Slashdot Mirror
GTA Violence, the Media, and the Gamers
jvm writes "The Video Game Ombudsman and Curmudgeon Gamer currently have posts with opposing views on the recent and oft-criticized NY Post article about the violence in the Grand Theft Auto series of games. The Ombudsman discourages gamers from getting upset over the 'false and irresponsible' writing in the NY Post, equating it with a 'National Enquirer story saying that video games cause AIDS'. In response, this Curmudgeon says that's plain wrong, that gamers should 'stop dodging the issue' of game violence and 'start talking realistically about degrees of harm, freedoms, and responsibility'. So what's a gamer to do? Ignore the obviously clueless mainstream press or start the soul searching? Oh, and Penny Arcade has its own angle on the perils of dealing with the mainstream press, in response to how the noble Child's Play was represented."
This game was not designed for kids. Period. So the issue should not be the violence in the game but why parents allow their kids to play it.
It's like complaining that the levels of sex in porn movies are harming our children. The populous needs to understand that there are more adult gamers than kids. I don't think there is anything wrong with providing games with more 'adult' content, since we make up a huge part of the market.
of course, caring what the mainsteam media has to say about anything is an exercise in frustration in and of itself anyway
Environment affects behavior. If you provide no balance to the violence of video games, the outcome can only be violent behavior.
I have been pwned because my
It isssee gooode!!!
Yeah, kids are impressionable, and they can and do take things too far, even when raised as well as possible. But that's irrelevant
This isn't a kid's game
It's a game for adults, like me, to play. Suggesting that it's going to aid in changing the actions of a full grown, reasoning, sensible adult is like saying magazines like Playboy make people watch Porn, or like saying advertising is the only thing that makes us do anything.
It's bunk
Then the only outcome can be a police state for your children to live in when they grow up.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Time to pull Jon Katz out of the closet and revisit the issue
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
"Horrific, deplorable violence is OK, as long as people don't say any naughty words." /Broflovsky
Oh wait, shouldn't that be "Naughty words are ok, as long as Michael Jackson doesn't play Grand thef..."
AW Screw it, I'm confused.
Is anything going to shock us in 10 years?
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
You have such a gun culture (well in some parts at least), and then wonder why shootings occur.
The greatest danger where I live is that after playing GTA, I'll start driving on the wrong side of the road. I have found myself eyeing up some parked vehicles.
Strangely enough, I can't go out and buy a sniper rifle or AK47 whre I live. Even the gangs don't have them.
i was wondering whether or not Child's Play would ever get a mention here. Its pretty bad when ANY donation of that size is just turned into a lousy peice of news with so much misinformation. Im sure if everyone rang them up and complain then maybe CNN would do a story on how angry gamers get when given bad press >:D or maybe thats just me.. and gta3 is alright too.btw
But they must be stupid if they thought their charity drive was ever going to change public perception of gamers or game violence. A gun control advocate is still going to think the NRA is just a bunch of gun nuts, even if the NRA raised $200K for a childrens hospital.
These extreme violence games are not for kids.
Besides, I can't say it better than Running With Scissors (makers of Postal): "Violence belongs in videogames - Not on the street!"
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Now I have to say that I don't agree with censorship, but GTA: Vice City is
a game that could do with restricting as to who can play it.
I don't know how many of you have played it, but it allows you to steal any
car you want, run over people (without consequences), shoot hookers, set
people on fire with a flame thrower, blow people's heads off (resulting in a
Kill-Bill style fountain of blood), cut people to ribbons with a chainsaw,
and much much worse.
One mission requires you to continually ram into a woman's car until it
explodes and she leaves out a god-awful scream that really shook me at the
time. I don't think we should consider this as 'entertainment'.
Another mission has you being hired to kill a bunch of blacks. Unavoidably,
innocent people are killed in the crossfire.
When I was young it was common to beat children for educational purposes. That was at the first decades of the last century. When you look now at history you will notice that the 2 worst war in history fall just behind this time. And in fact this education changed the way we though about violence: we didn't think that it was wrong to use violence if it was justified by our "ethical values", e.g. national needs.
This only stopped when beating children became more and more unpopular. My grandsons still have trouble to understand how I could German soldiers in WW II as a sniper - they view violence and especially killing as ethically evil.
Over 90 years and counting !
Why is it that whenever a killing supposedly happens because of playing a video game, it is only the game manufacturers who are blamed? Why are people suing the coders, and not the parents of those who actually went out and killed people? Why not the gun companies, without whom there wouldn't be guns in their hands? Why don't we actually go after those responsible? If parents are incapable of keeping inappropriate materials away from their offspring, be they video games or firearms, we must seriously question their parental ability.
Until someone makes a mod for GTA3 where you can drive around killing RIAA/MPAA members, government officials, talk show hosts, media nazis, small furry animals, and civil rights leaders? That sounds like quality family entertainment!
Lets not give it any more attention than it deserves.
Now I have to say that I don't agree with censorship, but GTA: Vice City is a game that could do with restricting as to who can play it.
Well, gee, Sparky, I think that's the whole point of that "M - Mature" emblem on the lower left corner of the box. You can't blame the game company if parents don't keep their kids from playing violent video games, any more than you can blame the power company if parents don't keep their kids from sticking a fork in an outlet.
Or did you mean some sort of "Leisure Suit Larry"-esque means of preventing people from playing it, by asking a bunch of questions only people old enough to play would be able to answer? Not that that scheme would work longer than five minutes in this day and age, before 'prepubescentgamerz.com' posted the full list of questions and answers.
~Philly
I've had this debate many times with gamers, professors, mothers, friends. It boils down to there being violent content available to children without regulation. Yes, there are ratings, but they're hardly enforced.
:) Laws and penalties need to exist for those selling "mature" games to children and/or helping a child obtain such a game.
;)
:) My personal opinion is the adoption of the "movies" rating system along with law to enforce sales of mature games to children. That solves the problem.
From discussions I've had with various people, here's what I can remember us coming up with:
1. Ratings System -- Why is there not ONE unified ratings system spanning Movies/TV/Games/Music, etc. I'm sure it has to do with copyright and licensing, but that aside...having 3 different ratings systems that aren't all that obvious (TV is the worst culprit) leaves a bunch of confused parents and consumers.
2. Regulation -- Ratings exist, but why, unlike movies and alcohol, can a 12 year old walk into a gaming store and buy GTA/Doom/whatever? If they want to get a hold of it, it shouldn't be easy -- just like getting beer when you were 15 wasn't.
3. Social Responsibility -- Even with the above in place, there are some parents or people who just don't care. Mostly they're misinformed and don't know little johnny is beating up a prostitute behind a bush, but there are those out there who are perfectly willing to buy their 13 year-olds GTA (everyone's favorite example, so I use it). Society draws lines all the time -- alcohol sales, cigarrettes, pornography -- why should the same not be applied here?
4. Censorship -- This is a stupid answer. If I can watch someone's head get blow off in a movie, I should be able to do it myself on my TV too. So, call this an anti-answer.
The real thrust of the article(s) I thought is that games are seen differently from other forms of media and that gamers are taking the flak. I never understood this. When a really violent movie comes out, are viewers of the movie ridiculed for going to see it? No. So why are gamers compelled to defend gaming? Why is there not something being done to educate the public. Games aren't just Mario and Donkey Kong anymore -- it's not them weilding shotguns and stealing cars. Video games have expanded to include new audiences -- I just don't think the public understands this. Everytime I tell someone the average gamers age is 25 (maybe it's 28, I forget)...they can't believe it.
Ok, done defending.
...may as well mention the true causes of aids
People don't want to place responsibility where it belongs. People want to cash in on misfortunes. Cha-ching.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Games, guns, cars, etc. , are all tools that can be used in various ways.
Games can be used to amuse, to teach, to kill time.
Guns can be used to defend, to intimidate, or to kill.
Cars can be used for joy rides, trips to the library, or mowing down a crowd of people.
It is my opinion that tools and the tool manufacturers should not be blaimed for illegal use of their tools.
The only exception to this rule is if a tool is so poorly designed that it can cause harm even though the user of the tool has taken reasonable precautions to obey the law and use the tool safely.
Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
It is ridicoulus to say that videogames influence children. If for example Pac-Man influenced children born in the 80's, the we would today have a lot of yougsters running around in a dark room eating pills while listening to monotonous music dressed in neon colored clothing...
/Stafis
and if anyone shoud have missed the point by now - think "rave"....
have you learnt nothing? it is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to even suggest that the ready availability of guns in america has anything at all to do with the level of gun crime. it's all about personal freedom, defending your family and the constitution (or something). haven't you noticed that in the UK (even with its draconian guns laws) that since the release of GTA3 it's almost impossible to walk the streets without getting peppered with lead...?
Seriously, I blame the parent if anything. It's their damn job to raise kids properly. And I don't want to hear any excuses about having to work and stuff. If your childs has a friend over taking part in inappropriate, lay down the law of the household. Also, let his or her parents know of what's going on as well.
People tend to forget that having proper society is a team effort among fellow citizens. If you leave your head in the ground like nothing is happening, then you are doing more harm then good for the rest of us.
Life is not for the lazy.
Or someone figures out how to press Ctrl-Z.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
"If you show a man sucking a woman's breast you get an R rating. But if you show the same man shooting the woman's breast off with a shotgun you get M."
De Niro, I think.
Basically the whole argument that bad behaviour stems from playing video games is just insane as the people who believe it. If the argument is that people reflect what they see in the video game and believe its also acceptable in real life then why arent thousands of kids out being like mario eating mushrooms and stealing coins?
And a small history lesson... there were badly behaved people before video games were even thought of! *gasp*
If people who are against videogame violence were to be believed then the first murder happened shortly after space invaders came out. Gang rapes started happening after pacman, and paperboy bought on genocidal tendencies.
The blame of any kids that do bad things should be squarely on the parents instead of trying to find someone else for their own failings. If i did something wrong, I got smacked for it and I learnt not to do it again.
If anything they should censor the news or clean it up, how many murders with gruesome details to they report on each day?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
This argument has already been played out for decades with music (and movies, pr0n, etc), namely whether they influence culture or merely reflect it. Of course the answer is both. Music gets it's initial impetus from some street culture (hippies, punks, gangsta rappers) but as it becomes popular it influnces more people to percieve said culture as a "good thing". Studies have been done that show that people exposed to pr0n in controlled environments show a marked shift in internal attitudes, such as considering sexual promiscuty as common/desireable and not wanting to have daughters (wacky!).
Video games are no different than any other input to our brains. Anything we experience influences us in some way, and if we experience blowing people away as a fun, of course we will have a shift in values that is more tolerant of violence. Children are especially vulnerable to programming by experience (see the results of wife-beater/drunk parents), so I could certainly see society want to stop kids having access to these ideas.
That said, noone should feel they have the right to tell any grown adult what to think or experience. If a video game makes me more violent, let it be on MY head if I go out and shoot someone. However, the best way to ensure that video games for adults are not banned outright is to make sure that they stay out of the hands of kids. As everyone knows, enforcement of the ratings system is a joke.
gdp
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is seemingly REALLY feasible right now.
Follow it, and ALL these problems are solved!
Forgive me for a second if I cast back to my walk back from the pub the other night. I really, really needed to go to the toilet ... really badly (don't mod me as offtopic yet, this is going somewhere ... really!). Why can't I go to the toilet right here? Well many drunkards do, but the point is that victorian London shows us why we shouldn't. Cholera and whatever else, that bag.
The thing is that we live a technologically advanced life, especially in western cities. I can't go to the toilet in the street, because if everyone did that we'd be rife with disease (and I ain't different from anyone else). I can't just wander across the A12 or whatever highway you like because it's dangerous and we need the roads to supply us with food and whatever else in adequate volume. I can't go around shooting people from the top window on canary wharf because the state guarantees its security, by attempting to guarantee yours (and everyone elses), besides which the top windows on canary wharf very likely don't open, and I'm not allowed up there for "security reasons" to find out anyway.
All the while joe public is tap tap tapping away at a computer to meet the deadline, asking you if you want fries with that and getting stuck in a traffic jam on the way home.
Modern technology gives us new freedoms, of course, but increasingly only as you can afford them. A highway is like a slap in the face when it saws through the inner city, 75% of whom don't own cars (and if they all bought cars, there'd be nowhere to park them!), it just knocks down your mates house, and puts other mates of yours 10 lanes of highway and an ominous footbridge/underpass away.
The internet, and computers are cheaper than cars, and a PS2 cheaper still. It's worth pointing out that the highest concentration of Sattelite and Cable television subscribers (in the UK at least) is in high unemployment estates. These people can't do much outside their houses (go to the pub maybe), so they tend to entertain themselves in and around it. For people such as this grabbing some fatboy out of his kompressor and taking it for a little spin might be a very appealing idea, especially as they're zooming past your window on a newly erected concrete flyover.
The urban world isn't anything as simple as a "nightmare", it can offer new freedoms and a fulfilling way of life as cultures meet and countries worth of people are compressed into so many square miles. It also imposes restraints on all of us, but especially the poor. GTA and other violent games are a result of our hamhanded adaptation to a world changing faster than we are.
Why should there be just one standard of risk tolerance for the whole country?
Violent video games do have an effect on the young. The question is, how willing are you to accept this risk in exchange for greater freedom?
The tolerance for risk varies from person to person, so the answer to that question will vary from person to person.
At some point, a compromise must be reached amoung people about just how much risk they should all accept. It is possible though, that some people accepting risk in one part of the country add no extra risk to those in another part of the country. What game kids play in Seattle has little affect on the people of Tampa.
The best approach to this problem, IMO, is to allow cities/communities to set their own standards. There is no single "right" answer for the whole country. This seems like it ought to be a "cities-rights" issue.
1. It seems to me that the "violent games" issue, like most cultural issues, is being debated by two sides whose primary argument is "the other side is wrong". Even when one side presents some form of evidence to support their standpoint, the other side tries (not necessarily successfully) to discredit that evidence, and pretty soon we're back to the whole point/counter-point argument. The two sides both need to find some undisputed facts and grab onto them like a bulldog. Whoever has the best facts... wins! It's a whacky concept, I know, but it usually works.
2. Am I the only PERSON WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES who is sick of hearing the word "gamer"? If someone plays sports then they're a sportsman/woman and that has a certain credibility. If they drive racing cars then they're a racecar driver and that has credibility. When I hear SOMEONE WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES describe him/herself as a "gamer" it sounds to me like they're trying to wrap their fun hobby in a veil of credibility, as if it has social merit or importance. It doesn't. You play games because they amuse you. Chances are you only play games when you have nothing else better to do. Please stop trying to create some sort of respectable social niche to put yourself into.
I disagree with both The Ombudsman and Curmudgeon. I'm not going to sit idly by and ignor negative media articles on video games (no matter how incorrect they are). We as gamers might know that the article is wrong, but the rest of the public doesn't. They'll eat this stuff up and support restrictions, censorship, and bans on video games. Furthermore I'm not going to 'start talking realistically about degrees of harm, freedoms, and responsibility' of video games. Video game producers have the right to produce a game with any content the please and I have the right (as an adult) to buy that video game and enjoy it. If video games were such a bad thing then how is it that there aren't millions upon millions of shootings and homocides by gamers? There are only those very few that, in my opinion, already had some screws loose. Not to mention a lot of these video game related crimes are commited by minors. Let's not blame the parents or the store that sold them the game or anything, that would be *logical*. And for a humorous closing note, "Computer games don't affect kids- I mean, if PacMan had affected us then we'd all be running around in darkened rooms eating magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
Seems a little OT, but any post here is either going to be OT or redundant (given that we've already discussed the original article), and Child's Play was mentioned in the post.
Child's Play wasn't done to get the "public" to like gamers, nor to counteract the "games make you a psycho-killer" lobby. It was done to help some kids. You can be cynical and disagree, but so what? Sure it also has the effect of projecting an image of games as fun, as something good for a change, but "two birds with one stone" isn't a crime (provided you stay metaphorical).
In many parts of the world motorcyclists organise "toy runs" where lots of bikies/bikers collect money and toys, meet at a pre-arranged spot and then ride en masse to a children's hospital where they hand the goddies over. This creates an alternative image for the media. They can run a story about bike gangs / speeding "organ donors" or one about subverted stereotypes and outlaws with hearts of gold. It's a cliche either way but at least the toy runs give them the option.
It sounds as though the media didn't know what to make of Child's Play, so they pretended it wasn't there. The kids still got their toys, and if it becomes a regular feature, perhaps the media will have to develop a similar bifurcated view of gamers.
Sure they'll still be tossing a coin, "heads = GTA psychos, tails = human interest story with sick kids", but at least there's a positive stereotype in there too.
This won't change the fact that games, like motorcyclists, span the gamut of psychos and idiots through to saints and whatnot, but it might help a little. Give it time.
Of course, it's worth keeping up just for its own sake too.
Back in those days nobody really was that poor, there was no ghettos as such, especially if you were a non-minority.
Nowadays, things are different. Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. If you're not born into a rich family, your options in life are pretty much limited. You can't have a decent life and feed your family by doing some manual work. You get frustrated by the society and then you just snap.
Back in the old days, the market economy actually worked following its own ideals.
You can't switch on a channel without somebody getting shot, even the news channels now show dead bodies in full color.
It is about time that we drop the legal age for soft porn movies to 12 and make programs/movies with violence 18+.
Or it is time for some familie value sessions, but he, the parents are at work 60 hours a week, no can do.
What power has law where only money rules.
Then they'd have some real news to write about instead of fabricating bogus issues to distract people from things that actually matter. But, really, nothing after point 1 is significant. Someone who is messed up mentally will likely act out, and I personally would rather they have a virtual environment to fill that need. Games being a whole lot of fun for a sane person at the same time is just an added bonus.
I grew up with computer games and played a lot of violent ones since the beginning; whether beating up old people in "Bop'n Rumble", or chopping off heads in "Barbarian" on the C64, maiming in "Moonstone" on the amiga or dealing death in FPS'ers on the PC. I think I was around 9 when I got my first computer, and around that age there'd be games that actually scared me through voice synths and moody buildups and shock effects.
I'd never play any of the games that scared me on my own, but usually in the presence of my brother or friends. My parents had always been very liberal, and living as dane in sweden, i had a lot of friends whose parents felt bad about letting their kids watch certain movies or play certain games. As it is, those kids would be the ones truely interested in playing the "forbidden" computer games. For me and my bro, such games would be a laugh amongst many.
Now I'm 26. I still play games, though not as often as I used to and
I've played both GTA and VC. Sure, part of the kick of those games are going on a rampage - but the senseless violence wouldnt be fun without the chase. Rampages in GTA are fun because of the car chases. Essentially its the missions and the plot that make the games work. Mowing down defenseless things gets tedious; whether they're 8x8 sprites or beautiful 3D models. Lets not kid ourselves - the chaos and liberty of actions in GTA is part of the kick, but that only works in the long run when mixed with real objectives and a sense of purpose.
All this being said, I still never felt like jacking a car, picking a fight or shooting a person - but the media looking for things to shock us, would look at this post, and grab pieces out of context. If you were to qoute me with the very first paragraph, I'd might look like a very disturbed person, with a questionable youth. What I've left out on purpose are the 95% of the games I played that portrayed little or no violence at all. I'd play more Buggieboy, Paradriod and Giana Sisters than I ever played Barbarian - but thats less interesting to read about (nintendo lawsuit left aside).
The whole "Kill the Haitians" bit is a typical example. Had I never heard of the article, I would never have paid any attention to that specific line in the game. We all know that the VC plot has nothing to do with racial-hate or prejudice. Questionable and aggrivating views are presented by npcs, but the protagonist never preaches any of that. How can you create a conviencing set of lowlives, if you're allowed to have them do lowlife stuff?
As games grow more advanced in terms of available actions,graphics
and acting they grow closer to films, in the way that they reflect reality as a convincing illusion. That being said, it is also important to note what has been said many times before - movies are just that, creations seperate from reality. They require us to see them as such, relate to them and judge them. Only by seeing them for what they are, can we handle them without fearing them. They might be value ladden or not, they might paraphrase events, sentiments or political views or be nothing more than source of sheer entertainment without any deeper meaning.
Games are, however, interactive - and that changes the observer/viewer to an actor/participant. I guess this divide worries a lot of people. What happens to my son/student/friend when he plays the role of a gangster,an officer of the SS, assassain or whatnot? Will the person in question become more sympathetic towards the acts or people portrayed in the game?
Most gamers would say no. Sure, it will make you relate to the subject matter - but having you play the fictive role of someone who is in conflict with your own morals, wont make them go away. Just as with movies, and perhaps more importantly - the media in general, you mustn't believe everything you see.
I guess age restrictions on certain games will benefit children, but not without the proper parents
Tycho and Gabe - you have my respect.
Violence itself is not a cause nor a consequence of criminality. A violent society without crime and a society with purely non-violent crimes are both very possible. Violence only makes perceived damages more important. Reducing violence to reduce the damages consecutive to crime in the hope that it can reduce crime to zero is a FALLACY.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Me too. . .
*Yawn*- same thing played out in the 1950s concerning comic books, communism and rock & roll. Can't really say much about the 60's and 70's (there was enough crap going on that people didn't need to create new boogiemen). In the 80's, it was everything from drugs, D&D, more of that damn rock music, Satanist and...Heh, maybe they had a point about the drugs.
And now it's video games.
Can you say Generation Gap? Can you say power grab? Can you say neurosis? I knew you could.
You can cite study and statistics stating that video games are mostly harmless (and maybe even beneficial) until you're blue in the face, and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good.
You can't have a rational debate with those who are irrational (equating game playing with molestation... I guess Michael Jackson isn't so creepy after all). If god himself came down from on high and stated he got a kick from jacking FBI cars, they'd only say that the FBI were the tools of Satan. You can't win.
So forget mentioning the game was displayed at a major museum as a work of art, forget mentioning that with the sheer number of copies sold you'd expect at least a slight blip in the number of crimes being committed, forget that several generations of youth have grown up with comic books, video games, and rock music without seemingly any adverse effects: they wouldn't understand you.
This isn't about video game violence. It's about control.
And I shove it right back in their face: "Where are all the damn Satanist? Where are the Communists? Where is this Legion of Doom sent to corrupt the youth? Where the fuck are they? You've been WRONG so many other times, why should I believe you now?"
We are a schizophrenic nation: we want the freedom to take away everyone else's freedom; we want freedom from freedom.
So no, let's not talk about video game violence. Let's talk about how many serial killers have read the New York Times. Coincidence? I think not. Let's talk about how people fear technology and change. Let's talk about how easy it is to gain political leverage by enforcing arbitrary rules against those most defenseless: the children. Let's talk about that.
Video games? Never touch the stuff personally, why do you ask? Ooh look, did you know the murder rate goes up with every unsavory editorial piece the New York Post does? See, look at my graph, it's true. Just between you and me, I hear if you run the Times backwards through your fax machine, it tells you to invite NAMBLA to cater your child's next birthday in Gaelic. I read it in the Washington Post, so it must be true.
Upon reading the Times article, I went up to a little girl and asked if she would rather be raped, or prefer me to continue playing GTA. She said she'd rather me continue playing the game, but she could still kick my ass in Virtua Fighter 4.
Who ya gonna believe?
God bless insomnia.
As a responsible adult, I have to say that law-breaking, violent and pornographic games are deplorable. As an irresponsible adult, I say they sure are a lot of fun! The libertarian in me is saying that violent video games are a victimless crime - and therefore something the guvuhmunt should not mess with.
-- $G
My uncle bought his sons, 8 and 4 years old, a PS2 this christmas, and a copy of Vice City to go with it...
They are absolute little gits sometimes, and get away with watching all sorts of films, 18's 15's etc, and now play this game too.
However, they are disciplined for swearing and bad behaviour, but surely these types of behaviour come from the things they see and play in the first place!?
Simply allow adults to choose what they want to expose themselves too, but have proper limits to what children have access to. Like we already do with alcohol, cigarettes etc.
Then if parents buy them these things, it is them to blame... a bad vibe needs to be put around buying children adult games and films, much like a parent buying their child a bottle of Vodka is almost unforgivable in the eyes of others...!
Hmmmmm...
Here's what I don't understand about life in the US, and I grew up here.
Why is it that we let 16 year-olds operate heavy machinery at high speeds, yet we don't consider them legally responsible for anything, except perhaps the odd ticket they migh receive in relation to that mentioned machine-operating privilege?
Does it make sense to anyone out there how there is no graduated system of gaining control and responsibility over one's life, and how magically at age 18, suddenly one has control over all areas, with the exception of the consumption of toxic substances, namely alcohol and, in some area, tobacco?
When we combine this with a system that on the one hand blames parents for anything their children do, but again makes it easy for parents who fail to act responsibly to sue another party, we're bound to see a ridiculous trend of litigation. We have parents who refuse to parent their children, assuming society will do the job through schools and teachers, yet when things go wrong (because a teacher cannot parent 35 children/class) they engage in litigation, not to fix the problem, but to get money to throw at more escapism.
I have this theory that in this litigious society there is correlation between the street price of cocaine, the amount of cocaine use necessary to wipe out enough brain cells to forget a tragic event without causing death, and the amount of money people sue for in this lawsuits springing from people failing to take responsibility for their own actions.
The desire to stare at video games as the big evil is another step in the trend of people to ignore true mental health issues and blame something else. We've seen it with rock n' roll, Dungeons & Dragons, movies, etc. Unfortunately with the rise of neo-conservatism, we also see a neo-Victorian trend of want to see but not hear children. Hence the overdiagnosis of ADHD and the drugging of children. It's a sick, quick-fix society.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Yes, we know here on Slashdot that there are adult gamers. We also know that that there are comic books that aren't for little Jimmy. But to the mainstream, games and comic books are just things to buy for the kids, and so the immediate assumption when a violent/sexual game or comic book is published is that the publisher is a sicko who wants to corrupt children.
Excuse me, but being human, I have something called "free will" that I excersize daily. You will never convince me that a video game will make me take potshots at people driving on the interstate simply because I will never choose to do something so stupid and illegal. Consequently, the rest of humanity, however stupid or depraved they may be, DO POSSESS a free will of their each and individual own.
When you (or anyone) try and say that games or movies make the world more violent, you're arguing that humans don't have free will, which is inherently silly.
Instead of trying to convince the world that everything is someone else's fault, you should be trying to convince the world that individuals should take responsibility for their own actions. I'm sure you mean well, but your thinking is irrational and assumptive. Covers it well enough, I think.
I am Jack's Savage Beats.
America does not have more guns than most other nations.
.45 Magnum (note; this was in northern Sweden). In Switzerland, most adult men are equipped with an assault rifle to keep in their homes, in order to make up an effective guerilla militia in case of invasion.
Yes, read that again: Guns are not more common in the US than in most other Western nations. In rural Canada, hunting is so common that more or less everybody owns a rifle or two. In Sweden (where I live), I was somewhat surprised when a date of mine once took me home to proudly show me her
Proliferation of guns alone is not the reason for violence in the US. It may be a factor that worsens the effect of the violence, but looking at other Western cultures, there is not a correlation between gun ownership and violence.
(Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is an excellent easy-to-inhale piece of work that illustrates this and more.)
In the US people are insulated from each other, driving everywhere, moving from air-conditioned box to air-conditioned box. In that environment people become polarized in their views and treat each other in the abstract. So you can easily have groups of people who see violence as intrinsically evil and a couple of psychos in the room next door polishing their guns. The only place people mix is on TV, which is controlled and compartmentalised too, or through ever more realistic computer games, violent movies that don't reflect objective reality or porn. Add boredom and blood sugar dips and its no wonder some people eventually train themselves that the Matrix is real and other people are just avatars.
Ese juego lleva en la calle mas de 2 anos, por que ahora se preocupan?.
Well, if what Tycho said in his January 2nd post is accurate, the final media report about Child's Play was blatantly and irresponsibly incorrect, to the point of being intentionally deceptive:
It's one thing to expect that people are going to change their view of gamers overnight (which I don't think Tycho and Gabe actually believed would happen) as a result of one amazing act of charity; it's another thing to have their hard work effectively dismissed by attributing it to someone else and vastly understating its value.
Jay (=
Ok, I read the article in non-slashdot fashion.
It mentions that Vice City sold for over 5 million times. Then they give the example of 1 kid shooting at cars with a friend.
Hmmmmm, that means that of all the people that play Vice City only 0,00002% of them really gets violent.
They were too lazy to examine his household situation, etc to see if the kid wasn't just fucked up to begin with.
Pricks
This is the sig that says NI (again)
It is always a suprise when folks say that graphic violence in video games or media has no affect on the users when we have years of studies that show the opposite is true.
Most people agree that cigarette ads glamorize smoking and increase interest in smoking. We frown on smoking in movies and video games because it increases the risk of someone starting smoking.
Why is it that the same people claim that the glamorization of violence in video and music has no effect even though it is created by the same industry on the same media as cigarette advertisements? How is is violence any different?
Welcome to the New World "Order", Gamers.
...
The same Media that gives people a twisted view on such wonderful things as Scientology and Michael Jackson, has now turned its pretty little fingers towards the "Fat Lazy Timewasters" pie and is digging in
If you think that you will ever get a true perspective of something by listening to what someone else has to say about it, you're stupid and ignorant.
The lesson here: MEDIA SHOULD -NEVER- BE TRUSTED. EVER.
I cannot help thinking about Michael Moore's visit to the bomb factory in Columbine.
The article is from a US pundit commenting on fantasy violence in a US video game. Meanwhile, the US government is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Although this is by far the biggest collection of weapons of mass destruction on the planet, it is investing billions in making these more leathal. Moreover, the US, as a whole, is a major exporter of weapons to other countries. Past customers include Saddam Hussein, who at the time was notorious for gassing his own people.
The US is currently involved in military operations in Iraq that most of the world regards as totally unjustified. It has dropped cluster bombs on civilians, uses the bombing of villages as a legitimate act of collective punishment, regularly shoots Iraqis at roadblocks, and is holding thousands of Iraqis secretly without giving them any right of habeas corpus. We can only fear that many of these prisoners are being tortured if not actually killed.
Maybe, US citizens should try to cut back a little on the real violence that they are carrying out before worrying their little heads about fantasy violence.
Bowling for Columbine is a mixture of lies and propaganda.
Michael Moore is a sensationalist bastard, and Bowling for Columbine is not a documentary by any measure.
Boys and Girls of today probably know more about downloading than myself at the same age (also, they have cable or DSL, I wouldn't even had tried to download a 700 Mo ISO on my first 28.8 modem 8)... they can get most games they want and as much porn as the net contents (32198432164 To at the last count, or so it would seem...)
... I don't really remember hearing such a fuss around Carmageddon. Of course, this was the older days, no or very few Internet and the media weren't interested in gaming and it wasn't such a big hit as Vice City... BUT...
I had a brief memory flash when I read the site name "Curmudgeon"... It remembered me of the game "Carmagedon", a nice racing game where you won extra time when going over a pedestrian and got "Artistic Bonus" if you could do it during a slide or a roll...
now my point
The goal was quite "unmoral" (killing pedestrians, opponents,...) and, sometimes, when driving, I had "bad thought" about "Hey, this two ladies and the boy on the side would make a nice Artistic bonus in this situation 8)
We all have a bad part in us, and this thought came because I played Carmageddon so much... But I never did it, as I know the limits between gaming and reality.
If you don't (not you, personnaly you as in anyone) can't do the difference, you should be under treatment or under guard.
Games, mostly in computers, are about killing monster, playing gods, wizards, fragging... all quite Immoral. I think it help adults getting some of the stress away. As for kids, I played Doom for the fun of it, and was quite young at the time. I also done some real shooting in a club, and I still didn't shoot anyone.
Games also help you dream, do unusual skill, interact with people and measure your skill again other (competitive mind ?)...By the way, it's an excellent eye-hand coordination training...
I see more (real) violence in 20 minutes during the 8'clock news than I can wreck in two hours Vice City. And not a lot of people make a point about it.
The point should be discussed, but, as usual, their is no White & Black situation.
In my mind, the Vice City is more a (slightly) exageration of reality, with the difference that, for once, you can do it without harming any "real people", and have fun, and evacuate some of the latent violence in you (as in "after I fragged XX people, I usually feel better).
So, no point in my post, really. Only the problem is not what people play. Just what people do... and what they find to justify it before- or afterhand....
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Personally, I don't find it all that hard to believe that violence in video games (or just about any other media) would lead to violence in real life. If little Jonny goes home every day and plays GTA3 for hours on end...how can that not affect him?
I certainly don't claim that a game or two of Vice City will turn you into a homicidal killer...but it definitely colors your view of the world. Just as a good movie or book does, quality games influence how we experience the world around us.
The problem is not the media, and mature content in the media, the problem is who it is being delivered to and how it is being recieved. Many games these days are not intended for children. That 'M' rating is there for a reason. And even the 'T' rated games expect a certain level of maturity that may not be present.
It is assumed that a parent will be present to determine whether a game is appropriate for their child, and also to set a moral foundation for that child. To explain what is right and wrong, and why something may or may not be acceptable in a video game. The problem is that this is not usually a valid assumption.
I work at the local EB and you would be absolutely amazed how many people come into my store to pick up a copy of GTA3 or Vice City for their little children. I had one woman come in to EB with her child in tow...I'd guess he was about 5 years old - couldn't possibly have been much older than that. She wanted Vice City, I informed her that it was rated "Mature - for violence, language, and sexual content." She said that was fine, he'd played it at a friend's house anyway, and bought the game for her little boy. This is what we need to fix...not the fact that there are violent video games out there.
These "parents" are subjecting their children to information and experiences that they aren't old enough to understand or assimilate... And aren't providing a moral framework to live by. Then they're amazed when their children don't turn out the way they'd hoped. Idiots.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
For mccalli's proposition to work requires ignoring the rest of the post he replied to. I, like the original poster, who didn't grow up in 1944 but 70s/80s, also had loads of guns around and no mass shootings like today. His second world war argument falls apart as soon as you point that out.
...playing violent games, and I continue to play them. So far I'm an OK person; certainly haven't murdered anyone in cold blood or otherwise.
Has it eluded everyone that half the things we do 'for fun' are aggressive and violent? Boxing, wrestling, and my favorite paintball. Have you even watched a game of football lately?
Look at the majority of your better video games as well. Falcon 3.0, Jane's Longbow Apache, and a slew of Flight sims on up from then, the Dooms, the Quakes, Unreals, Rainbow Sixes, Ghost Recons, Everquest & Co., the Starcraft and Warcraft collections, BattleField 1942, and Battlefield Vietname to come; who here isn't going to play Half Life 2? Yes I play GTA3 VC, and I LIKE IT. Even frikkan Space Invaders I played as a child was violent.
Look at great movies. Full Metal Jacket. Aliens, The Thing (who likes the Kurt Russell remake better; raise your hands), Predator, Terminator, Terminator II, Clockwork Orange, Snatch, Scanners, Scarface, Gladiator, Matrix, LOTR, the Godfather Movies; I dunno I could sit here for an hour so I digress. Bloody VIOLENT.
Sure there are exceptions; lots of peaceful happy games, where no one rips out a shotgun or fuel air explosive bomb on the other guys; Lemmings was a right fine game. A lot of people would argue that bridges of madison county is a good movie. I sure as hell wouldn't, but others would...
You know why it's all there? It's in our freakin nature. And as soon as we realize it and accept it we'll be better off.
I went out in the frigid weather Sunday with some friends and we tore up the place in some nice paintball matches. Now I'm fairly destressed and it's Tuesday even.
Go out, tear something up in a civilized fashion, whether through video game, movie, or sport, have fun doing it, come back with your aggression worked out, and be a member of society again.
Go ahead; have everyone sit in their car listening to classical music; nothing violent or aggressive to work out their stress on. It'll be good for a few months. Wait until they start 'popping' though. You'll be sorry...
This has been addressed several different ways under several different angles. Previous posts have even made the point boldly clear.
The people who need to take responsibility are the criminals who hide behind excuses at an attempt to ease their conscience and/or sentences. Holy shit, even if you choose not to make a choice you still have made a choice which you are directly responsible for. Blame TV, Movies, Games, Books, voices in your head, neighbor's dog...you still chose to act. Do I play violent games, hell yeah and it's a great stress releiver. Do I have violent thoughts, most people do though I don't think they wish they had a .45 to shoot the bastard that just cut you off...but I choose to keep these thoughts as just thoughts. Maybe the people who whine and cry about things like GTA and Unreal need to try paying more attention to their children so they are raised right. The problem is not games or Hollywood, the problem is as a society we do not take responsibility for our own actions or children and would rather cry about then litigate it, rather than fix it.
This should be the message pushed right back into the faces making these accusations. Games are not reality and should not be pushed as such in court. I would think if GTA had such an incredible CIA LSD Electroshock Therapy Brainwashing influence...we would have a great return investment in body bag companies.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
If graphical portrayal of the killing of masses of people without any responsibility or consequences for the action isn't terrorism, then I'm afraid I don't know what it is
America is a nation -full- of terrorists. So many thrive on it, all in the name of 'entertainment', which we all know of course, never hurt anyone
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I agree completely. And to anyone who doesn't agree, I'll steal a car, run you down, then get out and shoot you several times, you bastards.
Why weren't people so angry when people were playing GTA1 or GTA2? As I remember, the games were pretty much the same thing; pull people out of their car, shoot them, take off with their car and continue your mission to join a gang. The graphics may not have been quite as detailed, but the ideas were the same. I think ideas of violence are more dangerous than the illustrations of violence.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
Fiction in your TV makes you fantasize about actions, reality in your TV makes you realize your fantasms.
I would be pointing out every Bush (or name your president) speech as one of the main cause of violence in this country before I point out any polygonal character evoliving in a world where physics aren't even the same as ours.
Fact is, the number one solution in the US for everything is "kill someone", as soon as somebody is killed, the problems are washed away in the american mind, not even realizing that they just get bigger every time. You do not get attacked by terrorists because you are a good person, sorry for pointing it out, but the most evil and blood covered nation on earth is the US of A, being a resident there just makes you wonder, "killing is not that bad, if you have a reason...".
Video games... they should be the last of your problems...
Consider this:
-Who tested napalm, LSD and small pox on his own soldiers
-Who each and every year is reponsible for the death of hundreds of its own citizens (death penalty)
-Who fights wars upon an assumption
-Who kills more civilian and allies than enemies during a wars
-Who is placing itself on top of the world and judges who is good, who is evil and who is God
-Who uses freedom to restrict it
-Who invented 90% of all the mass destruction technologies
-Who have been using it troughout history
-Who still consider legitimate to treat people differently at the border depending on their skins color
the US, the US, the US
forget video games, they aren't near as bad as your reality which is way more of an influence on your kids mind...
I live in a bad neighborhood and see drug dealers, gang bangers, and crack heads on a daily basis. My house was almost broken into a month ago. My car has been burglarized in the last six months. I have also been mugged in the last few years.
If you provide no balance to the violence of everyday life, the outcome can only be me buying a gun and going ballistic on the crack heads jumping my fence, the dealers in front of my house, or the whores down the street on the corner. Sure I call the cops, but they can only do so much, like a fly-swatter in a sewage treatment plant in mid-August.
They should put bigger warning labels on games like these. These games will make your average joe/jane-suburbs feel uncomfortable. Just don't punish the people who have to deal with a GTA-like environment on a daily basis because you can't keep tabs on what your kids do on their computers/consoles in your house.
TV is showing violence and this could effect kids young minds. Therefore we should put an age limit on when you are allowed to watch TV so kids do you get acidentelly exposed to violence when changing channel.
Critics argue that violent games should be banned because:
1. They are meant for adults but kids still get hold of them.
2. They cause violence.
By same arguement, you'd figure they'll also call for the banning of alcohol for the same above reasens, not to mention the various health issues. However, I doubt that it will happen because:
1. Many of the critics probably enjoy alcohol and most people are all for banning everything except for things that they enjoy.
2. Alcohol industry lobbiests gets paid more than the gaming industry lobbiests.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I don't see anyone placing the blame of those punks who would drop cinder blocks off of highway bridges, squarely where it belongs.
Tetris has obviously warped the minds of our youth.
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
Dude who cares, put down your teddy bear and look at this for what it really is. This is a media war, a dope war. The old media is fighting the new media on who will sell us our necessary violent imagery. I am certain your logic made sense to you while you were high but really it' so very simplistic. Video games did not invent car jackings, they were invented sometime shortly after cars. (yes there were jackings in the 20's) The news media sensationalized them, the movies and tv followed. Vid games are the latecomer. Because games involve the user and take mindshare away from the old media they are fighting back. The same happened with movies, comics, tv, records etc. So far society has not gone to hell, violent crime is down. Way down.
We are taking their flamebait and looking away from real issues.
Yeah, I know, they need to sell games, and have every right to. But you can't have it both ways: knowingly making money off of kids who shouldn't be playing your games, then crying foul on parents when those kids get their hands on the game. You can say the rating system needs to be enforced all you please. The fact is that it isn't enforced, probably never will be, and that's how the game companies like it.
Do you really think the presentation of tits, guns and violence in most controversial games is "mature"? This ain't Shakespeare -- it's trash designed to titillate 14 year old boys. Killing prostitutes for health and cash is nothing profound, it's just a cynical transaction: shock value for money.
If a serious videogame needs to use violence, sex or any other debatable storytelling element in order to succeed as a piece of art, then I'm all for it. But for all of our whining about how videogames are art and should be taken seriously, the medium is still clearly aimed at juveniles. Until gaming actually matures I'm not prepared to give outfits like Rockstar a free pass.
'no one had discovered alcoholic beverages; you'd've never become drunk.'
firstly, GTA doesn't depict things that haven't been covered ad nauseum in other media. Grand Theft Auto was merely an interactive 'Scarface' or 'Casino'; a connection Vice City makes almost literal. Yet Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese are hailed as luminaries whilst Rockstar games is lynched. The irony is bitter.
Secondly, there is nothing in our world that is new. I hate to be the one to break this to the Curmudgeon, but these ideas (even the terrible ones) haven't destroyed civilization in the thousands of years of recorded history. War, murder, rape -- these are not things that Rockstar games invented in a lab 4 years ago. Carjacking, senseless mayhem, even these ideas are not new to anyone. Hell, the Greek myth of Zeus and Ganymede had child molestation and abduction as its core issue, and the original Sleeping Beauty covered rape. These myths did not make rapists and child molesters out of the Greeks and Saxons.
'Seeing ideas fleshed out allows you to think of them. Becoming desensitized to them helps you think fantastic, outrageous ideas are doable.'
I've played GTA, and I admit, I've had those thoughts: 'if i were playing, i'd just carjack someone for a lift'. Thing is, I've had moments where i wished my car was a tank or a helicopter after watching a war flick too. In traffic, I've wished that someone would release a plague ala Twelve Monkees, so I could enjoy a 'Stand'-type peace without the pressing crush of humanity around me.
But these ideas don't make me act. They don't make me a criminal and thereby the ideas themselves can not be considered criminal. Hell they're not any more likely to cause me to take up pursuing those realities than my daydreams of winning the lotto, commuting via a bobcat with a saddle on its back, or becoming Hugh Hefner's successor. And I didn't need video games to 'flesh out' those ideas for me, and seeing them in a video game is doubtfully going to make me consider them actually doable.
The Curmudgeon is suggesting that we are powerless to decide whether certain ideas, dreams or myths are appropriate ways to actually act -- and thus we should be protected from these ideas that will invariably turn us into rapists, druggies, murderers, bank robbers, and pimps.
For some reason that just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe its because I believe people have free will, and no fleeting thought is dangerous. Or maybe its because the last 2 decades of gaming haven't exactly churned out a generation of brainwashed turtle-killing plumbers, vandal paperboys, whip-wielding vampire hunters, or mercenary soldiers.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
This one quote in the Post article regarding GTA Vice City sums it up for me, saying the game "is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy". That's it. Enough. I have 2 small children and I have played both GTA games (never letting them see it of course). Anyone who could equate sinister premeditated child molestation with an adult playing a video game that harms no one should be fired from their job as a reporter. Period.
We all know the game is not what you'd want kids to see, but neither is porn. Is that against the law? Should the platform in which something is viewed or experienced dictate the way in which its content is judged? Ridiculous.
The GTA games are so great for just the very reason that they are such complete departures from reality, where anything can happen - and guess what? No one gets hurt for real.
I was impressed with Child's Play at first, but PA went too far out of their way to pat themselves and the gaming community on the back for it to last. One thing noticably missing from all of this is any description of how the toys made the kids feel. Isn't that who this was supposed to be mostly about? And now they've whined so much about how they haven't gotten enough credit for having done it.. Well, it's just a bit of a turn-off. If you are doing something for good press (or, the other great reason for charitable giving, to reduce your tax bracket so you can save money) it isn't charity any more. (Hint: The rough meaning of the word "charity" is "love." Hint, Hint: It isn't talking about self-love.)
"Or you can pick up a prostitute and have sex with her in the back of your stolen car, then beat her to death - or shoot her, bludgeon her, whatever you want." how do you do that? I've been playing Vice City for a while and didn't know you could do that.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I also hate video games. However, I don't blame games for people shooting up schools, just as I don't blame guns for deaths. People are just stupid. This hippie liberal feel-good pot culture left over from the 60s that guides the generation in charge these days is really to blame. I blame parents for not raising their children.
I may be a communist, but i sure as hell no fucking liberal democrat clinton-licking jackass who throws responsibility onto everyone but myself. It is time parents take responsibility. Senseless violence is just that: senseless. However, as John Adams put it: "Free men own guns." "gun culture" does not exist. there is no such thing as a "gun nut" only people who love freedom and those that love uniformity. To quote the great Irish-American band Black 47: "Everytime anyone upsets the status quo they're stabed in the back by the so-called liberal hos."
I am a hard-core Irish Republican. I pitty the families of those who die but I don't regret the killing. Video games did not make me this way. I've never killed anyone in my life. I own guns and shoot and would often rather like to kill a number of people that i've had the missfortune in meeting in this god-forsaken America, but I havn't. Why? it's not worth it. that, and I know right from wrong. I'd have to plea nolo contendre. But yes, I know right from wrong: Killing colonial aggressors: valid; killing some quisling who pisses me off: not valid (unless in blatant self defence or defence of others).
Therefor, a game like Metal of Honour about killing Nazis is valid, but a game about killing people on the street for money is pointless. That doesn't mean that it is not entertaining, just that if someone acts out what they see in a video game then they have more issues than the game to begin with. However, a few dead kids is no reason to take away freedom. Neither is "September 11" a valid reason for the PATRIOT Act or any other legislation which has turned this country into East Germany and made me absolutly certain that Anglos anywhere are no-good and can't be trusted to run things. That said, I am moving back to Ireland in a year or so to persue a career as a craft brewer in Dingle.
While I do think the Post article was "obviously false and irresponsible," that wasn't really the point of my post on the Ombudsman. As I say in my post, "it's not really my place on this blog to argue with opinions; it's an editorial, and the author is entitled to make whatever arguments he wants." The comparison to an fictional Enquirer piece was to show how the Post is not a very well-respected paper, and therefore not worthy of much concern no matter the content.
It really is interesting to watch the way the word 'terrorist' has become the 'communist' of the cold war days.
I bought this game for my brother in law a few months back at his request, and though I was highly amused running over everybody on the sidewalks. It's not so much the violence in and of itself that surprised me, I grew up on games like Ultima and whatnot where there was plenty of skull bashing, but the violence in these games is very crude (though amusing) such as running people over on sidewalks, killing people on the street for no reason, etc. Mind you, I don't mind stupid violence or stupidity in general, as you can no doubt see from my own website, but these games are definately exploring the limits of what parents and less tolerant people will accept. Bottom line, if you don't like it, don't play it, or don't let your children play it. Take it and like it! Pablo
http://www.cgff.net/comics.html
...after I beat my old highscore...a boom.swf
http://www.nata2.info/humor/flash/K
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Very simple. Take them to court and sue them into eternal poverty. Just like everyone else in this country. I'd also demand that their ability to contribute to the human gene pool be removed too. But that might be harder to do.
In many voter's eyes, maybe it's just easier to ban the video game totally than to force someone else to be a better parent?
Translation: Take away other people's rights, rather than tackling the REAL problem and going after the people actually responsible. Blame-shifting. I'll give you three choices here. Take your pick.
Put another way: I think that it's logical to assume that the people most interested in banning violent video games don't allow their children to have them, so you can hardly say that their looking to excuse their own bad parenting. Instead, their looking to circumvent their neighbor's bad parenting.
The problem is, that a blanket ban affects a MUCH larger group than the agreed-upon problem group.
However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that critics of games like GTA3 have a legitimate concern.
Correction. They THINK they have a legitimate concern. The manufacturers don't force people to buy the product at gunpoint. They also do NOT put real guns into the hands of kids.
Studies have shown that video games directly influence behavior.
What was that term again? Oh yes.
I have no doubt that in some case somewhere, some violent video game led to the taking of an innocent life.
I do. If someone can actually do that, there's much more than just a video game feeding into it. Yes, the video game COULD be a trigger for an unstable person. But so could Twinkies. So could Roseanne Barr. So could a rainstorm on Friday the 13th.
Simply because some whack-job gets it into his head that a game is telling or teaching them to kill for real doesn't mean it's so. And simply banning things because they COULD trigger it basically means taking away all freedoms to do ANYTHING. Because anything COULD trigger their negative impulses.
In the end, I agree with you that the solution is, in some way, a combination of holding the parents responsible for their kids' actions. And understanding that while some of this is quite horrible, we ARE a free society. And with that comes the freedom to do certain things that others might find repugnant, or could possibly adversely affect some person who's not really nodding acquaintances with reality.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
because everytime I read a piece about it I want to smash the writer of the article over the head with a bat.
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
I call crap on his argument that video games cause violence because it gives people "ideas". It's the old "first a thought, then an act" argument that the Christian Right so often uses to try and get stuff censored.
Problem is, it's completely invalid. There is a huge leap between having an idea and actually choosing to act on that idea. Video games can only give ideas; they cannot move people to act on them. That is, and always will be, solely the reaponsibility of the individual who chooses to act.
Or, to put it another way: anyone who is exposed to sex can easily get the idea of forcing it upon another. Does this mean that any mention of (or, for that matter, having of) sex causes rape? Of course not; that would be ridiculous. Even though most people understand the concept, most would never in a million years do such a thing. They have the idea, but are no more likely to act on it than if they never knew it was possible.
Any time they report on something I know something about, they get it wrong, sometimes really, horribly, mind-blowingly wrong. So do they only get it right when I don't know enough about the topic? Why should this be any different?
Others have called you a slashdotter, and you didn't reject it. That term sounds to me like a way to try to wrap a fun hobby in a veil of credibility, as if it has social merit or importance. It doesn't. You post comments because they amuse you. Chances are you only post comments when you have nothing else better to do.
I don't like the word "blogger", but everyone understands it.
It was Moore's way to push his own political agenda by exploiting a tradgedy. It was total and complete Bullshit!
Why shoudl Moore judge what standards and values the parents of this country shoudl raise our children by. My child is 18 months old and when he is old enough I will teach him how to shhot a gun. A gun is a tool, like a hammer or drill. Once a person learns how to use it the mystery is gone and it is no longer the scary demon it once was.
I reiterate, Moore is a fat slob who should stick to screwing 5 year old boys and leave the politicals of this country to the people who it means something to. THE VOTERS!!
Hippies!
Ignore the obviously clueless mainstream press or start the soul searching?
Thank goodness for objectivity.
Having studied it, violence in games is a SERIOUS problem, much more serious than violence in movies. You see people learn to do something by DOING it. Wathcing violence doesn't teach you ANYTHING about doing it, it merely may desensitize you to viewing it. On the other hand actually performing violent acts, virtual or real, will desensitize you to DOING it. I have watched 10 year old kids in arcades blowing people away with uzies and it is disturbing as hell.
Yes parents have responsibility, but so does the industry. Is ID mandatory to but GTA:Vice City? Do gaming ratings have any government weight? Is marketing geared towards youth (i.e. are ads shown during youth programming)?
and yes we had violence in games when we were younger, but there is a hell of a difference between Beach Head for the C64 and Beach Head 2000.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
When I hear SOMEONE WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES describe him/herself as a "gamer" it sounds to me like they're trying to wrap their fun hobby in a veil of credibility, as if it has social merit or importance. It doesn't. You play games because they amuse you.
You know, I used to think like you and many who are replying on this thread on this point, saying that videogames are not like sports, et cetera. I still personally have this idea that gaming is just a personal hobby, but I have come to realize that this is really just cultural prejudice, and not something really inherent to games.
Case in point: South Korea. I'm on an exchange program, and my roomate is from there. Regularly he downloads television programs from his home, which are about, of all things, Starcraft matchs.
Up in that part of the world, starcraft is a real national sport, with star players, yearly championships, tv shows, comentators, cheers, fans, advertisers, everything you could expect from other "regular" games. At first it scared the hell out of me... but then... why not? There is a "brain vs brawl" debate further down the thread, but you can have such discussions about any two given sports...
In the end it isn't really something about the games themselves, but our perception about them. I'm pretty sure other sports/hobbies have had similar starts.
C.
I think we should car jack an old lady and then run her down with the car as we drive down to go "talk" to these people. Maybe we could do a couple of drug runs and drop off a hooker here or there along the way.
We could also steal a fire engine and spray people with water along the way as well...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
When video games graphically depicting violent acts are a-ok and sell millions of copies, but graphically depicting consentual sex, and act that is both fun and healthy, would be out-right banned from most stores and really have people up in arms. I'm not for censorship at all, but I dream of the day our culture evolves at least to the point where images of violence are more shocking to the public than images of sex.
Not the robotic Jon Katz! Anything but that!
The problem with local governments is that they have grown very large. So while it used to make sense when you came from a small town of a few hundred, when your town has millions of people in it... letting local government determine what to censor is a bad idea. It makes more sense to let families determine the "right" answer. Let the parents determine what to censor.
Not sure if you can get to actual sucking in R ratings, yet. Handling, yes, but sucking? In the US we're still way more squeamish about sex (as opposed to implied sex) than about violence.
I went to see a PG-13 movie last year, and it was full of incredibly disturbing violent images. Someone choked someone else to death -- played for laughs in the movie. Someone stabbed someone else's neck many times until, all on camera, the victim wheezed and died. PG-13.
Meanwhile, if you see anything more than a glimpse of flesh, of if (Lord forbid) you have a character say the "F word" more than twice, you get slapped with an automatic "R" rating. (The F word in particular seems to be an MPAA rule: count the number of them, and you know what to rate the movie. 'Cause, you know, kids between 13 and 17 never hear that word. Wouldn't want to corrupt them with this reference to "F'ing.")
I'm with Lenny Bruce: Nobody ever commits a murder in an X-rated movie, so really I'd rather my kids saw those than the latest superviolent "action" film that glorifies unrepentent killing.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
You know what. I play GTA. I love GTA. I've loved it since its incarnation. However, I'm 24 years old. I know right from wrong. This is definately not a game I let my young, impressionable daughter watch me play, or would suggest to any parent for their kids. This is a game for adults only. Period.
There, I finally gave my two cents worth.
SYSOP ('sih-sop) n.: the guy laughing at your typing.
This is totally off topic, but how can a republican be socialist? Isn't socialism way to the left, on the liberal or democrate side of the scale?
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Environment does determine behaviour - about (give or take) 50% of it. We have those things called genes too. If you raise your kids in a bubble where the ONLY interaction they receive is GTA3 or 4, then yes I'm sure one could see an effect on behaviour. But thankfully there are MANY other factors interfering with our daily lives that easily provide that balance.
I'm not sure if you meant a government-determined balance or not, but it really doesn't matter if the government steps in or not - generally the markets do the work for them. ie. companies who make games/books etc. for which there is no market (as if no one wants to PRETEND to be a car thief) don't tend to do very well financially. The major networks censor themselves all the time.
The real issue, which has been stated ad nauseum, is that parents are responsible for most of what their children do - if you can't be bothered to at least look at the back jacket of a game, should you buy it? Would you buy a small child a magazine called "Amazonian Whores" without at least glancing at the table of contents?
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
I am fed up with the false dialectic which is peddled on a variety of controversies: guns, violent video games, reality TV, etc. The false dialectic is that a culture can only have two possibilities: either there is a race for the bottom, as media peddlers compete to out-do each other in outrageous behavior. Or, there is some sort of nanny government overseeing what sorts of images and messages can be portrayed in the media -- meaning that books are banned and so forth.
Those advocating "freedom of expression" (actually license) accept no responsibility for their actions, and those advocating censorship accept none either.
So, we are left with an increasingly polarized standoff between those who would impose limits and those who say that any limits are arbitrary and therefore no limits should be imposed. The result is madness.
I think both sides need to acknowledge that the other has some valid points. Would-be censors have got to acknowledge that the Hollywood film 'Code' really cut into freedom of expression. Yet, that did not prevent great films, including controversial ones, from being made during that period.
I don't claim that all mass media are part of the great wasteland. The best contemporary books, TV, music, films, etc are every bit as good as anything produced in any era (at least, where a comparison makes sense -- comparing The Who to J.S. Bach might not work so well).
But the amount of dreck that debases humanity seems to grow and intensify every year. This is something we should be concerned about. Men and women of good will need not participate in such debasement by holding the shares of publicly traded companies engaged in same. Ironically, the New York Post might also fall under this category itself.
Not GTA3, but how about this
You can use various disliked public figures as DM characters, I believe.
I refer you to my parent organization, the Irish Republican Socialist Party's website http://www.irsm.org/ . Republican means supporting a Republic. the IRA's charter states it's goal as creating an 32-county Socialist Worker's Republic. It has nothing to do with the GOP. Honestly, I just hate government and business, favour agrarian economy, et cetera. My hero's are James Connolly, Che Guevara, Patrick Henry, and the 1981 Long Kesh hunger strikers.
If a personal, child or adult, runs outside and starts shooting people, conservatives/Republicans (loose label) start screaming "electric chair!" and "get him!", whereas liberals/Democrats scream initially while under fire, only later to figure out who their next target for the blame should be. Gun manufacturers? Gangsta' rap? Violent video games?
Never mind the fact that man has been capable of doing his worst since before the age of technology began. Never mind that even cable television sometimes shows more gruesome depictions of violence than the video games currently under fire. Never mind that none of these children who do these things were not taught by their parents or peers the difference between right and wrong, or even how to handle negative emotions that might incite such violent acts.
After all, it is very clearly marketed for adults, which puts the responsibility on their children playing those games on the adults, not the kids (exception: idiot store clerks who sell games or any other products illegally to minors).
But who cares? Blame the video game. After all, spending months designing an incredibly realistic 3D environment in which we may run around and do the things we would never do in real life (i.e., quench our thirst for blood in fiction rather than reality) is the same thing as pulling the trigger, isn't it?
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provides them.
-Then later-
It's all about taking responsibility for your actions.
Wow. Did you go to a sociology convention for that, how many doctorates in human behavior do you have?
Your generalizations are unscrupulous. You talk about taking responsibility for your actions. Your generalizations show that you take no responsibility for the accusations you fling out towards the world.
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provides them.
I am a member of the media. I purport no claims, but according to many of you self-claimed GENIUSES here at slashdot, I am a media liar. I am a slime only out looking for a story. Some of you twits cannot even get logic puzzles and causation right. Then you accuse the entire media about ONE FREAKING ARTICLE FROM THE POST?... but, hey, if we're generalizing, let's generalize some more...
So here we go:
1. All mathematicians are potential unabombers. Anyone here a slimy, weasely mathematician?
2. All programmers are Kevin Mitnick. Anyone hacked a good system and stole from someone recently? WELL YOU ALL HAVE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL PROGRAMMERS ON SLASHDOT. See? The logic is INSEPERABLE. After all, many of you geniuses at science and mathematics have applied this to me and my profession.
3. All clowns are like John Wayne Gacy.
4. All law students are Ted Bundy.
5. All business owners are like Ken Lay.
6. All scientists are actually working in an effort to bolster the munitions industry. ADMIT IT! You're trying to kill people.
SEE HOW STUPID IT SOUNDS?
But yet, for some reason, you are allowed to GENERALIZE when it comes to the media. You know what that makes you? The very "sheeple" that you rail on constantly.
Honestly, "the media" excuse is tired and busted. Completely. You can't generalize all of the media when some are acting like whores. Just like I can't generalize that all people that are good at computers are committing crimes.
This is just getting old. Does society really have nothing better to do then whine about a video game that's already been out for years? Seriously, what is even the point of banning it now? It has already sold so many copies that anyone who wanted a copy probably has one.
I'm sick of this whole parental responsibility argument. Its really not that hard to look at a game box, see a "M," and knows its "mature." It's really not rocket science and does not take such effort on their part to learn this. Its no different than taking your child to a NC-17 movie and then complaining that there was nudity and adult content. A line has to be drawn somewhere here.
It makes me wonder about all these people who are spending countless hours preparing yet another legal battle or writing yet another anti game article. Perhaps that time would have been better spent at home, with their children, teaching them right and wrong and not relying on society to do it for them.
"'stop dodging the issue' of game violence and 'start talking realistically about degrees of harm, freedoms, and responsibility'."
Prove to me there is an issue. So far, all I've seen is a handful of stupid acts blamed on GTA, not a shred of legitimacy to them. On top of that, GTA sold well into the millions. So many people playing this game...
Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accusers. I'm not going to stand up and agree with you just because you say I should. Compel me.
"Derp de derp."
If graphical portrayal of the killing of masses of people without any responsibility or consequences for the action isn't terrorism, then I'm afraid I don't know what it is ...
Then I'm afraid you don't know what is. Terrorism isn't the graphical portrayal of the killing of masses of people. It IS the killing of masses of people, or the threat to kill masses of people. The definition for terrorism is technically something that "causes terror". If you want to get really anal about it, some movies are "terrorism" because they cause terror. However, violent games generally aren't terrifying, therefore they are not "terrorism".
By your definition, showing pictures of the earthquake in Iran could be considered "terrorism"... but it's not.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
This outcome mentioned assumes that there is only violence in the world. I personally have seen much which is not violent.
There is a man who sits on a street corner next to my house. I assume he is homeless, but I have never seen him pan-handle. About two months ago I happened to notice someone giving him money as they passed. From where I stand, a random act of kindness indeed.
sometimes make sense and sometimes don't. "the media" (at least to me) refers to corporate-owned mouthpieces of international big-business (is that redundant or what?). i believe that there are reporters and editors who are ethical and well-intentioned, but that they are usually constrained and/or censored by the people over them in the hierarchy. http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/newsflash .html
and i like whores. they're the most honest of workers in a capitalist system.
terrorism:
...
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I'm sure more than a few Iraqi's would feel that Counter Strike is a 'threatened use of force or violence', frankly.
Oh, wait, "CS is a game, thus a product". Thus, 'lawful'... never mind.
Maybe those Iraqi's don't think like you, but I'm sure Pepsi-Cola is gonna change that
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Greater than 99% of kids who play a violent game are not going to do anything violent because they played the game
Less than 100% of adults who play a violent game are not going to do anything violent because they played the game
It seems to me that the idea of free speech centers around the idea that banning something is harmful to everyone, while banning nothing will harm a very insignificant portion of the population. Until there is a vastly better way than age discrimination to determine who those people are, parental and personal responsibility seems to be a good approach.
sig fault
The media has been molding public opinion by spinning the truth into their view for quite some time now.
It's only when a video game is misrepresented that everyone gets up in arms?
it's not so much the games as it's the parents not teaching the rights and wrongs of life,
and if it's not videogames, it's violent movies, which have ratings.. yet parents let their kids see rated R movies, then they bitch.
and also, with the obvious I dont have to explain, does this mean we have to put content managers on gaming consoles like they have on vcr's, tv's and dvd players? where the tape, or station or dvd give a signal that it's a "bad" rated game?
It's also a useless technology since most kids know more about this stuff than parents, sure, password protection exists, but that can be easily guessed, or if you unplug the console for a few weeks, the password will clear on some systems.
and it also wouldnt beenabled by default because companies of gaming consoles know it would kill sales with the real money making crowd. and parents wouldnt enable this technology, thus allowing kids to play whatever games they want.
STore clerks arent going to tell you if it's a game not recommended for children or not, THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL IT. So what do they care? and you have clerks that dont give a shit, or do it because they figure parents have enough sense to teach their children that games are fantasy.
sadly, we should be able to figure that parents should do that, but we know it isnt true, most parents pop out a kid after they get married.. go "aww, how cute" and then sit them in front of a game or tv while they work or do stuff that betters their image in life..
but, most people live in the middle class, thus are subjected to daily hard labor until they retire. and both parents have to work in the US in order to keep a roof over their heads, or want to work, not even interacting with their children.
I was lucky, my mom and dad had a business when I was little, and after that, my mom worked part time, didnt see my dad every night, but I did see him when he was off, and we did family stuff, and we were taught what's right and wrong. I play violent games, but do I think I can go out and kill masses of people and not suffer reprocussions? I do not.
The government likes this shit too.. create a drone-like working force while creating people who are completely desensitized to violence and death and life.. generation where people have the government do things for them, want things handed to them, and want to be able to do things easily. and dont mind the government killing people in other countries or killing people in this country.
it's going that way.
I did a survey at my old highschool, and 90% of the students said that we shouldnt have votes, that the government should make decisions for us.
the 10% were the realistic people who know what's going on.
and this was in a rich community, I should do this theory at my current highschool as well, in each of my classes.
Violent video games do have an effect on the young.
Ugh... need... proof... statistics... conjecture... slashdot... overpowering senses... opinions... everywhere... I feel myself... getting more stupid...
End transmission.
So, I'll just relax with a nice game of GTA.... :-)
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
So what, exactly, was "especially telling" about the movie? Other than that people who want to see a problem will see it even if there is no proof for it.
Perhaps, after heavily debated research, violent video games are shown to make it "easier" by desensitization to commit acts of violence. What does this mean? Should we seek to rid our society of all violent content that desensitizes us to such actions? Should all simulations of violence either real or fictional be removed from American culture? Would we revert to movies of the quality of action made in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? While certainly there were some good shows made during those time periods, I doubt the public would appreciate the perceived regression. Perhaps we would see literature and music that relied less on the action and thrills of violent content, but I doubt it would be a welcome reversion.
Perhaps the real question should not be "Does video game violence contribute to real life acts of violence?", but "Why are violent video games such as GTA a huge seller in the video game market?". Additionally, we should perform some introspection on why our society creates violent content in the first place? Could it be that we are a society that still finds violence an acceptable method to reach our goals? Perhaps, or pehaps not.
Personally, I think the researchers are barking up the wrong tree. The questions they should be asking are not being asked. If they are, we don't see the media reporting on such research. Rather, we are playing the "blame game" and "pass the buck". It is easier to pass the blame than to address the underlying issues. Why do we play violent video games in the first place? Because they are "fun" is not a sufficient answer. What makes simulated violence fun? Why do we enjoy going to action movies that depict peoples' heads being chopped off, massive explosions resulting in death, etc...? Is it a substitute we seek to fulfill a lack of "excitement" in our own lives? We should be more concerned with how to create a responsble person in today's society. Responsible people do not believe that violence is an acceptable measure to accomplish their goals. Responsible people can be trusted to drive a car sober, parent their kids appropriately, own firearms, and generally "fit in" with society on a level that precludes violence altogether.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
"What if a company comes out this year with a new blockbuster game where you serially rape women and then must dump the bodies?"
Grand Theft Auto wasn't a blockbuster merely on the principle that you can run over people and kill innocent civilians, it has great vehicle physics, a pretty decent storyline, good voice acting, a really great soundtrack, a large detailed world with many things to explore, and a lot of open ended freedom, a very solid game in virtually every respect. This simple fact is something virtually nobody ever seems to take into consideration at all on the issue of its popularity.
Its the player that determines whether or not Grand Theft Auto is about picking up prostitutes and beating them to death or simply doing stunts with vehicles and searching for hidden packages. I think to a lot of people, the violence against innocents is a novelty at first, to sort of see the limits of the game, and over time you are more likely to have fun with the driving, exploration and storyline.
Custer's revenge was a commericial failure and the company that made it, Mystique, clearly has gone out of business. I think the premise that a game where you serially rape women and dump the bodies would be a blockbuster is seriously broken. At most it could garner a whole mess of media hype because they have a dysfunctional understanding of what makes a game popular and actually successful.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that violent video games are the only cause of violent behavior, or even the main cause. This much is self-evident. Thus, anyone who criticizes violent games for causing violent behavior implicitly agrees that the causes of violence are multivariate.
Many defenders of violent video games, on the other hand, don't seem to grasp this. They say things like, "It's not the games, it's the [fill-in-the-blank]," as if this were an either/or question. Citing bad parents, or violence in the news, or hate music, etc. is completely irrelevant. Even if you prove that one of these is a factor, it does not rule out the possibility that there may be other factors!
The only way to answer the question of how much of an effect violent video games have is to do good scientific research. All other arguments are pointless.
Now for the facts: The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that there is a causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. This is based on meta-analyses of dozens of studies that have been done on the subject since the 1980s.
No, it doesn't mean that video games will turn every child into a killer, so don't even bother knocking down that strawman. It simply means that violent video games tend to make kids (and probably adults, too) behave more aggressively than they would otherwise.
And again, no one is saying that this is the only cause. But there is little room to doubt that this is one of them.
That said, I am moving back to Ireland in a year or so to persue a career as a craft brewer in Dingle
You'll be missed, flamebait.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
I haven't read the actual studies, although I have read some of the abstracts, but as a medical student, I find that it seems to be the consensus among most pediatricians that game violence does in fact provoke real violence and we are taught to counsel parents to minimize exposure to game and movie violence. So, whether it is true or not, I am inclined to believe the cause/effect linkage is real. So I'm not sure the mainstream press is necessarily clueless. But it is still no reason to ban such games.
What was that? Proving the media bias all on your own? Congratulations. These people(reporters) are out to save the world when it pushes 'their' agenda. When someone else goes out and does something positive, it must be pushed down and into the ground.
The Child's Play bit while good, shows exactly the types of people that are reporting the news to the average person. And if those people here are not actually questioning the news sources as a whole yet, they bloody well should. Tyco and Gabe shouldn't have to play it, 80% of reporters say that they are 'liberal' and as that stands going by the standard 'bleeding hearts' that they are; they should have been trumpeting this story as the greatest story in humanity for the hospital. But in truth what does this exactly tell you about them?
I wouldn't be surprised to see this moderated down as a troll, but question the people doing the reporting and their supposed humanities.
Om, nomnomnom...
One step ahead. Thus, the concept of "playing it"- its all a joke. EVERYTHING. Media, life, career, philosophy, religion, whatever. So, I play it, for none of it is worth taking seriously.
Wow, I think I just veered heavily off topic.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
These lawsuits against video game companies are doing one thing extremely well ... they're teaching our children that no matter what they do, it's not their fault. It's someone elses fault, someone influenced them to do what they did ... don't worry son, you didn't mean to shoot those people, the video game made you do it.
... sue McDonalds, they made you fat. The teacher yelled at you in school because you were misbehaving, well I'm going into school and talking to this teacher, they were out of line. Children cannot enter into a contract, and can break it at any time since they can't be bound in any contract, even a purchase.
Society does this all the time now. When a child does a crime, they are rarely held truely accountable for it. We do it all the time
We constantly breed in our children as they grow up that they are not accountable for their actions. Not until they are 18 that is, when they get out into the world and now have to come up with better excuses to get out of the problems they get into. Maybe parents need to start instilling in their children responsibility, by being responsible themselves. Instead of parenting once a week, but fighting for their children like animals when they commit heinous crimes.
Apparently, because the term has never bothered me or my circle of friends, many of whom describe themselves as gamers.
(Although, the word does bother me a little, as it was in use by table top (role-playing and war gaming mostly) gamers long before video gamers started using it. Anyway... back to the subject at hand.)
It sounds to me like you're hearing things. I suggest having a doctor check on that. I've never heard someone user the term with that intent. Gamer is a useful way to categorize people with similar interests. That's it. One who reads (typically books) is a reader, one who sees films is a movie-goer, one who watches TV is a viewer, one who shops is a shopper. It's just natural that one who plays games would be a gamer. None of these terms are intended to glorify the activity, just to label the participants.
Just try to relax. No one is trying to manipulate language to give ourselves an aura of respectibility. When you start hearing people describe themselves as digital era storytelling and simulation enthusists you'll know people have overinflated views of themselves.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
There was also more respect for the weapons. People had responsibility for their own actions to a degree we do not see today in 1944. Yes, many more people respected guns because they knew what they could do, but here (US) the schools are largely run by people who think that eliminating guns eliminates violence. I used to live in a rural area over 10 minutes away from a police agency and our guns (and large dog) saved my family from trouble on several occasions. The whole "zero weapons tolerance in schools" trend is a runaway monster started by a political agenda: If I'm the toughest one on school violence, maybe I'll get re-elected to whatever office. Most of the firearms limitations for civilians I know of arose between 1963 (Kennedy assassination) and 1983? (Brady bill) with a few more in recent years.
Also, most people today do not spend nearly as much time with their kids as they did in 1944. Ever wonder why kids today know so much less about guns and so much more about worldly life in most cases? Their parents are often not there to protect them from the world, they just go find it out for themselves. Personally I would like to see a mandatory firearms education course taught alongside a thorough sex ed course starting in 6th grade and continuing until at least 8th. Kids could opt-out of the course by taking a minimal competency test in both subjects. There are enough non-parents out there that something needs to be done about guns and other issues because many just aren't learning about basic respect issues for themselves or guns from their parents like they used to.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Hey, I'm 26 now, and I can't answer some of those Leisure Suit Larry questions, due to not being raised in that specific time period in the USA. Questions about dead presidents, or old TV shows.
So I do exactly what any half-intelligent 10 year old would do: check google.
A small step anyway. The point is they shouldn't have to play it, I'm not sure if you know anyone who's gone in for journalism or broadcast journalism but they teach you to 'save the world' and 'better humanity' other useless crud. Push a PoV, nothing else, don't tell an unbiased story and let people make up a mind, spin a story, and push your agenda. Bad way to do things.
This is exactly what the reporters there have done in all releases of media.
But that wasn't as much off topic as you'd think.
Om, nomnomnom...
1.-You can play GTA and not do anything violent you can play pizza delivery, taxi driving, stunt tricks, etc.
2.-Who draws the line? we do, this may come as a shock but games as the ones you mentioned DO exist the reason why you havent heard of them is because no publisher in their right mind would touch them. And to be honest no professional game company would touch those topics either. Actually if you look around you will notice there are no NC-17 or A titles in any console and the ones you find in PC are extremely low quality. Postal 2 is a game that comes close to the A, NC-17 grade. And didnt got big sales either (due to its low quality and lack of marketting) so you can stop pressing the "panic" button on that issue.
3.The truth is: (professional) developers know that touching "risque" issues (crime,extreme violence,religion, homosexuality, sex) is a "risque" investment by itself, the line between being considered "adult" and "indecent/porn" is pretty thin, if your game gets considered "completely inappropiate" any store with a reputation (amazon/eb/kmart) would have second thougths about displaying it and publishers wont have that. Take "thrill kill" per example, the game got completely finished and then canned due to its "adult" (sex and violence) themes, thats 2 years of work and salaries down the drain!
4.-Professional developers may advertise themselves as "extreme" and "liberal" but they do their best on censoring themselves so they wont go over the line, p.e. in GTA there are no children or senior citizens in the streets EVER, you dont have to commit any crimes unless you chose to (the game doesnt force you by taking points or lives by doing so), and comitting a serious crime will ALWAYS result in the police getting alerted and with you eventually in jail, hiding or killed (crime doesnt pay) gore is (intentionally) not realistic at all, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, all cars in GTA are unlocked and have the keys on! GTA is about car stealing and they didnt touched any subject on how to open or "hotwire" a car, so they didnt spread information that could be used by real criminals. If they had done any of these, they would have had a serious ammount of trouble getting the game published!
Of course the media never discusses any of these points.
World War Two was a nice and tidy exportation of violence. It was cause for orgastic nationalisim but it didn't cost "the average american" a damned thing on balance. (In the spesific people lost loved ones, but in the general "we" got to "rescue" all those smart-alek sods back in the old world, aren't we clever. And our "darkies" and our "redskins" were oh so integrated with us all, on the posters at least...)
In short, one of our greatest cultural disasters was that the contential US (heck, Hawaii wasn't even in the US for WWII if I recall) was *never* *really* touched bye the war. It made us all "superior" to everybody and it *improved* our economy beyond all hope of salvation.
The gun control thing started here, as stated by the previous poster, in 1968 when Viet Nam came to our living rooms on TV. But, in an ironic twist, this brought home all the "cost" of guns while washing away the "value". In the same way that an ex-smoker is the most obnoxious and vociferous anti-smoking lobbiest, the "isn't that terrible" lobby that rules our laughable culture has managed to spackle over the facts.
And the facts are simple: Gun crimes are acts of cowardice, and occur in exact ratio to the scarcity of firearms. (The chart of least restrictive carry laws, where every grandmother might have a gun in her purse, to most restrictive is *IDENTICAL* to the chart of lowest gun crime rates to highest. The "i'll shoot them all" set attack schools and commuter trains and such, and only in municipalities where guns are scarce. You don't see these people walking into a Country Buffet (restraunt chain) in Texas and pulling out their guns, they'd get their waggon fixed for sure if they tried.
In point of fact, the U.S. of A. is populated by the religous wackos (or their decendents) that were thrown out of all the good countries. Reason isn't taught in our schools and morals are "those things decreed by our corrupt legslatures". Nobody here can or will take responsibility for what is in their own heads, let alone what they put in the heads of their children, or what they keep in their cupboards and closets.
So it follows to reason, from those premises, that the Video Games and T.V. (and those nasty and pernicous Canadians 8-) are responsible for how porly the children are doing.
After all, I can't possibly be responsible for how my child turned out, I never even _talked_ to the litte shite...
Oh yea, they bemoan, the issues are more complex than this. But the root cause of our cultural death is the blithe neglect we pay it each day.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Where you CANNOT carry cocealed weapons, you are more likely to be shot. Kids die in gun related accidents more often where guns are scarce, because that very scarcity makes them an attractive nusance.
You want to make a kid never want to touch a gun. Make him go out shooting with his father twice a week for a while. Make him *study* the dang thing. Make it an "important chore." Something he *has* to know. Make it a tool, not a secret.
Where do kids end up shooting eachother and themselves by accident? Out in the country where every house has a rifle? In Switzerland where every house has an automatic rifle? Nope... In L.A. where guns are impossible to get (legally) and full of mistique.
Really, this isn't that hard to fathom. Stop crying about this stuff and start thinking about it instead. The model is simple and obvious.
The "humanist solutions" that our milk-sop crystal trance-channeling egalatarian ineffectuals have been cramming down everybodies throats have worn away the structrual underpinnings of reson and responsibility.
U.S.A.! Carefully poised to be the premere Third World Country of the New Mellinium!
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
1.-You can play GTA and not do anything violent you can play pizza delivery, taxi driving, stunt tricks, etc.
2.-Who draws the line on whats ok to sell and whats not? WE DO this may come as a shock but games about raping, ethnic killing and "realistic crime/sex simulators" DO exist the reason why you havent heard of them is because no publisher in their right mind would touch them. And to be honest no professional game developing company either. Actually if you take a good look around you will notice they are no "NC-17" or "A" titles in any console and the ones you find in PC are extremely low quality.
Postal, Postal 2, Soldier of fortune and Kingpin are proffessional games close to making the "A" "NC-17" rate. And none of them got enormously big sales (with the exception of Sof) They had publisher problems, over all quality problems and low public response (due to some extent to their controversial themes).
3.-The truth is: (professional) developers know that touching "risque" issues (crime,extreme violence,religion, homosexuality, sex) is a "risque" investment by itself, the line between being considered "adult" and "gore/indecent/porn" is pretty thin, if your game gets considered "inappropiate" any store with a reputation (amazon/eb/kmart) would have second thougths about displaying it and publishers wont have that. Take "thrill kill" per example, the game got completely finished and then canned due to its "adult" (sex and violence) themes. Thats over 2 years of work, investment and salaries down the drain!
4.-Professional developers may advertise themselves as "xtreme","over the top" and "liberal" but they do their best on censoring themselves so they wont go over the line, p.e.
In GTA there are no children or senior citizens in the streets EVER
Comitting a serious crime will ALWAYS result with the player on the run, hiding and eventually getting arrested or killed (crime doesnt pay)
there are no anti government, anti ethnic, religious or terrorist organization in the game.
All "jobs" (assasinations) you are sent to are ussually low lifes and criminals you are NEVER sent to kill a family a inocent guy or a kid.
Even though there is "sex" there is no nudity at all.
And what NO ONE has noticed, all cars in GTA are unlocked and have the keys on! GTA may be about car stealing but the developers didnt touched any subject on how to open or "hotwire" a car, they did that on purpose so they didnt spread information that could be used by REAL criminals.
If they had done any of these, they would have had a serious ammount of trouble to get the game published!
Of course the media wont EVER touch any of these subjects, they want to make you believe games are "extreme" and "over the top" causing civizalization to fall to their demise, like rome, sodoma and gamorra etc. etc.
Just last week I was playing this game called 'chess', and became overwhelmed with the compulsion to run straight at this guy on a horse and knock his ass to the ground.
He filed charges, and I will be going to court next month.
All I can say is I am glad we don't have a monarchy here...
Bowling for Columbine is FICTION! It's sensationalism!
If you believe that bunk as truth, then you better watch out, 'cause Kaiser Soze will get you in your sleep.
Saw Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" last night... I think this documentary covered the issue pretty well... be afraid, very fraid...
The problem with local governments is that they have grown very large. So while it used to make sense when you came from a small town of a few hundred, when your town has millions of people in it... letting local government determine what to censor is a bad idea. It makes more sense to let families determine the "right" answer. Let the parents determine what to censor.
It really depends on how great a chance there is that someone's behavior will affect you. When it comes to jet airliners, for example, there can be great risk to people far away from where the decision is made to allow someone to board. Such matters require a single standard over a larger-than-city area.
The same thing applies to your comment about parents. My kids aren't going to stay locked in the house all day. Other people affect them and they affect other people. I don't think they'll get much farther than the city they live in, however, which is why I think the decisions should be city-wide.
The other question is: in what ways can parents limit the actions of other people with respect to their children? I think I should have a say. Like I said before, children won't (shouldn't) be locked in a house all day. I can't be there for every purchase they make.
Anyway, there really wouldn't be much argument, however, if cities were allowed to decide for themselves. We don't have Berlin walls around our cities to keep people in. If a city is too conservative, go to a city with different standards.
The nice thing about this approach is that it allows for experimentation. Cities can learn from eachother what works and what doesn't.
When my dad grew up (b 1944), every hardware store and mass merchant sold guns and ammunition freely. Kids grew up with guns all around, got their own rifles at a young age, hunted after school, shot rats at the dump, you get the idea - they were everywhere. How many mass shootings occurred then??
Well maybe not so mcuh in 1944, but if you go back a few more years the answer would be quite a few. The fact is that mass slayings are extremely rare today, but were not uncommon in the pre WW-2 period.
Case in point: 1921, Tulsa OK. Armed mob storms the black section of town, killing 35 people, injuring over 800, and burning 35 city blocks to the ground. Photos can be found here. While the Tulsa riots are probably the worst, they were far from unique. There were dozens, if not hundreds of riots like this. This is not to mention thousands and thousands of garden variety lynching, which continued to be a problem well after WW2. Guns played a huge role in these situations -- it wasn't sweet reason that forced the Chinese out of Seattle in 1886. These occurances of mass violence just didn't enter our national consciousness because they were socially approved of. It wasn't that the people were so good back then that apalling gun violence didn't happen. It's just that mob murders didn't bother people too much back then if the victims were people who didn't matter.
I'll say a two things in defense of the factual basis of your arguments.
(1) If you take racially, ethnically, or religiously oriented violence out of the picture, then folks back in the good old days could reasonably be trusted with guns.
(2) People did sometimes manage to murder each other on apalling scales without guns playing a major role. In many cases where guns were used they just raised the death toll.
I pretty much support private firearm ownership. If a bunch of nervous safety freaks banned the shooting club from your local high school, I think that's too bad. But I get to these conclusions from the exact opposite direction you do. The fact is that people in the early twenty-first century are much more worthy of be entrusted with firearms than people in the early twentieth, because we've finally come to a near universal consensus that a private individual killing another person is wrong except in self-defense.
If I bought your argument that people are more violent today than they used to be, then I'd be more inclined to crack down on gun ownership.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm a decidedly non-violent person and I have no kids, but I love playing GTA: Vice City. Please let me play my violent game in peace!
-Rich
If giving information that could be used by real criminals was really fun and exciting, then it'd be in there, but it isn't, so it's not.
I dont want to get off track, but its true, games and movies can not teach you how to open a car without keys, make bombs or explosive devices, etc. Is not because is fun or exciting or not. It really is forbidden.
Take a hard look into any action movie, when you see the hero in a shoot opening a lock or making a bomb with home devices he never "explains" what he is doing no matter who is around. "the proper mix of chemicals and some luck" is probably the only thing he would say.
I think (Im not sure) in the late 50's a racist book called "the vigilante" explained on detail how and why it was needed "to take actions" against ethnic groups, it had all from directions of ethnic groups to kidnap and assasination techniques (I wish I was kidding) unfortunately at least one assasination did took place, so the author ended up in court his book got banned and eventually he was found guilty (of crime conspiracy I think) and even ended up in jail.
Since then is forbidden to explain (teach) techniques that could be used for crime in entertainment. They even made a movie about this case (which is where I learn from it). Thats the same reason why sites with anti-ethnic material or (real) crime related material (bomb fabrication, guns, drugs) are not allowed in the internet and are "underground".
My point is that games are not as "uncensored" as the media makes us think. Theres a lot of censoring and common sense applied to any game that goes mainstream, actually if a movie like the "godfather" didnt existed, probably GTA wouldnt have existed either.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Testing new sig.
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
There is nothing wrong with having violent video games because if they are appropriately rated and the stores which and or rent them then there wouldn't be a problem. Stores are not supposed to sell games rated "M" for mature which means stores are not supposed to sell those games to minors, because these games are made by adults for adults. If parents do not want their children playing these games then it is their responsibility to find out which stores are selling these games to their kids and not get angry at the companies that make them. I have played all of the GTA games and at no point have I ever felt like going outside and running over people or paying prostitutes for sexual favors.
Sincerely MonkeysKickAss
MonkeysKickAss
That makes so much more sense now. Thanks!
Fuckin' GOP trying to brainwashing me.
Saves us the bother.
"descrimination based on race, however, is another matter and those references should be removed."
That would insinuate that -only- one group was singled-out. They weren't. Haitians, Cubans, Blacks, Whites.. everybody has their own gang(s) in GTA3 & VC. There was no "discrimination" beyond the misguided perceptions of the Haitian and Cuban activists.
I know everyone would like to just pretend that gangs (and their inherant rivalries) don't exist; imagine they were just made up by Rockstar for their game(s), but that sadly is not the case.
If the Haitian, Black, Cuban, etc whiners want to avoid things like that, they should focus on the -real- problem (i.e. -real- gangs, -really- killing each other), not some imaginary, exaggerated (though not by much) part of a -video game-.
DL
This link could be interesting:
/ in dex.html
www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/08/limiting.lawsuits.ap
This could help the industry in fighting future litigation. Don't forget to remove the space.