Slashdot Mirror
The Social Impact of Gaming
"The Bart, The" writes "The Economist weekly is carrying a well considered special report on the current debate regarding morality and gaming." From the article: "Like rock and roll in the 1950s, games have been accepted by the young and largely rejected by the old. Once the young are old, and the old are dead, games will be regarded as just another medium and the debate will have moved on. Critics of gaming do not just have the facts against them; they have history against them, too."
Disclaimer: I'm an "old-fart" - had my 40th birthday two years ago ... ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
End of discussion.
Does this mean civilization will eventually accept all sorts of things it rejected before? I agree that many critics of Gaming do not have the facts on thier side. However the way the argument goes about history and the youth accepting things makes me wonder. Will society inevitably accept things which are not benificial simply because the youth accept it?
While people who were never really exposed to video games do tend to reject or fail to understand them, video games have now infiltrated our culture to the point where it spreads (in some form, anyway. Progress WILL change the face of video gaming as time passes) across the following generations. I doubt we will see the death of video games within even the next 200 years. ...assuming we don't let ourselves be pushed around by old and scared individuals like Jack Thompson.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
"Filthy" novels, pre-code movies, comic books, Rock 'n' Roll, TV, video games... It's just a long line of easy "moral" targets for politicians to act like they're solving something instead of dealing with the actual problems.
And it works, generation after generation.
that killing people is so much fun.
Heh! The media has finally given me a name: "Digital Native". I kind of like it. Lot better than "Baby Boomer" or "Gen X'er", especially since I was kind of between the two.
John
I am relatively young, and I don't really play games. I'm in my mid 20's now and I see my younger cousins play games. If kids could go out and have sex, they wouldn't be playing video games that portray sex. If my cousins could go out and just have sex regularly, they wouldn't be stuck indoors playing GTA.
The correlation that the "think of the children" groups talk about is that...it just runs the opposite way.
Good grief. Please not another flame war about GTA and sex vs violence. Let's talk about how gaming improves motor skills, problem solving, quick thinking and working in teams.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
...games don't have that same rebelious feeling about them that rock music has. You can devote your life to rock and roll and there is a glamour to it. The same cannot be said for video games.
John Carmack will never, ever be regaurded the same way that John Lennon is.
Games, while becoming more acceptable socially, are never going to be regaurded as "cool" like rock.
then I have to wonder- are we going to be the same way, or are we going to be a generation that keeps up with technology for the rest of our lives?
You don't have to dislike games in order to be a critic of their impact on society :P. .. Kids to tend to stay in a lot more than they used to, and I blame it on TV and Games ... on visual media that requires their complete attention - unlike music, which you can listen to and do something else at the same time (though some may disagree)... :)
And I'm quite sure I'll be shouting at my kids with regards to playing too many computer games or the type of games that they pick to play. I personally blame it on the consumer. No one's forcing people to buy such games. What they do hush hush... well we used to watch porn in middle school - all hush hush so our parents wouldn't find out. All the same with mature rated games.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
I know, like just this last weekend, I was with my friends and was like, "Hey, somebody set us up the bong!"
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
Once the young are old, and the old are dead
That's awesome...
Critics of gaming do not just have the facts against them; they have history against them, too."
I might agree if I knew what history they are talking about.
That the moral corrupting specter of two lines hiting a dot of Pong fame didn't destroy the social fabric of the 70s?
The answer is to abolish middle school ;)
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
These kids that play video games all day might as well be locked up in a dark cellar and have no contact with the outside world. My parents never liked me playing video games and I didn't understand why, I would still go out and play, video games weren't all that great back then (Nintendo 8bit), these days all my little brother ever does is play video games, Halo 2 and all those advanced games can really suck you in to an alternate universe. Now my Mom wants me to get him to do other stuff, I hooked him up with a bunch of D&D geeks, he meets a girl who plays D&D, this weekend I'm helping him replace the alternator on his car. I agree now that video games must be taken in moderation. I have friends, 24 year old friends, who play MMORPG's every day, they want me to play with them. Those MMORPG's are like crack!
The advantage to gaming's participatory nature is that kids and parents can play games together. PLaying games with my stepsons has actually helped to make our bond stronger. It is, after all, something that you can do for either long or short periods of time, is fun, and is shared.
At the end of the day I think that that is gaming's greatest boon.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Im not sure that the older generation rejects gaming.....Its just that they dont feel the need to become involved - and dont want to spend the time and effort learning about such new fangled things, hence a lack of interest - not rejection
Yes. Hell, most of the middle schoolers around here are half way to being potheads. Often, with age, one realizes that it isn't all that great wasting your hard earned money on something that will progressively slow your mind. Still, I know plenty of parents who don't care and even occasionally get high with their kids. Kind of sad, really.
It's a problem that I think comes up every 20-40 years: something new that changes society, and those too old to "get it".
10 years ago listening to rap music and heavy metal would get you into jail because you'd go kill people. Crime rates drop.
20 years ago playing Dungeons and Dragons would turn you into a Satan worshipper, you'd kill your parents and commit suicide. Amazingly, 99.9% of all players survived, and those who did kill themselves were in the statistical group who would have anyway.
20 years before, watching Elvis dance would turn you into a sexual deviant. Somehow, those same parents who watched Elvis's hips were able to complain about Britney Spears and her kinderslut outfits.
Reading comic books would turn you into a criminal, since it was the preferred activity of juvenile delinquents. (Or, at least the three that were studied.)
20 years before, and listening to rock and roll in general would cause kids to become pregnant just by being in the room, boys would go on rape sprees, and society would enter total decay.
20 years before that, and Glenn Miller was dangerous.
Keep going back, and every era will have something new that the older generation didn't get. The question with gaming is:
Will it follow the model of comic books, where a heavy handed fist comes down to regulate it into "kid safe"-ness, until decades later where it starts to spring again (mainly thanks to an underground movement and the explosion of interest in manga and anime)? Or will it follow rock and roll, and already be so entrenched that the Jack Thompsons and Hilary Clintons and Leibermans of the world will rage, and ten years later people will wonder what the big deal about was?
My bet is on the latter - but only if people take the time to educate each other on it. I've sat down with people who came to my office to ask me about the whole Grand Theft Auto games (they know I used to run a web site, now turned into a wiki), and I've explained the rating system, the arguments, what "Hot Coffee" is all about. And 99% of the time, they go "Oh, ok, that makes sense." The 1% of the time they're just looking to steal some of my Triscuits.
Write to your congressman. We should, in the same fashion as those who set up a web site to protest the broadcast flag, set up a similiar Political Action Committee who's whole goal is to educate politicians on the issue and send them notices when they go for "hearings" and "new laws".
If we don't, then I can see an age where the gaming industry is regulated like the comic book industry was. And that would be a huge blow to what could be a fascinating new artistic medium.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Lessons I've learned from gaming:
1) Never let your foot off the gas pedal when driving.
2) If going to war, make sure you get to handle the RPGs... that will definitely kill the enemy. What a heck, if you get blown up yourself, you can always respawn.
3) Don't trust a noob behind you when you run out of a room... you never know what he/she will do to you.
4) Cheating in games, and cheating on your wife is the same thing.
5) Always use up your money when you're in the armory... same thing with real life... you might lose it on other stuff.
And for my maners... them I picked up from Leisure Suit Larry.
The debate is still not finished concerning moving picture media in general. In fact, in art collages, and psychology classes everywhere, there is a very intense debate concerning the effects of motion pictures (including interactive ones) on the brain.
The debate the article decribes is one of popular culture, not science. Kinda like the debate concerning 'ladies' smoking cigarettes in the 19th century... we all know how that went.
However, this article did not say much, and maybe that was the point. It pretty much amounted to "Games are neither good nor bad." Not so thought-provoking, really.
What the article may achieve, partly by being so unopinionated, is a moderation of the hype we get from Hilary (I think she's making shameless use the Tipper playbook here, btw) and other "experts" about games and the way they affect players. Given that the typical reader of The Economist is not a gamer, the message fits the intended audience.
Still, I thought that there was far less content about MMORPGs than there should have been. The economic and social implications of these titles are complex enough to merit further study/examination. It's to the point in most "mainstream" rags that the entire genre gets expressed by the example of "The Sims". Maybe they're saving that for a later article.
Yup, totally unfulfilling. Mildly informative to a non-gamer, but pretty milquetoast on the whole.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
As a gross generalization, slashdot has people belonging to two crowds that frequently overlap: 1) technically proficient (relatively), and 2) young, very "liberal", and occasionally anarchist.
I predict that a lot of the slashdot crowd is against things like corporations, money, etc because they're still in college and don't have money or employment. I predict that, like the 60's flower children who turned into the 80's "Me generation," as soon as the money's there, their tune will change. They will become more conservative, it happens with every batch of college kids. Remember, the "old people" we're talking about being conservative used to march in peace rallys, throw rocks at cops, burn bras, etc. Now they fight the first amendment. It's almost ironic if it weren't sad.
As far as technology, some will keep up with the "new thing," some won't.
Regardless, the next gen of young people won't espouse slashdot, because they'll make/find their own thing. I predict that slashdot's membership will grow older, and much of it will move on.
The young became old and gave us Parental Advisory stickers to put on certain music packaging. Of course the sticker is worn like a badge of honor, but that's beside the point.
-- Boycott Shell
These kids now have an alternate form of entertainment and something to do with their free time other than join a gang or wander the streets causing or looking for trouble.
Another aspect is that some games can serve as a stress release valve for people. If I'm feeling really stressed out to the point that I almost want to choke someone I can pop in my copy of GTA and take it out some virtual people or property. I honestly believe that I've become a less violent person after playing through the GTA games because I had a virtual world where I could release my anger and agression that wouldn't result in any harm to real people.
For every stupid person who comits a crime and blames GTA or some video game, just think of how many crimes that same video game might have prevented.
A lot of hippies grew up to become a bunch of scared, reactionary parents who want to state to absolve them from responsibility. Are for the drug war, and lie to their kids about all the sex they had and dope they smoked. Bush and Clinton did the toot and smoked the dope and had the sex and they are more than willing to ruin the young generation with crap laws. Many liberals grew up to become republicans, fewer grew up to become libertarians. I hope you are right and times will change, but I have every reason to remain a cynic.
Age is just a number. Heck, I'm 38, almost 39, and I still am an MMO junkie. If it's a PC RPG, I've probably played it, and most of the FPS, as well.
I know a few folks in their 60's that play MMOs.
My father is over 75. He helped design the original hardware and software for the AWACS aircraft. He played a major role in the setting up and turning on of the first dedicated network on the Eastern side of the US. He's seriously old-school computers, the kind of guy that had a subscription to IEEE and actually read the damned thing.
Now, he plays computer games. Not the first person shooters, or other games that take more reflex speed than he can muster up, but the simplier games, like cards, Myst, and the like.
And, since he hasn't had to really do jack didly squat in the last 6 years, technically, he now calls me and asks his only kid without a college degree, what the best firewall is, etc.
He's comfortable with computers, so computer games don't intimidate him.
Now if I could just teach my mother that not everything her retirement buddies think is a funny joke needs to be forwarded on to me...
Games waste time. Games are fun.
When you get to the point in your life where your time is more valuable than the entertainment/social value you get from the game, you stop playing. That's why young people play games and old people do not: the older you get the less time you have to waste.
I'm certain games have contributed to my degrading eyesight, weight gain, back problems, strained my bladder (at times) and reduced my sperm count...possibly an intentional design feature of the games.
So, does this mean that for G4TV to finally become profitable, it'll take the death of the entire baby boomer generation? Great, that's obviously an easier challenge for them to face than the death of all the viewers who demand style and substance from their television programming! Quick, buy some Comcast shares because the money will be rolling in within the next 10-20 years...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
How about you watch bowling for columbine, and think about it for a while without taking as gospel the crap the Moore likes to feed the people who watch his films.
An interesting article at Kuro5hin.org about the -ve -ve impacts of gaming: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/8/2/184722/6207
>>games have been accepted by the young and largely rejected by the old.
games accept the young and reject the old.
However, a number of the same folks who listened to the Beatles in the '60s railed against Marilyn Manson in the '90s. Games as a medium may be more accepted in the future, but, if history is any indication, scapegoating will never die.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
Isn't this like how our generation was labelled X, yet we got some leftover values of the more conservative (not in a political sense) previous generation by reflection, parenting, education and what a certain society considers acceptable. (peer influence; you always adjust to your environment or get in an isolated position. Not all are as determined to remain the isolated position or just don't realize they're flocking as it's a normal process)
Yet, limits are constantly pushed. Remember the 'Rock and Roll' in the 50s,'60s,... It has affected how our society looks, as that yought has grown to be now the 'controlers of this society' (being parents, politicians, artists, idols, lawyers, directors, writers, as anyone else who is part of a society)
It seems that each generations' concept of which is considered normal, acceptable its limits are being pushed and people get numbed down for what previously was.
Now I do wonder wherever this is a good thing, as I see the kids these day walking around and idealizing the whole ghetto culture, reflecting of f the media which tries to profit and does so with drawing people to them with "shock value" and probes how far it can go. (turns out.. each time you can go a bit further once people are used to it)
Yet, each generations' conceptions of what is acceptable will be challenged when they grow older and look behind who's going to follow them up.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Extremly insightful.
I think some perspective required. Lennon tryed to improve humanity, he was a poet, singer, philospher. Try comparing Carmack to Ringo if you must have a Beatles reference.
The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress. Peter the Hermit, A.D. 1274
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. -- Socrates
Some things never change...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
sorry, i'm afraid that repeatedly using the coveted force-choke/push combo, to throw other players into bottomless pits in jedi knight2, is slightly different than going to see an elvis concert.
most video games now-a-days are akin to going to see a GWAR concert (which is worth doing btw). if GWAR had been around and doing shows in the 50's, they would have ended up in jail without a doubt.
There are three types of people in this world. Intelligent people, morons, and people too stupid to even be called morons! Hillary says stuff like this makes being a parent harder? How about, if there is a game called "Grand Theft Auto", that has been widely publicized for literally forever (since the very first versions of it) to contain very obscene stuff, and you are a religious PMRC holy roller, don't buy it for your little delinquent coke snorting brats. Get of the crack, start parenting full time, and stop crying for the community to make up for your poor parenting.
All your violence are belong to us!
If gaming has been around since the 50's, shouldn't a generation at least have 'moved on' since then and the gamer generation 'taken over'?
It hasn't, and won't. The reason why? Much like Comic books and Roleplaying games, Video games is considered to be a juvinile and/or geeky activity only. It's not something 'respectable' adults do.
The children of the 60's, are now the ones trying to get us to say all M rated games are trying to corrupt the youth and only the goverment should step in. What's wrong with that picture, I ask you?
Look, the main problem is, many adults 40+ don't understand their can be a thing, as a video game intended only for play by Adults. The Playstation 2 and xBox are only for High School kids and anything that suggests otherwise is trying to break their self molded reality! They made up rules and when we tried to show them they were wrong, they go and blame us for it. Untill we can get over that obsticle, things are going to remain difficult.
Sentack
Rock & Roll and stuff was about having fun, some drinking, some sex... And now adults accept (somewhat) that kids will do that stuff sometimes. I do not want to live in a world where killing, hitting people with cars, and constant drug use is accepted...
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Where can I find one?
Instead of "Don't trust anyone over 30", now it's "Don't know anyone without an IP address."
Unfortunately, although a plot can be scripted easily, meaningful conversations with non-player characters cannot, as there are simply too many possibilities. And AIs are hopeless for conversations, since they're basically a restricted form of the Turing test.
AIs are, however, just barely smart enough to shoot the player and get shot by the player. So in lieu of real interaction, what we get is a bunch of first-person shooter games where the only way to interact with other entities is by shooting them. Or, in sandbox games, getting a BJ from them and then shooting them.
Games seem nihilistic because they are. But it's the limited AI plus limited game designer imagination that make them so. The easiest way to get out of this trap is by improving multiplayer environments, since improving AI is so ridiculously hard.
oranges.
If violent video games created a more violent society, then internet pronography would create a more sexual society, no?
Yet look how prudish the US society has become since the 60s and early 70s.
In ancient Rome, the people were kept passive by giving them gladatorial combat to watch and get their 'violence fix'. I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that violent video games might be serving the same purpose, however unintentional?
Technoli
"How about watching "Bowling for Columbine" and think about it for a little while?"
I watched it, and then I thought how stupid Michael Moore was for naming his movie after an alleged event that did not happen (that the boys bowled before the event happened).
That and the fact that the boys wanted to blow up the school with explosives, but Moore chose to focus upon the impact of guns in our society. Had he focused on what actually impacted the two boys into their violent behavior - being picked on for years by their peers - and not on their love of games like Doom, he would've had a decent movie. Instead, he used the tragedy as a platform to rail against guns, the NRA, and Heston.
Video games did not cause Adolph Hitler nor the followers of the Nazi Party. Video games did not create Stalin. And video games did not cause the Trail of Tears. Some people are good, some people are bad. Blaming video games for criminal behavior is the new version of blaming inexcusable human behavior on Satan instead of fessing up to personal responsibility.
The two boys were ultimately responsible for their actions, but it was how they were treated by their peers that influenced them, not video games. Guns were the tools of choice they used for their terror. Although homemade explosives could've been far more effective a tool than their firearms.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
My own paraphrase since I have a shoddy memory:
Anything invented when you're 18 or younger is ordinary and natural.
Anything invented when you're 19 to 40 is new and exciting.
Anything invented when you're over 40 is evil and a crime against nature.
Sorry for mangling your quote Douglas.
Bull Shit! My parents used to have 42 tournaments at their house when I was a child in the '70's. That is a game. My grandmother was the best dominoes player I ever met. That is a game. I will bet your grand parent and great grand parent played charades. That is a game. Football is a game (both american and what we call soccer.) So is basketball, baseball, and hockey. OK so each generation comes up with new games. Big freaking deal! It is a fact that each generation is shocking to the previous. My parents danced gitterbugs and listened to jazz music. It was appaling behavior to their parents. Children today pierce their body and tatto their skin. I consider this largely juvenile behavior. Big Deal!
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Is the article discussing "gaming" as in board games, role playing games, video games, or as in the euphemism for gambling?
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Nope, sorry, doesn't work like that. The hippies haven't made dope legal. The punks haven't reduced the state's stranglehold.
What gets made law is whatever benefits the lawmakers financially or increases their power. Politicians at that level have no ideals beyond selfishness, nor can they achieve that level without ridding themselves of such ideals.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
That's not to say they would have suceeded any way. I saw a number of other kids fail out due to drinking and drugs or just sheer laziness.
I've known more than once I'd be playing a game and look up and it was 6 hours later and I had stuff to do.
From causing violance perspective, probably not. The possible need for Gamers Anonymous support groups somedays...maybe.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
... which, I'm guessing, most of us here already knew.
A long time ago, back in the ninties (i feel old...) There was a special on TV about the effects of violence on kids (be it in comics, games, movies, etc), and if they really could tell reality from the fictional.
The best part was when Todd McFarlane (known best as the creator of Spawn) had a little boy join him on stage at a press conference. He held up a spawn comic in which the cover, which had a rather bloody act being portrayed, to his face and asked him:
-"Does this make you want to kill people?"
-"No."
-"But it looks cool right?"
-"Yeah!"
-"Thank you."
I couldn't stop laughing at the looks on the reporter's faces. This debate has always been a part of our society since the 50s. Get over it people!
Nasa spent billions making a pen capable of writing in space. The Russians just use a pencil.
If we make the argument that video games/TV/music/movies can't hurt children, then how can we make the argument that glamorizing science in the movies will make kids better scientists?
In any case, it is the parent's' responsibility to raise their children and not the government. My son doesn't play any game that I have not personally checked out.
I think part of the problem in this issue is not even the politicians fault. reporters are the ones that often present a topic to the politician and insist that he/she have an opinion. If asked a question and the respond that it is a monor issue and that they are indiferent to the subject they will be lit into as apathetic to some other issue that is not even related. this caused them to be forced to take a side on everything. if this was not forced in their face I think most would just drop the issue and do like everyone else, buy the games they think the kid should have and let others buy what they want.
Force someone to have an opinion and someone will dislike it, this leads to conflict. more conflict more news time spent on it, more reports asking about it more opinions. end result one minor issue gets beat to death.
Corey
Can't wait for the current government generation to die off so we can get some gamers in there.
The bible right now is a conpendium of abherant behavior.
;-)
At other times it was a catalog.
Ostracism, literally scribing a name on an yoster shell, was one way it was handled in Greece.
Excommunication was the way to do it in the Catholic lands.
In ninth century Iceland, they had a legal system called outlawry wherein you could be declared an outlaw. That meant you were outside the rule of law. You made yourself fair game by doing unto somebody else. That meant that if anything happened to you, you were outside the protection of the law, so 'tough noogies'!
I'm sure that it could be enforced by implantable difficult/hazardous to remove RFID tags.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
In America, for example, half of the population plays computer or video games. However most players are under 40--according to Nielsen, a market-research firm, 76% of them--while most critics of gaming are over 40. An entire generation that began gaming as children has kept playing.
This rings true for me. I'll be 39 this year, and what makes that significant dates all the way back to high school. During my last year or so in HS in 1983/1984, computers were finally introduced to the students (Radio Shack Model III's, Atari 800's and a couple of Apple II's).
If I were a year older and went to school a year earlier I never would have been exposed to computers. The school at that time had them readily available to play with and my folks would never buy such an expensive "toy". I would have went on through life doing something else.
So I can easily see why the "over 40" crowd would not understand. That group would have had to wait until college for an opportunity to see a computer and probably only would if they were in the appropriate majors.
Those couple years were also the years that brought out the home computer revolution. The people who used them extensively were the kids at the time and they used them for games. Those kids would be 40 or under now.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
You're drunk and the best place you can find to be is at your computer posting on Slashdot? Shit, man, at least go out and try to pick up chicks will you?!
And what is worse, they must have ditched their hippy ethos to become employable to get money!
Or did they ALL have well-off parents?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
If what's shocking and generally socially considered "wrong" continues to degrade into the realm of acceptability and normality, then doesn't this define moral decadence, and is anyone concerned about this?
Possibly not.
But bear in mind that we will all, soon, be the old "back in my days" geezers of tomorrow's generation. When that happens, we will look at how kiddie porn and torture of the elderly for fun and profit have been made normal and socially acceptable by that generation, and shake our heads sadly. But then, when we're gone, that generation will think nothing of it.
Is this the direction we want to move in?
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
What do you mean Gaming isn't benificial? Have you looked at a video game's complexity today as compared to a game like monopoly?
Modern video games require the player to learn highly complex control sets, multi button combo commands, mission prioritization, teamwork (sometimes), and all sorts of other things that are applicable to the real world. (ever need to learn how to use a new peice of software in a few days for a job? Video games make that easier because you're used to learning new complex systems)
Furthermore, we have multiple studies proving that video games increases visual accuity, reaction time and hand eye coordination.
Just because spending hours killing aliens in a video game isn't constructive, doesn't mean that the skills you learn to do it cannot be used elsewhere in a constructive manner.
As a society, we will accept anything that we consider not detrimental to society at large. If video games make people happy, it's benificial to the society, is it not? Video games also provide many people, myself included with much needed outlets for destructive energy.
When given the choice between fantasy violence and real violence, perhaps not everyone will choose the fantasy, but it's better to have the option there for those who, without the option of fantasy violence, would opt for the real thing.
The Army and the airlines know that gaming affects behavior, as evidenced by the $ millions poured into simulator training. Decades ago they learned that time in the simulator has a measurable effect on a person's behavior in a real situation.
But, some will say, those are immersive 3-D environments, not games! Well what is modern gaming FPS gaming but a 3-D immersive environment? Sure you don't have the Cave in your living room (although I know you want it), but are you really paying attention to what's around you when you're gaming? No, you're immersed in the environment presented on your screen(s).
When I go for a drive immediately after a long session on GTA, I definitely notice a difference in my attitude toward obstacles and maneuvering. I'm not saying I'm looking for big jumps or carjacking cops, but I do think it's disengenuous to say that gaming has no effect on behavior.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, a particular civ will, once it steps onto the slippery slope, begin to accept more and more until its eventual decline.
The author compares the older members' recation to gameing with the one time reaction to rock and roll music. I've watched my perspective on this type of issue change greatly over the past 40 years or so... I guess it's really hard for whippersnapers to grasp this mo matter how slowly you expalin it to them: Rock music has heralded the decline of our society. I couldn't tell you that it was causal or symptomatic, but it bees 4 shore connected.
40 years ago I couldn't see the harm in the mop tops singing "I wanna hold yer hand", it didn't seem to be fundamentaly different that say Billie Holiday (tame by comparission). But somewhere on the path to "wants to be a freak an sell it on the weekan" our culture has turned mouldy (okay, maybe the die was cast shortly civil war). Even now it's hard for me to see a fundemental difference between none o yer business and Ain't nobody's business but yer own but there does certainly seem to be a very different level of depravity in the two.
The journey from "you are standing outside a small cottage, beside a stream" to Diablo LOD was a small step for a gamer and yet a giant leap for our collective concious. Spending hours focusing intently on images of defilement and death has got to have an effect on the minds of the young. Okay it has and effect on the minds of the aged too, but I don't know many of my peers that are willing to whereas my kids' peers are on the 10 ring of the demographic target.
The bottom line, we ain't gonna have to wait for everybody > 40 to die for games to be accepted as a mainstream media. We probably will have to for it to be accpeted as a legitimate medium for artistic expression.
You fail to see that there are games that require movement!
:-D
It's a bad logical step to say that "video games discourage movement which leads to obesity therefore video games are the cause of obesity". The reason video games discourage movement and cause obesity is because the kids WANT to be in an environment of discouraged movement. If there was a huge demand for games that you could exercise while doing (ie: Dance Dance Revolution), then obviously people would say that video games lead to healthier lifestyles. The real issue here is the way the consumer demands their games. If you change consumer behavior to lean towards healthier lifestyles (which they will never do), then you'll solve the problem of sedentary video games.
Of course, following the same idea, I would say that the obvious solution to the "problem of porn" would be to castrate the consumers so there would be no demand for porn.
You know, if videogames has such profound effects on young minds, then there would be a batch of 20-somethings running around in the dark, listening to loud repetitive music, and popping pills.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
I have found for myself that violent games can have a simmaler effect. I don't have a punching bag, but I do have a PC, so I can load a good ole FPS and have at it for half an hour and walk away feeling better.
Incidentally, this touches on one of the main arguments I have for gaming as a form of entertainment.
What we should be comparing video games to is not music, but television. Think about it- on the one hand you could sit on the couch and simply experience TV, or you could mentally engage yourself with a game, developing strategic skills, improving rection time, etc.
Granted, there are some games that aren't exactly mentally taxing, but compared to the trancelike state of TV viewing, I'd say almost any game is an improvement.
I'd really like to see more commercial games that require some real thought- Corewars anyone?
I'm a signature virus. Copy me to your signature so I can replicate, and introduce your own mutations so I can evolve.
You missed the point of the movie. Guns were the tool used to kill. Americans kill more people, per capita, than any other western society. Why? Moore argued that it is a cultural issue that Americans live in a culture of fear and too many think they are in the "wild west".
Canada has just as many guns per capita as the USA, but a much lower murder rate. In Canada guns are rarely thought of as a tool of defense against other people. Generally guns are for hunting and target practise - not protecting the homestead.
Damn whippersnappers.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
How about social impact of computing in general? I was 11 years when I started to "mess" with computers. That was in 1985. I was an extrovert before that, now I'm introvert. My social life has suffered seriously because of that and I'm not kidding.
I'm 53. Astronaut Niel Armstrong famously said "I am and will always be a pocket protector wearing nerd," and he's in his late 70s.
/.'s readers are truly nerds, especially considering that one needs a three digit IQ to be a true nerd (100 is just average), and a very high number of posts here (not yours) are obviously written by kids who ride the short bus to school.
Truth is, this is a site for nerds, not youth. However, since being a geek has become fashionable (to the amazement of us old geeks who were despised and ridiculed in our youth) thare are a lot of "geek posers" and "geek wannabes."
I'd guess that well less than half of
I'm over 40, and there were computers available to me in grade 10.
Mind you, one of them was an analogue computer.
Gotta change my .sig to "Don't trust anyone under 30."
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
I find it amusing that you would take issue with the title of the film in this conversation, when the issue of the kids bowling was specifically chosen to ridicule the placing of blame at the feet of videogame and music companies. IIRC the narration was something like "People had been blaming DOOM and Marylin Manson for the killings, so why not bowling?" Whether or not they bowled is not important to the message of the film, or that scene. I also wonder where you were during the extended period of the movie where he discredited the idea that more guns means more violence, or during the scene where he discussed high school alienation with Matt Stone (a columbine graduate). This sounds like a comment from someone who didn't see the movie, and just assumed it was a standard rant against guns.
I came here for a good argument
I'd be more worried about what kinds of people a kid might come into contact with while playing the game. I joined a clan while playing Lineage 2- one of the members was 12 or 13- seemed like a nice kid. Several others (much older) acted like complete dipshits most of the time, setting an oh-so-wonderful example for any younger members. Over time, I began to notice this kid picking up the same kinds of behavior. It was unfortunate, to say the least, and is a strong indication that parents need to keep a close eye not only on what kinds of games their kids are playing, but who they're playing them with. The internet and Teamspeak make it possible for all kinds of nasty combinations- and oddly, I've never heard this mentioned in the news.
You're overly cycnical. We will always have the worst government that we accept. The hippies accepted dope, but they also accepted a governement that made dope illegal. Anything annoying that our government gets away with, they manage because it's Not Evil Enough(TM) for people to really care.
We no longer accept a government that descriminates based on skin color, for example. We didn't round up all the muslims in America and stick them concentration camps for the duration of the War on Terror, an action which clear would have been acceptable a few generations ago.
All of the Evil our govewrnment routinely avoids isn't exactly newsworthy, but you don't have to look back very far to see the government doing things they'd never even try today. And not because the poloticians have suddenly grown ideals beyond selfishness, but becuase the line they don't dare cross has moved. And that line moves because a new generation, with a different sense of acceptability, has taken over.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I know who lennon is, don't know who Carmack is.
Video games don't affect kids. If Pac Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms munching magic pills and listening to repetitive, electronic music.
Michael Moore was actually only bringing up the video game angle to dismiss it, and the people who use it as a boogeyman, and actually is more on the side of most of the people who post here....slightly offtopic, but he was trying to understand a bigger problem here in America, and he seemed to realize that all the boogeymen(video games, rock, drugs, etc) were getting in the way of our understanding of why we feel the need to shoot each other so often. I guess people think it's bad to think about these things, but unless they will weigh in substantially and not quibble about small details(ignore the big question and focus on bowling? WTF?) they should all just STFU. At least someone is discussing it. And yes, I realize that was a runon sentence, no grammar nazis, please.
Is it possible that the more people play video games and where games are accessible to people, they will be escaping to their consoles for fun instead of out whacking hoods in real life? They should do a program and call it "Video Games for Guns"! It'll keep more people off the street having fun with their friends instead of being bored with nothing to do except crime.
Since when have the hippies/punks been the majority (even combined)?
You are right about the politicians in almost all cases though, you'll get no argument from me on that.
Uh, yeah. I'm sure Elvis thought the same thing about himself. Rock musicians of every age. I'm sure if you ask Hoobastank they probably consider themselves poet and philosophers too. So what?
The truth, musicians know fuck all about anything but broken hearts and half baked left wing theories. Of course enough drugs makes it all so much more profound.
As for the Beatles, I'll be the one to say what we all know but few will admit. They were the Backstreet Boys of their day only they couldn't dance, though they might as well have. Bowl haircuts, ridiculous suits, screaming teenage girls and stupid songs like Yellow Submarine all add up to one thing...boy band.
I grew up playing computer games, and I was basically subject to the thoughts and opinions of the artists who created them. I'm certain the games left a deep impression on me, but not at all a negative one.
One of my favorite games to play was Quest for Glory. It was a serious game in some respects, but it could also be light-hearted (and chock full of bad-but-good-humored jokes). The main theme of the story, however, was to help others. The goal was to be a hero and make peoples' lives better. In one part of the game, even, a talking fox that you help offers to give you some advice, explicitly stating that, "It pays to be polite, even to rude people." That's a life lesson that lots of RPGs have taught, I believe, even if only implicitly.
Back then, games were mostly the same. The goal was always to help someone, save someone, fight criminals, bring justice, fight abusive authorities (successfully in all cases).
I'm sure lots of games are still like this today, but games are becoming a finer art. Like literature and movies, there is a lot more grey and moral ambiguity. Either way, we need to be more careful about the kinds of lessons we teach our children. Games affected how I turned out, and I'm thankful I was playing the right ones.
you haven't waited long enough. The hippie's parents are still alive and the biggest voting block.
I'm also over 40. In my last year of high school, 79/80, I remember playing Space Invaders against guys 10-20 years my senior. I'm not much of a gamer these days. I wonder if those 50-60-year-olds are.
-- Boycott Shell
The younger a kid is, the weaker their barrier is between fantasy and reality. Calvin and Hobbes got it right--for young kids fantasy and reality are indistinguishable. The reality filter isn't fully thickened until the end of puberty--late teens to early 20's. For some people it never fully solidifies.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
You know, that drop in violent crime also mirrors, to the year for almost every state that it applies to, an adoption of "shall issue" concealed weapon licenses? (IE, if you apply and you're not a criminal, they have to give you a license.)
Gaming was common in the 1980s too, you know. Do you know anyone that didn't have an NES? I don't.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Myself I never saw the movie, but I think generally Moore has a reason to be against guns.
It is completely shocking to me that some underage kid can tell his underage girlfriend to pick up a submachine gun for him and she picks it up. She did not have to steal it or trick the salesman or obtain it illegaly, she just buys it like its a tennis racket. She would have had harder time buying a packet of cigarettes or a beer.
Sure there may be a jillion other reasons why the kids did what they did.
But frankly I am sure every body will agree that we will all be alot safer if underage kids are not allowed to buy submachine guns just like that. We keep them away from tobacco and alchohol isnt it obvious that guns are much more dangerous.
Why is this modded insightful? The OP clearly hasn't seen the film.
You should watch the HBO series from Pen and Teller called "Bullshit". They cover the point you're trying to make, and clearly show you that you're wrong, as was Moore.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
The stupid thing is that Michasel Moore isn't "against guns". He's a member of the NRA. His conclusion in Bowling for Columbine, as anyone who actually watched the movie should know, wasn't that guns are bad, but that there are serious problems with American society and fear.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Seriously Slashdot editors... this is like the 42nd dupe on this damn subject. And yes, I've commented in plenty versions of this duplicated story as I have come up with slightly different twists on how Hillary Clinton and all the other nay-sayers are wrong. But seriously, it's time to pull the plug on this frickin' story now.
Has anyone else noticed this trend? Look here:
"But as Steven Johnson, a cultural critic, points out in a recent book, "Everything Bad Is Good for You",...
I see a trend in written media: (of the magazine and newspaper and now the online "newspaper/magazine" variety) If someone writes something good, like Steven Johnson apparently has, you sell it out to every media outlet you can find so that they can resummarize and rehash your writing to make you a boatload of money in royalty fees. Yes, yes, I know that this trend isn't new - but it's just as if it's so much clearer with Mr. Johnson's book this time around. EVERY SINGLE STORY that I see on GTA:SA is mentioning this book and summarizing his research.
Slashpoop even does it with the incessant linking to Yet Another GTA:SA Sympathizer story. So my Ask Slashdot to the real "editors" of Slashdot (myself and all the other people who comment on the article submissions) is this: Where in all of God's green earth can I find a magazine/online newspaper/newspaper/or other written 'news' source that isn't beating the crap out of all these dead horses of articles???
Is there any good journalistic source left that does its OWN reporting, its OWN investigations, and its OWN writing? (Besides The Onion, of course)
If there really were a correlation between video game violence and the violence committed by players, I should be one of the worst mass murderers of all time. I don't play much GTA or FPS games, but I love strategy games. I love commanding whole armies to hack and shoot at each other. I'm still playing Rome:Total War with some frequency and I think the death count so far numbers in the hundreds of thousands (mostly my enemies). Same thing with Civilization. Soften up enemy defenses with nukes (and incidentally kill off half the civilian population) Or 4X space games, where bombarding a planet to dust is just another strategy. I've laid waste to entire civilizations and species on my computer, so if the correlation holds, I should be out committing single-handed genocide.
The thing is, Moore disproves his own point. As you pointed out, Canada has as many guns as the United States, but has a lower murder rate. So therefore the problem isn't with the guns! It's with society. Canada has proven that a society can have guns without restrictive ownership laws and still have a low murder rate.
The problem is, how do you know the difference? You can't sell guns to people who intend to hunt, but stop people who intend to kill other people. It's impossible to tell the difference. The only people restrictive gun laws save are honest people. Criminals will still kill people. You can't take away somebody's liberty to make somebody else feel a little safer.
Hell I'm 58 and I have been playing FPS since Doom. I hacked up a boosted TCP/IP stack on DOS just to get me and my son online to play Quake. Those were the days, maybe a few thousand people total, you could run into people you were playing with before all over the place. I can remember whole games dissolving into laughter after some dumb move or other and all the players kinda froze as everyone fell off their controls and typed.
... Standards and Practices !
Oh yeah it's not as much pure fun but I just loaded up Last Man Standing for Doom3 and it will be a stone hoot.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
I don't know if you ate at Enjoy up in Apple Valley when they first opened, but that was rough too. Now, we think they're great (the beef medallions -- wow!) and they have a pretty fair selection of scotch. Of course, they're priced to match.
John
Hahaha, that's my new word of the day. Shut up, you old hippyupocrite!
Underage kids aren't allowed to buy guns. You have always had to be eighteen years old to own firearms, even before Columbine. And no matter how hard you make it for people to obtain weapons, they can still be obtained illegally extremely easily. I don't think there's a country in the world where I couldn't find and purchase an assault rifle within a day, if not hours.
"Why is this modded insightful? The OP clearly hasn't seen the film."
I certainly have seen the film. Do you want my NetFlix account info so you can see that I have indeed rented the flick?
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
"Canada has just as many guns per capita as the USA, but a much lower murder rate. In Canada guns are rarely thought of as a tool of defense against other people. Generally guns are for hunting and target practise - not protecting the homestead."
Canada has less population than my State of California does and thus is more spread out throughout that geographic landmass of theirs more than here in the States so the per capita figure is meaningless. Moore tried to make the claim that Canada is even as multicultural as the United States is which I found completely laughable. Where is the equivalent to South Central Los Angeles in Toronto or Ottowa?
Stop posting as an AC and actually stand by your point out in the open.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Maybe you weren't paying attention? I don't know. You totally missed the point of the film, which is the same as *your* point.
The problems of broad-scale youth rebeliion started around 1890. Really. People mistakenly believe "look 20 years before year XXX and you'll see such and such". But they don't go back into the 19th century, and if they do, they just think the Victorian era was an aberration in a timeline of millenia otherwise consumed with sin. Sex, wars, and youth rebellion may always have been present, but not to the degree they are today.
There are two intertwined causes for this increase: technology, and the philosophy of Modernism. Both took off around 1890.
The crux of Modernism is to reject tradition -- whatever is good and proven from the past should be thrown out, and the new should be experimented with. Note that this nonsense is the opposite of the "software patterns" movement which has empirically proved itself.
The fast pace of technology empowers children, who can adapt and learn faster than their parents. That makes children since around 1890 smarter -- much smarter -- in the ways of the world than their parents. A second effect of technology was to eliminate the need for children to work with their parents, leading to constant conflict between parents and aimless children. Maria Montessori recognized this and created her method for "normalizing" children, but the public school system, a product of both technology and Modernism, has largely shunned Montessori in favor of Froebel.
I've illustrated how technology and modernism have escalated youth rebellion. Their role in escalating war is outside the scope of this post, but briefly, technology is obviously the driver behind more effective killing, and Modernism, specifically Marxism (totalitarian socialism), is the driver behind more effective empire-building (because it is intellectually seductive).
"I find it amusing that you would take issue with the title of the film in this conversation, when the issue of the kids bowling was specifically chosen to ridicule the placing of blame at the feet of videogame and music companies....This sounds like a comment from someone who didn't see the movie, and just assumed it was a standard rant against guns."
Oh, but it was a rant about the gun culture in America and guns in particular, although obscured. If your point about bowling was actually accurate, Moore would've interviewed the head of the bowling federation to get his opinion on why bowling didn't contribute to the kids shooting up their school when videogames supposedly did. But Moore didn't. He went after Charlton Heston for being the President of the NRA and for opposing any form of gun control whatsoever without an actual/factual assessment of the "slippery slope" argument used against gun control legislation based upon the successful strategies the anti-gun activists have used in other Anglo countries like the U.K. and Australia.
"I also wonder where you were during the extended period of the movie where he discredited the idea that more guns means more violence, or during the scene where he discussed high school alienation with Matt Stone (a columbine graduate)."
If the flick is supposed to be a documentary (and not a mockumentary), it should've went into detail about the typical bullying the two received throughout their high school career, and not interviewed a famous talking head just because he also graduated from the same institution. That's why I do not take it seriously and did not feel the need to mention Stone's involvement, or Manson's piece either, no matter how intelligent Manson was.
I will state that I did enjoy Moore's previous works, such as "Roger & Me," "The Big One," and "TV Nation," but starting with "Bowling," his credibility was done up as far as I'm concerned.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
American society (along with most of the rest of the western world) has undergone profound changes in the past 50 years. And these media had a lot to do with it. Rock-n-roll may not have been a communist plot, but it certainly did change our morals and values. Rap/hip-hop changed American society in much the same way in the '90s. It tells young people that you don't need to be smart, strong, or educated to be successful, you just need a gun, an extremely arrogant attitude, and a "posse".
So are games having a similar impact on western societies? I'm not sure. The gamer culture does teach kids that arrogance is better than modesty. There's no good sportsmanship in gaming. That added to the fact that it is a sedentary activity that has little to no beneficial effects on the mind.
Now before you write me off as some Bible-thumping conservative, let me say that I am not religious, and I'm only in my twenties.
"Maybe you weren't paying attention? I don't know. You totally missed the point of the film, which is the same as *your* point."
Nope. That's your opinion. I find fault with Moore's finger-pointing at America's "gun culture" as the reason why America has a higher murder rate via guns than Canada. Its a convenient excuse for gun control by pointing to our Canadian cousins as claiming they got it right. Its indirect. Its inferred.
I also completely disagreed with Moore's pandering about the evils of the welfare-to-work legislative reform and how that caused the African American child to commit violence because his mommy spent so much time traveling by bus and not supervising him and how that tragedy could have been avoided had Clinton and the Republican Congress not passed that reform and simply paid his mommy to sit at home and ensured he grew up properly.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
And if that was your point, you were well off topic, because it has nothing to do with the original article.
You are actually agreeing with what Michael Moore presents. Moore doesn't think guns, video games, violent media are to blame for Columbine any more than bowling did. Sure it has been shown that Klebold and Harris were not bowling but the effect is still in place. Saying Doom makes kids go homicidal is about as reasonable as suggesting bowling will do the same. Seeking to blame things irrationally is woven into our culture as a double whammy.
A theme in "Bowling for Columbine" is that people seeking answers are going to lash out at things they liked and gravitated towards. Violent games, guns, anti-social behavior, etc. What Moore tries to do is say its all BS. Along the way he shows some people doing and saying some odd if not funny things. Both kids like playing Doom/Quake so these things are coruptive and evil and we should stop impressionable youth from playing such things. Both kids like explosives and weapondry which is corruptive and evil and we should stop other kids from playing with such things. But wait, they both may be pretty good bowlers. Why is no one up in arms about how corruptive and destructive bowling is on impressionable youth? The truth is that Klebold and Harris liked to many things yet only a sliver is deemed destructive and evil and must be done away with to "save the kids" by a select few "leaders". Its all BS and Moore wants you to decide for yourself what the problem is instead of going along with the status quo which wants to blame the usual suspects: guns, games, media...
The real problem in the US is a high level of mistrust which permiates the entire culture all the way through highschool where it manifests itself into harsh cliques. A combination of events made a "perfect storm" of opportunity, motive, and culture which resulted in Klebold and Harris to take out their frustrations on the school. To read anything more into it is of dubious value.
Noooooo! I don't think I can ever touch a video game again :(
"10 years ago listening to rap music and heavy metal would get you into jail because you'd go kill people. Crime rates drop."
The arrival of Gangsta Rap coincided with a huge boost to the murder rate among young Blacks, and played an important part in crack culture. (Nothing big, just a slight trebling of the 14-17 yr murder rate...) Massive imprisonment of young blacks, combined with pure burnout eventually depressed murder rates again, of course.
As for the issue at hand, computer game nerds have such a low baseline level of violence that any increase in aggression, etc. would most likely occur below the criminal threshold.
Any actual increase in criminality among nerdy white boys would be hugely drowned out by the crime machines among American youth: Black and Hispanic youth.
Sigh ... finally Mod Up eh'
...young people watch movies a lot more than old folks, which is why most movies are targeted to 14-year-old boys.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I live up in Canada, and while I don't know anything about South Central LA - having never been there - if you want a high concentration of a single ethnic group (as I suspect you are implying), then Surrey in British Columbia might qualify. It has a very high Ethnic Sikh/East Indian population much as neighbouring Richmond has a high Ethnic Chinese population.
:)
ALthough there is increased violence in Surrey, mostly gang and drug related violence and its more violent that most other Canadian communities I can think of, it does seem to be on a much lower scale than in the US.
I think its simply that you people in the US *like* to shoot each other more than we do
Personally I can only think of one of my friends who owns a firearm, although many are quite comforable firing one I have no doubt. The typical Canadian household doesn't have a firearm of any sort in it I would expect.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Comparing Rock 'n Roll to Gaming is like comparing Marijuana to Crack.
socities they were speaking of 50 years later?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just wait till the US economy tanks and the currency soars of hyperinflation, oil goes to $400pb and your power grid goes out and rangers are guarding walmart/foodmart from thieves.
GTA X 10 will be real life.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Well, musically rock sucks, the girls suck but thats a good thing ;) coz they are easy.
Rock is so old hat, techno/rave 3 day parties shit all over 2hr rock concerts.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Games offer a level in interactivity never offered before in history as an entertainment medium that the person involved isn't actuallydoing what they are pretending to do.
where as music has been part of human history for many many eons.
To compare games where the the characters have square edges and the sounds are clearly artificial(i.e games of the 80's/90's) to the games that have came out in the last 5 years is also a poor measure.
What we are finding out about how the brain responds to these stimili is pretty interesting.
I don't know if games create a better or worse society, if they make you violant. WHat I am sayg that comparing them to other mediums is wrong, and that we are just not getting to the point in game technology where we should start seeing some impact, is any. NOt 10 years ago.
FOr the record I am over forty, and I am a 1st generation gamer. I am not blaming games for societies ill's, and I am not a ludite.
I am pointing out the studiesn that are being conducted on how the brain responds to games(and TV) needs further consideration and study.
Finally, many people will grab hold of this and use it as a line between us and them.
Bad news, kids todays have nothing new. Sad but true.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How about the inherent Zen nature of Nethack? Nothing teaches you to detach yourself from material possessions like having your fully equipped lvl 27 wizard suffer YASD.
"If the flick is supposed to be a documentary (and not a mockumentary), it should've went into detail about the typical bullying the two received throughout their high school career, and not interviewed a famous talking head just because he also graduated from the same institution. That's why I do not take it seriously and did not feel the need to mention Stone's involvement, or Manson's piece either, no matter how intelligent Manson was."
But the film wasn't merely about Columbine. Columbine was used as a stepping stone to address the larger issue: why there are so many gun-related deaths in America. I agree that he could have spent more time on the kids background, but most gun violence doesn't come from kids shooting up thier schools.
" If your point about bowling was actually accurate, Moore would've interviewed the head of the bowling federation to get his opinion on why bowling didn't contribute to the kids shooting up their school when videogames supposedly did."
But it would have made him look as ridiculous as the people who interview videogame makers and ask them if their games kill people, wouldn't it? The idea that bowling kills is not something anyone could take seriously and making the statement shows just how ridiculous arguments that games or music kills really are.
I will agree with you that he purposely set out to attack the NRA and its credibility. But that certainly is not outside the bounds of what a documentary is allowed to do. After all, he did the same thing with GM in "Roger & Me", and in countless other documentaries (especially the best ones), the director pushes you to certain conclusions about his subjects. Watch Capturing the Freidmans, a doc which paints a sympathetic portayal of two convicted child rapists, questioning if they were even guilty. It, like Bowling for Columbine is an indictment of the hysteria produced by the media after a tragic story breaks.
On a less argumentative note, I haven't heard about gun legislation in the UK or Australia (most articles tend to focus on the US laws). What has the effect of gun legislation been in those countries?
I came here for a good argument
I love playing games. I play them all the time. I play 15-30 hours of games almost every week.
Why do I do this?
It's more fun than going down to the bar.
It's more stimulating than watching crap TV shows and lame sports events.
It's more enjoyable than just about any of the thousands of other activities that are available to me.
I'm young, I can afford to buy new games every few weeks at $50 a pop. Think of all the money I save not going to clubs and bars and movie theatres, just by staying home and playing games.
So sayeth the D&D-playing mouth-breather that submitted the story. Heh.
Where is the equivalent to South Central Los Angeles in Toronto or Ottowa? I don't want to burst your bubble but maybe this will help:
e nt=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q= ethnically+diverse+city+North+America&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hs=D8V&hl=en&lr=&cli
Top two matches, Toronto is quite diverse.
someday John Carmack will be dead to.
Joke aside...
"Games, while becoming more acceptable socially, are never going to be regaurded as "cool" like rock."
nope. More and more people who are 'cool' are playing games. If the 'cool' people(as regulated by the media) then playing games will be cool.
Just like playing music can be cool...building the instraments not so much.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I child is raised by more then just her parents.
I raise my children, but I do not raise the children they go to school with.
Should there be no guidline for appropriate beavior?
If violent games did make people more violent, or just not able to tell the difference between reality and game, then my child would not be safe.
YOu can't add something to society without effecting the whole.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I was in a bar with some friends the other night when a drunk started to get aggressive. I stepped forwards, back, left, right, jump, jump AND NOT A SINGLE THING HAPPENED!
Those in the 1950s who said that the new fun-loving, un-restricted and hedonist attitude of Rock'n Roll would turn society into a Gomorrah where all vices are worshipped and nobody gives a damn about Christian morals and family values were right!
Please look around you folks.
That said I don't believe that gaming will increase violence. You just can't compare these things. 50s Rock'n Roll was the beginning of a social revolution that lead to a world where people support stuff like gay marriage. Gaming is just a new form of entertainment without any drastic social impact.
Well yeah, raves are great except for the fact that techno sucks ass.
John Carmack will never, ever be regaurded the same way that John Lennon is.
Haven't you heard of John Carmack style glasses? Instead of a watermarked peace symbol, it's a Quake logo
You complain about the author's bias, but it seems to me you read the article with quite a bit of bias of your own.
That's a heck of a lot of gamers that don't seem to fit your model. I myself am one of those people. I am 32, and have an extremely demanding job, a family, a mortgage, and 2 car payments, etc. You're absolutely correct in assuming that time has become more precious to me, but if anything, that only makes me appreciate video games more , not less. The same is true for all of my interests and hobbies.
"Filthy" novels, pre-code movies, comic books, Rock 'n' Roll, TV, video games... It's just a long line of easy "moral" targets for politicians to act like they're solving something instead of dealing with the actual problems.
Politicians target these things that you mention as a means of responding to the social expressions of the time. There will always be a pull between the generations of that which is "old" and "new". What the new generations create as expression and expiramentation, or what they repackage as new, is what's important to examine.
People are just as amazed listening to Led Zeppelin now as they were 35 years ago. 35 years from now Counter Strike will be just as amazing. Why is this you ask? Because we love it. It lets us say what we want to say when we want to say it. It provides an outlet for the creativity a generation dies to express and experience.
Listening to Immigrant Song while getting headshots, Stairway To Heaven while exploring a new map, and getting knife kills with Kashmir in the background are moments which transcend. Any CS players out there know what I'm talking about?
Well, I was also playing arcades back in elementary school. For me, the jump from arcade machines to computers was pretty significant.
Come to think of it, in 8th grade ('79/'80), my Jr. high school had a Radio Shack Model I and a tape drive. The school didn't know what to do with it and it just sat there unused in a math class - we did know what to do with it. We fired up Dancing Demon, Star Trek and Battle of Midway.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Pacman.
Pacman + a few words of what you remembered + Google =
"Video games don't affect kids. If Pac Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms munching magic pills and listening to repetitive, electronic music."
Gaming will continue. Many people still listen to rock and if it dies, then people will not stop listen to music, but they listen to something else such as Hip-Hop or trance.
Movies havent died out, now have they?
Neither will games.
Peer group can certainly influence behavior - but I'd remember that there's a certain age when kids start WANTING some things to happen.
Cliques, exclusion, teasing, fights, being nasty to one another - these things don't just fall out of the sky. Even if you put kids in tightly controlled environments, they still occur.
As for a child's behavior devolving online, hile some of it is emulation of those they think are cool, a lot of it is "you know, that's how I've felt for a while, I just didn't know how to express it."
IS IT a new medium on a par with film and music
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ico
If people actually research when they wrote articles. According to the ESA the largest group of game players lies between the ages of 18 and 49.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
Mainstream press still believes videogames are made and played by 15 year olds in their parent's basements.
Techno is a lot better than what passes for rock these days. I could probably fit all the good rock songs from 2004 on one CD, and leave enough room for a nice trance mix or two.
>>It's a problem that I think comes up every 20-40 years: something new that changes society, and those too old to "get it". According to the September 2005 AARP Magazine: "The average video game player is 30, and 19 percent are 50 or older, up from 9 percent in 1999." Further: "And online, women over 40 rule, spending more hours playing games than even geeky teenage boys do, according to research firm Digital Marketing Services." Apparently the only people who don't get it are the dead and I understand that there are companies out there looking to develop interface devices for them too. Note: some economists believe crime rates dropped because of the increased rates of abortion. "Freakonomics". Levitt.
Once the young are old, and the old are dead, games will be regarded as just another medium and the debate will have moved on.
You can't count on this happening forever, life-extension technology may be around the corner. Technological and societal progress may come to a standstill because the ideology of the generation that embraces immortality will be frozen forever- they won't have many kids and they be too entrenched to let the new generation change things. The new generations will have to move to far off colonies outside of the grasp of the hyper-conservatives.
Extremely insightful and interesting.
Gee, I think there is one more thing wrong in America - people just don't listen to what others say.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Ooooh, evil Canada doesn't have ghettos with a history of racial segregation - they are not multi cultural.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
No, he is talking about the "violence culture" of America, and the fact that if you mix it with a "gun culture" you get trouble.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck