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.
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.
"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!
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.
I can't believe you're linking beating children to warfare.
Your logic seems to be - if you beat children, they will go to war in the future and only the teaching of violence leads to war.
There are a couple of fallacies with that. The basic one is that wars haven't stopped. The US, the UK and other developed countries where parents are discouraged from smacking their children around are still willing to use violence to protect their interests. Vietnam. The Falklands. Grenada. Panama. The Gulf I and II. Etc. etc. They just haven't met an opponent strong enough and that they were willing to take on, to cause a world war. The Soviet Union was too powerful too fight in a warm war but there was still a cold war with plenty of of proxy violence.
The other fallacies include the facts that kids are violent little sods even without any adult schooling in the ways of violence and that violence seems to be an inherent characteristic of mankind that cannot be educated away.
If your grandchildren can't understand why you sniped Germans (to stop Hitler turning the world into a nightmare, to save people from the gas chambers, etc. etc.), then you might want to have a little talk with them about ethics and self-defence.
Also - take a look around you. Most people believe in the US believe violence is justified by national needs.
*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.
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
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.