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.
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
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.
"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
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.
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 !
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!
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.
Except that when guns were more common we didn't have these types of actions, it's not the device but something in the people.
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?
When I grew up, they were more restricted - the 68 GCA had passed barring under 18 sales and limiting firearms dealers. My friends still hunted after school sometimes and several trucks in the high school parking lot would have a rifle in the back window. Shooting comps were not an activity where I lived but they existed. Again, how many shootings were there in that timeframe?
OK, flash forward to todays school kids. We have zero tolerence on "weapons" in schools - kids have been suspended for bringing butter knives. Rifle Team - long gone. Thanks to the brady bunch and PETA hunting isn't allowed to be mentioned. Even think about firearms in school and you'll probably be expelled. Hell, kids are disciplined for pointing their fingers at each other and yelling "bang".
By your standards, since we've taken huge steps to eliminate the "gun culture" today the streets of 1944 should have run red with blood while today kids should be playing marbles or some other non violent game.
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
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.
"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."
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.
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.
*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.
Especially telling was the large amount of time he spent contrasting Canada with the US. We're exposed to the same games, same movies, and the same media, but shootings are murders are all but a fraction of that in the US (even comparing similiar sized towns, adjusting for population, and such).
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
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 (=
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.