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?
"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.
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
The correlation that the "think of the children" groups talk about is that...it just runs the opposite way.
...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.
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 take it you don't live in Arkansas?
John
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
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
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.
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.
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*
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
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.
"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*
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.