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."

Comments

More fucking?

[JohnGrahamCumming]

> 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.

John.

Re:More fucking?

[Thuktun]

> 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.

Re:More fucking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that (in the USA at least) graphic violence is apparently more acceptable than graphic sexuality.

That's because it's easier to use violence as a control.

You can better control the populace if you outlaw depictions of sex, because sex is normal and natural. The message sent is that sex is not normal and natural, but the population will continue to have sexual impulses (because we're hardwired to want to reproduce), which will cause them to repress these impulses.

You then make depictions of violence acceptable, which sends the message the violence is acceptable. The popluation needs an outlet for their repressed sexual impulses, will resort to violence (as that is acceptable.) - either through violent crime, or as the police force, who enforces your 'tough' laws by committing acts of violence against the criminals.

It's no accident that countries that have a more permissive attitude towards nudity and pornography have a lower crime rate.

Re:More fucking?

[tjw]

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.

While playing Enemy Territory (a first person shooter) a few days ago, another player asked me to refrain from typing swear words because his young son was watching. That's not an isolated incident. Many game servers even have mods for censoring "curse words".

If you ask me, the fact that using certain words in your language is more of a taboo than watching animated violence or graphic sexuality is even more sad. Though, personally, I like all three.

Re:More fucking?

[Goyuix]

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.

Re:More fucking?

[kasparov]

I don't know about everyone else, but as a child I had no problem differentiating between what was OK for the "people on TV" and for me. Being raised "not to hit" along side watching tons of marial arts movies did not confuse me. I was able to discern the differnce between fiction and reality.

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?

Teach People?

[LamerX]

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?

Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense.

[garcia]

What's your opinion on the statement "Games make killers out of gamers"?
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 ...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.

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.

Re:I for one...

[secolactico]

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.

I know it's been said before...

[canfirman]

...but parents really do need to take responsibility for what they're kids see/play. At least any reasonable adult can tell the difference between a "make-believe" world of video games and reality. The truth is that kids (especially young ones) will mimic what they see in games/movies/etc.

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.

Did anyone like Postal, anyway?

[pmz]

I remember seeing the first Postal. It was practically the only game I've ever found so revolting that I felt sorry for the people who actually thought it was fun. And this is after I had been playing all the Doom and Doom-derivitive games for years. Just going around and shooting people without a just cause is absolutely fucking stupid. At least Doom was fighting against an invasion from Hell or something. In Postal, it wasn't even self-defense.

Well

[DeltaSigma]

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.

No Free Speech for Videogames?

[The Importance of]

People still don't get it. Last week a Michigan State Law Professor published an article claiming that videogames (especially violent ones) shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. LawMeme takes apart the argument here.

Re:I for one...

[ninewands]

Quoth the grandparent post:

Am i a hypocrite?

To which the parent responded:

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 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.

Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense.

[Colazar]

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.