strong training tool, then how come none of them tried to rocket jump? Okay, silly comment, but consider how many of the other things you learn from these games that are just completely impractical in a real world situation.
3.) Why is it so hard to believe these kids didn't train on paintball guns? I mean if they were into guns that badly, it's really hard to imagine they'd limit it to Doom.
"They became desensitized to the weapons and the gore which they inflicted upon the students and teachers at Columbine."
Again, another completely retarded statement. Movies and video games (especially) do not accurately portray gore. Take a real life photo of a dead man hit in the face with a shotgun and a photo of the best make-up effect one could show in a movie and anybody'll notice the difference right away. Despite all of the violent movies and games I've played over my 25 years, Rotten.com (site that shows dead bodies) still shocks me to the point of wanting to puke. There are so many levels of detail that make-up artists don't go through.
Yah know, I just reread what I've written and what you said, and calling you a troll and saying things you've said are retarded is harsh. And I do apologize for that. I think that was more of a message to everybody I've heard (particularly in the media) who has said basically the same thing you have. They're so intent on trying to prove this that they aren't really thinking aboout it.
Believe me, if these games could make people into better killers, the Army would have been using them for years. And no, don't point me at that Go Army game. That's an attempt to get people to enlist.
"Derp de derp."
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.
Ok, but aside from that, I'm arguing for your general point, but also against what you actually posted. First off, the original poster is way off base, and I think I've seen him particularly making the same outrageous comments repeatedly (I didn't check though). It's not about rewards for killing, it's essentially simulation. It's a fantasy outlet for a lot of people
Games do not give kids the tools to kill. Neglect, humiliation, and familiarity with violence in real life give kids the tools to kill. No amount of counter strike, doom, quake, etc. is going to make me knowledgable enough to pick up an automatic rifle and blast people. The fact is that in this particular case, these kids had plentiful access to guns, they were familiar with how to fire them, and had a lot of experience with them. I'm not saying guns cause violence, that's about as silly (maybe slightly less) as saying video games cause violence. Look, if kids are neglected, abused, humiliated, ridiculed, looked down upon, and otherwise made to feel worthless about themselves and everything around them, then obviously they aren't going to hold life too highly.
Everyone is so ready to jump to point the blame, that we miss the fact that these kids were depressed, suicidal, angry as hell, and they just didn't give a damn about anything. Their parents obviously failed to raise them in such a way that they would value life. The school system failed in that these kids were continually ridiculed, and the school didn't prevent it. The kids had mental disorders causing them to think it was a good, and just, idea to go into the school and kill people that humiliated them, and others they felt were likely the same way. It's vengence plain and simple. The kids were reported racists on top of that. I'm sorry, but hatred doesn't just crop up, it's a learned trait.
I think you would have a hard time arguing that a culture that glorifies war, vengence, and has a long history of hatred isn't bound to raise some blood-thirsty, vengeful, hateful people. That aside, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that if the kids didn't know how to use the weapon it wouldn't have happend so easily. Kids shouldn't have guns. If that's what it has to come down to, I'm all for it. If a 12 year old can't go hunting legally with his father in the name of less youth shootings, I'm all for it.
All of this comes down to curbing a problem. There is no way to eliminate gun violence completely. There is no way to pin point which kids are going to snap and kill their school, shoot trucks on the highway, or plan out elaborate terrorist style massacres. But if you have a group of kids who have shown signs of mental illness, who are constantly harassed by their peers, or neglected by their parents or community, then you probably have an idea who to try to help instead of further shun. No single thing will fix the problem, no single thing is to blame, individuals are responsible for individual actions, but they're also impacted by their environment.
As far as video games in the military...ummm, the military has better ways to "desensitize" it's troops, if that's what you want to call it. Put a group of people in a scenario where if they hesitate on pulling the trigger they may be dead in an instant, and they're going to pull that trigger as many times as it takes to make sure the threat is eliminated. The military doesn't need video games to desensitize people, they just need to put them in a life or death situation, and the desire to live, at whatever costs, will prevail.
Sadly stuff like this seems to have to happen before people realize there might be a problem with the way our society functions. It takes tragedy to make us realize we're screwing up, and to come up with ways to fix the problem. But that's an entirely different topic.