Slashdot Mirror
The State of Violent Gaming
Ownt.com writes "Today we talk with Running With Scissors' Vince Desi of the controversial, recently released gore fest, Postal 2. We talk with Vince about The State of Video Game Violence and his thoughts on the violent gaming, where it's been, where it's going and many other aspects surrounding whether or not games actually 'teach' the players to go... postal."
I think not. Someone had to create this game in the first place. Chances are that these people that created the game aren't really 'qualified' to be teaching people how to kill and whatnot. I think that when game creators come up with an idea for a game, it's an idea that ANYONE could have come up with. Game makers aren't some special elite force that knows how to kill. Maybe they do a little research before hand, but I highly doubt that they are any more expericned at 'going postal' than anybody who plays these games.
Also, wouldn't you think that the game creators would get thier brains tweaked a little bit, considering that they have to actaully CREATE the violence?
What's your opinion on the statement "Games make killers out of gamers"? ...I honestly think our society has blown itself into a jerkoff corner and now we cant figure how to get out. How about we start with disciplining our kids, yeah I mean hitting them, and as for criminals fuck rehabbing rapist, I wouldn't even waste time with castration, just get the power generator going and hook it up to a big ass sofa and start the bbq. And we should start with criminal politicians that would help clean up that pimp house known as Congress.
BULLSHIT. If that was actually true we'd have a helluva lot more Columbines and snipers, but thank God we don't. I'll tell you whats really disturbing that a lot of good people are being fed that shit and actually eat it up. I have 1 thing to say RESPONSIBILITY, what the fuck ever happended to saying you're wrong, I made a mistake, I did it
People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work). Parents in some areas can now pay for their children's community service hours so that they don't have to work them...
Kids do dumb stuff and used to get in deep shit for it. Now we can't get kids in trouble because that hurts them later in life. NO SHIT? You mean fucking up when you are young might have ramifications later in life? What's the detterent to doing stupid stuff?
Guns don't cause violence and neither do video games.
These guys are the ones who really give "violent video games" a bad rep. Postal/postal 2 aren't nearly as clever, or in the same league playwise, as something like Doom or the GTA series. These truly are third rate games who's only selling point is the violence and bathroom humour.
These are the games the Donahues of the world want to bitch about, but they're so forgettable that Doom or GTA take the brunt of the complaints.
Not that they shouldnt be allowed to make whatever game they damn well feel like. Screw all these morons, who for some reason or another, think that video games are for some reason not protected forms of expression.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
There is a ton of violent media out there, and has been for a while. Up to a certain age, it is the parents' job to censor that. After that point, those who imitate things like postal were missing a few cards in the deck anyway. If it's not a video game, it'll be a movie or something else that sets them off.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
> First let me say that if I thought we could make a game that would
> honestly motivate people to do things in real life, then I would
> make a game about fucking, cause this world needs more sex than
> killing that's for shit sure.
I have no motivation problems in this area.
The sad thing is that (in the USA at least) graphic violence is apparently more acceptable than graphic sexuality. This appears to be exactly backwards.
also to teach them the difference between fantasy and reality? the games have ratings so parents can make a responsible choice. Most kids know that a game isn't real or should be copied, those that can't figure that out or haven't been taught should play violent games. After all, most stores won't sell games rated "M" to kids. But of course that requires the parent to acctually tell little Johnny NO and back it up. Oh, well I guess that won't happen.
and for those who don't like violent games, don't buy them. No ones forcing them into your house
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Am i a hypocrite?
Yes. You are also human. You are no more hypocrite than a former stoner/hippie parent cringing at the idea of their kids trying weed or some free love.
I used to sneak into "over 18" movies, shoplift and bribe clerks for booze. I got my first all night binge by the time I was around 15 (complete with rum induced vomiting). I had a darn good time and don't regret most of it. I also know that I would certainly not condone my kids doing either of those activities. Hell, I'll probably go out of my way to prevent it.
No sig
We stop violent games so we can shelter everyone from something that only a relatively FEW people can't handle mentally? Bad apples are everywhere; they'll find a way to be bad with or without violent video games.
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work)
I totally agree with you there. A time-out is really a time-out for the parent. All you do is tell the kid that you can't handle it anymore and you need a break.
gj.
It's a standard reaction on behalf of the parents and a sad one. There are kids who will go out and do terrible things, but violence is not exactly a new thing in human history. If anything, todays' societies are remarkably non-violent compared to past ones.
For the parents - especially of the killers - it's an attempt to find blame somewhere. I feel sorry for them: since Freud's time, parents have been told "you are responsible for the way your kids turn out", when in fact many studies show that parents are amazingly irrelevant to their children's character. One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.
There is violence in our genes, but it generally needs a certain kind of culture to bring it out. The place to look for the causes of such killings are the youth cultures these kids hung-out in. There is no evidence at all that violent games or movies influence children, but it seems clear that violent children prefer to express themselves through violent games, virtual or real.
Court cases like this resolve absolutely nothing, because they divert the discussion in meaningless directions. Let's ban all violent games and movies... OK, will that change anything? Take a look at (random selection from a large pool) Uganda, where the kids watch no movies at all, yet 10,000 young (5-12) killers roam the north.
It is very difficult to change a violent culture, but it is possible.
The first thing is to understand the way violence is propagated. Like all youth cultures, it goes from youth to youth, bypassing all adult control. You have to work at this level, thus.
The second thing is to understand how individuals get drawn into violent behaviour that reinforces itself and finally becomes habitual. Can a young man turn to authority for fair protection? If not, he is more likely to use his own force for self-protection. Can a young man who uses drugs turn to authority for help? If not, he is likely to resort to retribution and violence. Can a young man escape from a violent or oppressive environment? If not, he will eventually give up on himself and "go postal", taking his own life but first taking the lives of as many of his peers as he can, in an attempt to regain some face.
I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem.
Banning violent video games goes further in the wrong direction. Now we make criminals out of those youngsters who want such games. Excellent.
I could go into the big news headlines of kids killing their sisters with WWE moves, kids with guns, etc., but I'll go with this one:
My buddy has a 3 year old. During the time his wife was away, my buddy would play GTA: Vice City, and his son would watch. The son thought it was cool when daddy "beat the shit" of of other guys with the bats. Well, Mom came home to see her son, and saw her son going to town on his favourite teddy bear with a kid-sized hockey stick. He said to his mom that it was because daddy did this "on tv". (And yes, the son would say daddy "beat the shit" out of somebody on tv.)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
I believe it's called parenting.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Who cares about the state of violent games.
... just games, the same as television and films and books are just their own types of fiction. To criticize one without criticizing the other is not just inconsistent, it is fundamentally dishonest.
I'm more concerned about the state of violent politics, the underpinning of big business by law makers at the expense of the individual citizen, and the subversion of law and justice in the name of profit.
Games are
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Three things are needed to kill someone, 1) A weapon, 2) The skill, 3) The will to kill. It's been noted that games claim to provide two out of the three.
1) The cardboard box isn't a good weapon, neither is the CD.
2) Sure, I'm deadly with the rail gun in quake 3, but that doesn't mean I can fire a sniper rifle. Hell, I wouldn't even know how to load one.
3) If anything, a violent videogame would divert a killer kid's energy away from real people. And it's certainly doesn't provide a 'will to kill' to a normal kid.
It is an interview about claims people have about violent video games with somebody that makes violent video games. He says that he doesn't believe all that hype. What else do we expect him to say?
He sounds like a 13 year old that just learned how to use the words 'fuck' and 'shit' too. At least South PArk knows how to make it funny. This guy seems like he is trying too hard to come off as some dirty loud-mouth rebel. Indiscriminate use of "fuck" doesn't make you cool. Sorry, dude.
In his language he also tries to hide the fact that he doesn't understand the claim against violent imagery. It isn't that violent games makes peopel violent. You don't turn into a serial killed from playing violent games. The study research shows that violent imagery reduces the inhabition for violence and causes acceptance of violence. After playing extremely violent games, people se violence as more acceptable of a solution. This was done by asking questions about attitude towards violence, then the subject plays violent games, and then a new series of questions are asked concerning violence. There are also other forms this takes, such as the willingness of somebody to shock another (it rises) after viewing violent games, etc...
The interview isn't even worth finishing the bottom half. This guys views are so simplistic and covered in obscenity that I just question his ability to think clealy about the problem.
When I was thirteen, I remember passing up Mortal Kombat and Doom for some Super Mario Kart with my dad on more than one occasion.
If that doesn't speak to parents, I don't know what will.
I don't deny that violent media can have an effect, not just on children, but even on adults.
We've all known that kid who was just a little bit off, easily susceptible to anything. You know the kid, who, when you were all playing ninja at recess, took it just a bit too far and ended up hurting someone.
Thing is, that was the same kid who was liable to start taking swings at people when he lost at Candyland.
Those kids who shot the cars and then blamed GTA3, or the Columbine kids, are extreme examples of these sorts of personalities.
I dont believe for a second the parents didnt see the warning signs, or that noone outside the family warned the parents. They chose to ignore those signs that their children werent right. It's hard for a parent to deal with the fact that somethings wrong with their kid.
We all know adults who behave in the same way. Quick to anger, don't seem to think about the consequences when they act. These people jump out of their cars and beat someone to death over a minor traffic accident.
Video games as a cause of real violence, no, but as an aggravating factor for some? Sure, anything short of serious therapy makes these people worse.
Should games be outlawed because there are those who cant seperate fantasy from reality, or have a screwed up brain that makes them a sociopath? Of course not.
We need to realize that these problems are inherent in society. We need to identify and treat these people, and lock up the untreatable ones. Thats the only real solution.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
First of all, it is incredibly hypocritical of a society to shelter their young from naked bodies doing sticky things, while guns, explosions, and violence are all A-OK to be shown right after SpongeBob's timeslot.
Secondly, it is also hypocritical of a society to preach the virtues of peace, condemn violent art and video games, while simultaneously waging a bloody, arbitrary war on nameless strangers a world away.
What's more disturbing for little Timmy to see? "Terminator 2" or CNN? Why is fake violence so heavily restricted and regulated, but actual people bleeding and dying is completely OK? Would you scold your neighbor if you found out your kid was visiting while the father was watching CNN? What if he was watching porn?
You see, that's a major problem with North American culture, and it really surprises me that so few people recognize it.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Guns don't cause violence and neither do video games.
This won't stop Congress from shredding the Constitution further with insane laws to sate their retarded constituents.
Gun laws, drug laws, parent surviellance, no freedom in school...these are the things that breed violence and crime among frustrated and stifled kids. Give them some slack!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
Regularly using time-outs and actually enforcing them *is* a punishment, and liberally taking away privileges as punishment works.
Some of the problems I've seen with implementing this are:
* Warning a child of an impending time-out by counting upwards. A countdown implies going from something down to zero, not the other direction. Children understand it when they're running out of numbers, where counting up gives them unlimited room for expansion.
* Threatening punishments but not delivering. I've seen parents threaten their child, but when the child yanks away from them, screams, whatever, the parent impotently lets the child get away with it. Apparently the child is either running the show, or the parent is afraid of appearing mean in public or something.
* Shortening time-outs because you're in a hurry, or giving back lost privileges due to expediency. If you're serious about punishing your kids, you sacrifice. When you give in and give back things you took away, the punishments have no meaning and the child won't care about being "punished".
Amazingly, my kids usually quickly stop most small-to-medium infractions when they hear the word "five". They know "four", "three", "two", "one", "zero", and "time-out" are coming. They remember all the other times they've been sat facing a corner for periods that seem endless to children, bored out of their little skulls. They know that Mom and Dad will stop what they're doing, just for the purpose of waiting for them to finish a time-out. They also know that a privilege taken away is not coming back, so they try to avoid losing the privileges in the first place.
Parents don't need to beat their children instead of using time-outs, they need to actually spend more than the minimum effort needed to raise their children.
I Doubt many parents would buy kids their M rated games if they actually sat down and watched their darling little ten year olds blowing up buildings, brutally murdering people etc. Or maybe I am just out of the loop and thats what parents want there kids to do when they grow up...
DUKEY!
This appears to be exactly backwards.
Religion will do that to people.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Just remember, though, that when you were a teenager you knew what you were doing was against the rules - and at a bare minimum, it's a parent's responsibility to communicate those rules. You are a much different person (presumably) than you were then, so it's hardly hypocricy to try and steer your kids away from those things.
With 3 toddlers of my own, I wonder what life will be like in 10-15 years. My plan so far is to use Chef's line from South Park: "Children - there's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
To which the parent responded:
I disagree. I see no harm in an adult with a fairly firmly-set value system playing games in the Doom/Quake*/GTA*/Postal genre. I see nothing hypocritical at all about that same adult denying access to such games to a 10 year old, or even a 16/17 year old youth.
I won't argue the point that SOME teens (very damned few, in my experience) are more mature than some adults. The fact of the matter is that it is a parent's right/responsibility to guide their kids into development of a sound moral framework to use as a guide in making life's decisions.
The problem is that too many parents cave in today when their 10 year old says "You do it, so it's not FAIR for you to not let ME do it." Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Don't like it? Get married as soon as your state of residence allows and go pay your own way in life. If you want the same rights an adult has, shoulder the same responsibilities we do.
GOOD parenting is both the most difficult AND the most rewarding job you will face in life.
utter rubbish
The problem is that too many parents cave in today when their 10 year old says "You do it, so it's not FAIR for you to not let ME do it." Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Don't like it? Get married as soon as your state of residence allows and go pay your own way in life. If you want the same rights an adult has, shoulder the same responsibilities we do.
:The problem is that too many parents cave in today when their 10 year old says "You do it, so it's not FAIR for you to not let ME do it." Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Don't like it? Get married as soon as your state of residence allows and go pay your own way in life. If you want the same rights an adult has, shoulder the same responsibilities we do.
If I had mod-points (I never get them anymore I guess I post too much) I would give you +500 for Insightful and Informative!
"Life sucks then you die" was my father's favorite quote to me when I would complain shit wasn't fair. There are things that are acceptable for children (ie the tub full of balls at McDonalds) and there are things that are acceptable for adults (everything that's not acceptable for children).
You live under your parent's rules or you leave. Simple as that. "Don't like the rules in my house buy your own." Life as a child isn't a democracy and they shouldn't be taught that it is even close to one.
This is why kids are assholes to their parents, their peers, their friend's parents, and everyone. We taught them that it's a free country and that there are no ramifications for what they do. "Go and sit in the corner and think about what you did" is not a valid punishment. Talking it over with them is also not a valid punishment. Children are too smart these days. YES MOM/DAD is all you will get.
It's sad but true.
you've given your personal example. Let me give a counter example : I remember a few years back when our youngest son (then 3 years old) had been playing in potted plants we have in the corner of our hall. I had a very long, tiring day at work, my wife was sick, and we had told him a few times before we didn't want him to play with those.
:-)
In a reflex I still regret, I grabbed him (he saw me coming, so it was not an unexpcected grab from behind) and gave him a single, solid clap on his bottom while i said in a loud voice : you know you're not supposed ot touch these !
The results frightened me completely : he freaked out, cryed his heart out and peed is pants (which he hadn't done since he was 2) There was a total, insane panic in his eyes and he yelled for his mom like as if i was cutting his balls of...
but that was not the scariest part. That was when it took days for him to be sweet again to me. I had (and now have again) a very very good bond with my kids. I can talk to them about everything even some stuff that they don't tell their mom (and vice versa
During those days, he did nothing wrong, didn't touch those plants, didn't break anything, didn't do anything naughty, finished his plate... pefect... He was like an angel. But an angel that was prety damd scared of me and wouldn't let me hug him.
Dude : it has cost me blood, sweat and tears to bring our relation back to normal, and I have NEVER ever hit our kids again.
Now when he does something fancy, I take him apart and talk it through. Okay, he looks at me with a "oh comeon dad I got the message, stop preaching man". But quite often, a few hours or even days later, he comes over to me and admits "yeah, I was pretty stupid back then." and we can both laugh about it.
I don't expect him to say "sheesh, thanks for pointing out to me how stupid I am and how smart you are, dad" but then again, I guess you never said that to your dad either after he put his belt back on ? Hitting is the easy way. Talking to your kids every day, even when you're tired and they're a royal pain in the ass is the most rewarding way.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Much of what we now recognize as great art was produced by people who were just trying to make a living. A videogame may or may not be a form of "meaningful" expression, but the fact that it is produced for profit is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
And so we start a child-rearing pissing contest. Come on people, every child is different.
Everything works for some kids.
Nothing works for all kids.
The most important thing is to know your child, and what he responds to. Trying to tell other people what works for a child you've never even met is silly.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
My biased two cents....
Really, neither should be socially acceptable - especially in mediums so easily accessed by children. Violence and Sexuality expose children to concepts that they don't know how to deal with and end up just emulating them... which points to the real problem: Parenting.
If parents were more involved, perhaps even playing games with their children two (or more) things would happen:
1) Parents would become aware of how violent (or sexual) games/movies can be
2) More importantly, they would witness how it affects their children. Not every child reacts the same but every child could benefit from discussing the fact that in real life smashing someone's head in a car door over and over would probably kill them, and it isn't how we are supposed to behave.
Unfortunately there are far too many parents that don't care (maybe are just too busy? but again, that is an issue of priority and caring) about ratings or even what their kids are doing. The sad thing is that the vocal group will eventually get legislation passed because those who would stop it are precisely those who don't care about their own children, let alone the country they live in.
Call me a cynic.
Actually, the punishment depends on the child. Timeouts, for example, work extremely well for one of my daughters. She really is crushed when she is put on timeout, and it prevents her from doing future behavior that landed her on timeout in the first place.
:) Spanking works, timeouts are a joke to this one.
The second one...well, she just needs to be smacked around sometimes.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
do you also have a problem with video stores that won't rent porno to 10 year olds too then? ratings are there for a reason.
Actually, it depends on the child. Kids are unique individuals. They're not like little mass-produced robots that only function according to a fixed set of commands.
A few of my friends have children that are generally pretty calm and mild-mannered. Punishing by spanking isn't really necessary, and probably just hurts the parent more than it does the child. (EG. After a spanking, you have to endure the kid screaming and sobbing, and possibly even putting on a show of ignoring you completely for the next 30 minutes or so.) If a "go sit in the corner for 5 minutes" or "Stop that, or you're going to lose privilege Y!" is effective, great!
On the other hand, yes, some kids won't respond to anything less than spanking. Sometimes, it's because they're at an age where they want to test their limits. If parents won't take things to the level of spanking, the child keeps piling on worse and worse behavior, trying to provoke some sort of response. (Eventually, they just decide they can do anything they want without consequences more serious than threats that don't get backed-up with actions.)
One big problem, nowdays, is with people too concerned with what "the other parent" is doing, and not enough with their own lives. Do I think twice before punishing my daughter in public? Unfortunately, yes! I shouldn't have to - but ignorant people out there will file complaints, report you to store security, or any number of boneheaded things.
Just last week, I barely escape a big incident over nothing at the local WalMart store. I went in with my (18 month old) daughter to buy her some clothes and get some food items. When the cashier rung me up, my kid started fussing (wet diaper), so I was distracted. She bagged everything for me, but when I went to grab the bag I thought she put the clothes in - she stopped me, saying "That one's not yours!"
She was already ringing out a guy behind me who was also buying some clothes - so I figured it must have been my mistake, and I left. When I got to the car, I saw the clothes weren't in my bags at all - even though I just paid for them. I wasn't going to try to run back in with my fussing daughter (and she was more calm sitting in her car seat anyway) so I left her in the car and ran back in.
It wasn't more than a minute, but when I got back to my car, security was already there, starting to write up some kind of report, and a lady was talking to the guy about the "kid abandonned in the car"! Come on, people! I can understand trying to be helpful and all - but don't jump to conclusions about something you know nothing about. At least spend a few minutes making sure the parent isn't right around the corner before filing complaints.....
No big suprise. I don't know anything about ownt.com, but Vince Desi is not really the person to interview for a serious discussion on video game violence. As a gamer, he's the last person I want in my corner.
/. and Desi whoring for more spotlight and pimpage of RWS.
His responses are usually like, "Fucking violence in video games doesn't do fuck shit to no fuckers..." Gee, thanks Vince. Well said, you speak like you make games; loud, boorish, and completely lacking substance. At least Jesus Freakin has a few literary references. Oh, and they made their point better with out bothering to make a game.
If this whole interview is typical it is just ownt.com whoring for eyeballs courtesy of Vince Desi and
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
"People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore."
Boy, tell me about it. When I was 7 years old, my neighbor friend decided he liked his big wheel better than mine. So he took it. We knew he took it. We went to his mom. "Oh no, he's an angel. I taught him not to steal. He knows never to do that. He didn't take your bigwheel." I went over to the nearby shed in their yard, opened it up, and pulled out my big wheel.
I never thought very highly of her as a parent. It never really sounded like she was in tune with her kids.
"Derp de derp."
I really don't like the idea of heavily censoring what children are exposed to (in the various forms of media). How do you learn to deal with something without being exposed to it? By teaching kids that there is something "naughty" about sex/nudity/etc (by showing them it is something they shouldn't see), you only attach feelings of guilt to it and peak their interest. I am speaking from experience here. I was once an extremely right-wing, staunch, Southern Baptist. I also had a 300bps modem when I was 11. I found all kinds of interesting things on BBS's, etc. And I felt guilty about it. What good did that do me? Wouldn't it have been better to have been exposed to it with some parental guidance (ala sex ed. type situation) so that it wouldn't have had such a "mystique" about it? Why are we so up tight about sex?
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Ditto here. 2 young kids, both sons, both different. The first is very social and outgoing, therefore timeouts work pretty well. He hates having to sit there alone and quiet. The other, well sitting there alone with his own thoughts doesn't seem to phase him in the least (he probably just uses the time to plan his next evil scheme :) In his case it's usually a sharp smack on the hand or behind that's needed to get his attention.
Again, you've failed to explain why sex scenes are "dirty," as you put it, and violence not.
You just say that sex is dirty, and that's why it's worse.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Golfers watch golf on tv because they love golf.
Any non golfer (such as myself) will be bored to death watching golf on tv.
My point: Golfers watch golf because they are golfers. The columbine kids played violent games because the kids were violent people.
Playing the game did not make them violent. If thier parents had done a better job and took notice of thier kids gun collections, the SWASHTIKAS on thier walls and the animal abuse they commited maybe those nice boys would have been playing mario golf instead of doom.
Or at least maybe they wouldn't have killed thier classmates.
Now I'm not saying that anyone who plays a violent video game is violent. What I am saying is that this is the reason THESE particular kids played this game.
I played doom because it looked cool, was fairly scary, and presented a good challenge. I think this fairly sums up the criteria for most gamers. The gore? it just looks cool. In real life, gore is a lot less cool. Just like in real life a car chase is a lot less fun.
These sick little fscks at columbine played the game because it allowed them to kill. To them, this video game was an extension of thier real life wishes.
Remember a clockwork orange while when reading the bible, rather than identifying with christ the protagonist identified with the romans?
This is what I am talking about. The same thing meaning two entirely different things to different people.
The trick is determining for who the game is mere fun, and for who the game is an extension of real life desires.
I haven't RTFA because its /.ed. but the videogame industry really needs to get a bit more proactive. They need to run some commercials during prime time shows that kids don't watch and explain that not all games are for kids. These comercials need to tell parents about the rating system. It might not do any good. Parents might not listen, but at least the industry could say, "Look! we're trying to educate the public!"
Also I think it might be time for Microsoft to implement some parental controls in its OS. An OS that calls itself "home edition" should have some features that are usefull for families. A simple to use parental control system would be a nice feature for them to hype. One that can be configured to block IM's and chat, limit access to programs and an equivelent of a v-chip for games so that the actual software of games could notify the OS of its rating and parents could determine what rating they want their kids to be able to play.
Of course all of this could easilly be bypassed by a smart kid, but once again, that isn't the point. It's PR. Microsoft could promote the fact that they give parents control giving the appearance that they care about what children do so that they too can say, "look we are trying to protect children!"
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Look, I don't usualy bust someone's balls, but here goes:
My wife used to stop at the post office and leave our kid in the car seat. It was a small, one room post office and the car seat is a real PITA. When I found out she was doing that, I went ballistic.
First, nothing is more important than your kids. Not mail, not a bag of clothes, not that next hit of crack.
Second, you never know what's going to happen. If you are sepperated, then you run the risk of something happening to one party and the other is unaware of that. What if you'd fallen in the store and been knocked unconcious? What if the car had been hit by some teenagers playing around acting all 'fast and furious' in the lot? What if someone broke the window and grabbed your kid? You can't stop bad things from happening, but the least you can do is be there for yourkids when those things do happen.
Third, while reporting you to the cops might be a bit harsh, people in this world do care. I care about you and your family. If it was early, i'd stop to help jump your car. If it was late, I'd offer a ride home. I gave almost 15% of my gross income last year to charity. I care about people. Sometimes people who care offer friendly reminders like this one. Sometimes, we call the cops to make our message loud-and-clear.
In short, I think spanking is OK, repeated hitting is abuse. Letting your kid be independent is OK, but letting them run arround a store unsupervised is abuse. Definately seperating yourself from your kid just because it's convenient for you shows a lack of priority in your life.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I really can't believe you were moded interesting. Do you really believe that graphic violence is more acceptable than graphic sexuality? Just because you're used to one and not the other doesn't make it more acceptable, maybe more acceptable to _your_ sensibilities.
Have you ever been in a relationship?
It is pornographic only if the intent is there. One can take pictures of a nude girl, and one can take pictures of a naked girl, it's not the same thing. Even in art one can have an artistic nude and an erotic painting, the difference is how you portray it.
To say that all on screen sex is pornography is to say that all pictures of people in undress is also porn.
Two things: one is that context is important, another is that mainstream movies usually do not introduce sex scenes for artistic purpose or to support the story. You need to see more european or independent films for that.
What do you base that on? My grandmother didn't even know what the word fsck meant. If she's seen a few cuts in her life I'd be surprised (she doesn't take to seeing blood very well), and that doesn't make her any more likely to go postal, in fact she's probably the least likely.
But really, I don't see any evidence supporting your argument. If what you said was true, then why are video game companies being blamed for violence? If what you said is true, then these kids that play videogames would be less likely to commit violent crime. I don't see any evidence either way that these games help or prevent violent crime.
Again, context is important. Just the description of the violence or sex does not make a story. In any case, most books don't go into a descriptive graphic violence or sex unless that is the intent of the story (horror, eroticism, suspense, etc.). Unfortunately hollywood is not literature, in fact it's as far from it as you can get.
I dare you to define "better". I saw a piece called "death of barbara watziwillowna" by jozef simmier (polish painter I think). I can't find the picture online, but I will always remember that piece. It left a profound change in me: in the painting, a young prince and his dead bride-to-be are in a lowly lit scene, she's painted so white and lifeless it's beautiful as it is horrible. If it's measured by impact that's the "best" painting I've ever seen.
Just because it's more common to have painted nudes doesn't make it _better_ just as you being used to guts and blood doesn't make it more acceptable.
I think it's really sad that on TV you can kill someone, spatter blood all over the place and have less people object than if you say some naughty words and show some breasts.
This probably comes from the puritan roots of this society, where it was OK to drag a quaker by your horses until dead, but not OK to do pretty much anything else. It is time to change. More breasts and less violence.