Videogame Mythbusting

AsiNisiMasa writes "MIT professor Henry Jenkins has an essay over at pbs.org that debunks eight common myths about videogames. It covers not only the topic of violence, but gender and expression as well. This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively." From the article: "1. The availability of video games has led to an epidemic of youth violence. - According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers -- 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play."

Comments

OMG Violent Youth Play Video Games!

[Kelson]

This argument always struck me as being as intellectually honest as claims that Dihydrogen Monoxide was frequently found in terminal cancer tumors. Once you realize that they're talking about water -- which is found in normal tissue -- you realize it's a meaningless claim. Similarly, if you actually think about the fact that most teenagers (or at least most teenage boys) play video games without shooting down their classmates, you start to realize that the games->violence claims are similarly bogus.

It's nice to see someone actually looking at the issue and noting that gaming and violence actually show an inverse correlation. I've always thought I'd rather someone go home and blow off steam playing Doom, Quake, GTA whatever instead of getting into fights or bottling it up until they do something drastic.

Violent game laws

[Roj Blake]

This seems like a well thought out and logical article. But unfortunately it will probably fall on deaf ears for those who support Hillary Clinton's cause to ban games she doesn't personally approve of.

Re:Violent game laws

[kailoran]

Yeah, it's like the Slashdot crowd mods TFA '+5 (Insightful)', but H.C. just says '-1 (Offtopic)' since it doesn't fit her point of view.

Re:Violent game laws

[westlake]

This seems like a well thought out and logical article. But unfortunately it will probably fall on deaf ears for those who support Hillary Clinton's cause to ban games she doesn't personally approve of

The political focus remains on the marketing and sale of adult content to minors and the integrity of the ratings system:

"I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids can't walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content." Hillary Clinton

Mrs. Clinton has shown she can win both the inner city and the suburbs. She is a successful centrist Democrat who has helped to drive a state Republican Party into chaos.

Re:Violent game laws

[Minna Kirai]

support Hillary Clinton's cause to ban games she doesn't personally approve of

It's doubtful that this is really her cause, or that she particularly dislikes those games.

Instead, Hillary has made a political judgement that borderline-Republican voters might be attracted enough by these proposals to get her into higher office, to fight for the things she REALLY thinks are important (health care, tax rate, nation-building, pollution, abortion, etc). The game thing is just a smoke screen.

Her recent support for criminalizing flag-burning is similar: a transparent bid to trade some of her beliefs for a little electability.

Re:Violent game laws

[FredMenace]

It's doubtful that this is really her cause, or that she particularly dislikes those games.

Instead, Hillary has made a political judgement that borderline-Republican voters might be attracted enough by these proposals to get her into higher office, to fight for the things she REALLY thinks are important (health care, tax rate, nation-building, pollution, abortion, etc). The game thing is just a smoke screen.

Her recent support for criminalizing flag-burning is similar: a transparent bid to trade some of her beliefs for a little electability.

And as a result, some Democrats will stop supporting her (like me). This is why the Democrats have done so poorly in recent years: they don't stand for anything (and thus don't really represent anyone) and gain precious few converts from the Republican side anyway. If Hillary wants to espouse Republican views, she should switch parties.

Re:Violent game laws

[faloi]

The political focus remains on the marketing and sale of adult content to minors and the integrity of the ratings system:

Which is all fine until you get into specifics. What constitutes graphic violent content? The titles that are already rated Mature? Why center on video games, and not movies or TV? Because Hollywood helps pay your bills, and the games industry doesn't?

Most retailers refuse to sell AO rated games already (I don't know of a major chain that sells them, and none of the smaller stores in town do either). The rest have some policies in place that restrict the sale of rated "M" games to adults. Very similar to what movie theaters do to restrict admission into "R" rated movies. Codifing some sort of restriction on what video games can be sold to who only serves to help add another layer of buerocracy into our government.

If she wants to empower parents to control what their kids are playing, perhaps she should spend her time encouraging parents to take the time to parent their children?

Re:Violent game laws

[Minna Kirai]

And as a result, some Democrats will stop supporting her (like me).

I wonder which state you live in. If it's a "Blue" state (instead of Red or Purple), then she didn't need you anyhow. The Democratic candidate will have a virtual lock on places like CA, MA, and NY. Fewer than 20% of voters reside someplace in any doubt.

This is why the Democrats have done so poorly in recent years: they don't stand for anything

The Republicans don't stand for anything either- they just manage to sound more sincere when they lie about it (or take a stand on minor cultural issues that they really can't effect anyhow).

and gain precious few converts from the Republican side anyway

Dem strategists are hopeful that Bush's torrent of mistakes will still be remembered two years from now, which could shake loose many centrist voters.

Post rebuttle here.

[Lord Bitman]

I hate all one-sided arguments, even when I agree with them. Yeah, everyone here knows that "video games linked to violent behavior" really means "violent people enjoy violent games too" (this is just an assumption, but cannibals probably enjoy steaks)

But what's the line-by-line rebuttle for all this? This article has no place on slashdot because it tells us things we already knew. What are the contradictions to this: the things we don't neccessarily know?

Re:Post rebuttle here.

[Red Flayer]

"This article has no place on slashdot because it tells us things we already knew. "

You must be new here.

Seriously, though, this is an article that you would do well to send on to people who may not be avid readers of slashdot. There is so much FUD from the other side going around, it's important that people are aware that so much of what they are hearing is just FUD propaganda.

And it doesn't hurt that HJ is an MIT Professor -- his opinions will carry more weight with Joe Parent than mine or yours.

Re:Post rebuttle here.

[porcupine8]

I have to agree - however, given that this article is basically intended as a rebuttal to all the anti-video game stuff you see in the media, you have to expect it to be one-sided. The implication is that the other side of the argument has already been presented, in countless newspaper articles and CNN interviews.

Of course, knowing some of Henry Jenkins' work (which I do really like) and having taken a class from him, I think that he does tend to be a little one-sided overall on this issue, not just in this article. But that happens a lot when people are trying to defend an unpopular view and the masses are against them.

Re:Post rebuttle here.

[Lord Bitman]

"redundant" eh? someone isnt sorting correctly.

Objective?

[TheWanderingHermit]

This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively.

In other words, "This is my opinion, and I think I'm intelligent and well educated and reasonable, so, of course, I don't see any bias when I say that is what ALL reasonable and educated people should think. It's reasonable and educated because it agrees with my point of view."

While there aer good points, there are good points for other points of views. Just because this article says what you want to hear does not mean that other opposing points of views aren't also help and supported by reasonable and educated people.

There's always at least two sides to any discussion and if you think there is only one valid side, then perhaps you missed something in your education.

Re:Objective?

[thatguywhoiam]

There's always at least two sides to any discussion and if you think there is only one valid side, then perhaps you missed something in your education.

NO. No no no no. There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right. You've been watching too much cable news.

While there aer good points, there are good points for other points of views. Just because this article says what you want to hear does not mean that other opposing points of views aren't also help and supported by reasonable and educated people.

True enough; but in the absence of compelling (researched, fact-checked) counter-argument, the opinion stands. So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.

Re:Objective?

[Swordsmanus]

True enough; but in the absence of compelling (researched, fact-checked) counter-argument, the opinion stands. So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.

But hey, if you do take a lazy and baseless but oppositional position in slashdot, then you'll get modded up for being insightful!

Re:Objective?

[TheWanderingHermit]

There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right.

Where did you get the idea someone has to be right? There is room for understanding and different viewpoints in much more than you think.

You've been watching too much cable news.

No, I've just learned it from life experience and watching and working with people over and over.

Oh, and realizing that you can't blame one source (like cable news) for facts or ideas you don't like, don't believe, don't want to hear, or don't know how to cope with.

So you telling me to not take the article at face value, while offering nothing in response, leaves me where I started.

Actually, that is not what I was telling you. My point is one of bias and to point out that when AsiNisiMasa (a quote from one of my favorite films, btw) writes: "This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively" he is showing his own bias (likely without realizing it) by lauding the people that come up with research to support his point of view, and also, in the same shot, implying those who disagree are not reasonable and educated.

Yes, there are other points of view, and they have been mentioned on Slashdot before, but my point wasn't to bring those up, but to point out that praising one point of view and, in the same context, indicating this is what educated people will think, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of life and truth and, in this case, research.

That is the point you completely missed.

Re:Objective?

[Irish_Samurai]

NO. No no no no. There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right. You've been watching too much cable news.

You know the story about the blind guys describing an elephant. One guy touches a leg and says it's like a tree, another the trunk and says its a snake and so on. Well, all of them are right.

The same applies to this subject. People ARE affected by the media they ingest, to what degree and how much of a problem it is are yet undefined. Some video game content has the player emulate actions that some people would consider immoral and is clearly defined as illegal in most places. Based on these points you have three major camps:

• People who don't care about the content or who ingests it. I perceive this group as comprised mostly of people who personally enjoy the content.
• People who do not want to stop the content from being produced, but would like to make sure that children do not get a hold of it. This group would like to see a more critical or comprehensive rating scale. They would also like to see parents pay more attention. This group seems to include people who like and people that dislike the content.
• People who think the content is horrible and and want to stop it from being created in the first place. Not a shocker that these people find the content repulsive.

Now, according to your argument, two of these groups are wrong. There is no way to make that call here without injecting your perspective as a fact. Every one of these camps has "fact" to back up their argument and counter arguments for the other two positions. There is no clear and absolute truth of the matter as far as we know.

I'm not arguing your point that without comprehensive facts you're left with opinion, because I agree. I just think it's more important to find the truth than to "be right". In most of the cases where I have found the truth, it required me to let go of the concept of "I'm right, they're wrong."

Re:Objective?

[thatguywhoiam]

Where did you get the idea someone has to be right? There is room for understanding and different viewpoints in much more than you think.

At first I didn't know how to respond to this at all. What do you know about how I think?
anything? Now thats some powerful relativism. (I kid. Sorta.)

If we are to use the example given in the article, the MIT professor who is mostly defending video games against the alleged harmful effects, he would be 'right' if put in opposition to someone like Jack Thompson. Mr. Thompson claims that video games can cause violence in children, and states flawed (and probably politically motivated - but I can't prove it, lets leave that alone) studies to prove his point. I won't get into unpacking his argument here. But I think it is safe to say that the MIT Prof debunks a significant number of them. Violence amongst youth declining to a 30-year low for example. Another: carjackings have plummeted in North America since Grand Theft Auto 3 appeared. Those are things you can point to and say yes, the facts support it, the MIT guy is right. That's what I mean.

Oh, and realizing that you can't blame one source (like cable news) for facts or ideas you don't like, don't believe, don't want to hear, or don't know how to cope with.

Gee, thanks for the lesson. *rolls eyes*

Actually, that is not what I was telling you. My point is one of bias and to point out that when AsiNisiMasa (a quote from one of my favorite films, btw) writes: "This is what happens when reasonable people with an education tackle the subject objectively" he is showing his own bias (likely without realizing it) by lauding the people that come up with research to support his point of view, and also, in the same shot, implying those who disagree are not reasonable and educated.

Look, I agree in that I think this happens a lot. Groupthink is a powerful thing, educated or no. But you cannot just leap from there to 'everything is relative to everybody'. It is intellectually lazy and it does nothing to further the discussion. Indeed, why talk about anything if all reality is in the eye of each beholder? Kind of pointless. Unless I misunderstand you. Again.

Yes, there are other points of view, and they have been mentioned on Slashdot before, but my point wasn't to bring those up, but to point out that praising one point of view and, in the same context, indicating this is what educated people will think, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of life and truth and, in this case, research.

No, I get it. But there was research in the article. Very cursory and brief, but it was there.

You do understand the absurdity of you arguing with me about whether or not there is a right and wrong... right?

Re:Objective?

[thatguywhoiam]

Now, according to your argument, two of these groups are wrong. There is no way to make that call here without injecting your perspective as a fact. Every one of these camps has "fact" to back up their argument and counter arguments for the other two positions. There is no clear and absolute truth of the matter as far as we know.

I disagree, vehemently. Because we are not talking about what these groups of people think of the games, what their opinion is. We are talking about the alleged behavioural/social harm that is being inflicted by this entertainment - and the rule of laws governing the production and sale of these things.

Now, I made no such argument. My quote was: "There are not always two sides." What I meant was, sometimes, you can look at the facts and know who is right about a given argument. I do not believe that everything is truly, practically, relative. And yes, of course everyone is free to interpret the facts the way they see fit; this no more makes then right than anyone who is ignorant of said facts. I mean this is the whole Enlightenment thing, right? We bow to reason? So I would submit that by my argument any one of your three examples (well-defined I might add) could be proven right or wrong; the point is that you can make that judgement given the right set of facts. If the facts are truly unattainable (or incomplete), as in metaphysics or string theory or whatnot, then it stays in the realm of debate. In this case, the question is: do video games cause increased violent activity in children. No serious study - and I am aware of the bad ones - supports this assertation in any meaningful way. It just isn't there, to the best of our knowledge so far. That's all you can ask for.

A brief diversion here. I believe in constructive argument. I try to hold it in my mind, even now as I type this, that you possibly have an excellent point and I am missing some fundamental understanding of the argument. I think a lot of people (most) argue mindlessly, just forever defending themselves at any cost, and that is totally counterproductive. It is important to keep an open mind. Having said all that, where do you stop? If someone is standing there and literally telling me the sky is red, and I'm saying Ok, In Your World Its Red, is that not just basic intellectual dishonesty?

Re:Objective?

[Irish_Samurai]

Having said all that, where do you stop? If someone is standing there and literally telling me the sky is red, and I'm saying Ok, In Your World Its Red, is that not just basic intellectual dishonesty?

I think I may have misinterpreted your original statement. I agree whole heartedly that sometimes there are undeniable facts that define an absolute. In these cases, to capitulate to arguments that are obviously ignorant or misinformed is a ridiculous exercise. That having been said, I agree with the clarification of your point.

In the matter of video game content and regulation I am quick (maybe too much so) to prevent people from attempting to establish their opinion as an absolute, I don't believe the issue will be solved that way. Your last post clarified that you actually hold an opinion pretty close to mine, there is no definitive study on the matter.

With no definitive data to go on, and plenty of antecdotal evidence to draw from, people are forced to take a position consisting mostly of opinion. When forced to defend their stance against any opposing argument, they also feel personally assaulted. Now this is true of any ad hominem stance, but this one is unique in the composition of its facets.

Child wellness, government regulation, self gratification, and an emerging media format combine to form a really confusing issue. Other subjects approaching child wellness are easier to deal with. Alcohol and drugs stymie proper development, guns can lead to early death, TV can result in mimictry - which is more rude than culturally shifting in my opinion. The interactivity of this medium adds a new twist that is not easily quantifiable.

With children, and to a degree society, perceivably at stake I can understand how no one would want to give in on their side - "facts" be damned.

Re:Objective?

[Bongo Bill]

I just think it's more important to find the truth than to "be right".

In debate, the person who presents the truth is the person who's right.

Re:Objective?

[Irish_Samurai]

If it's a legitamtely debatable topic, there is no clearly defined truth. That's why there is a debate.

Re:Objective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why only two, anyway?

Even if you want to divide an issue into "those that agree with statement A" and "those that don't agree with statement A", members of the latter group are not required to explicitly disagree while those who explicitly disagree usually do so for different reasons. Similarly, those in the first group usually have different reasons for agreement.

But, we love to categorize and what easier way than binary subdivisions?

There are not always two sides. By that statement no one is ever right.
Counterexample: one side is knowingly stating fact and the other is intentionally lying. Two sides, and one is always right.

I think your gripe is with the current climate attempting to bring equal merit/weight to more than one side. Using my counterexample, the liar should not be given equal footing but that does not preclude that the liar's position is non-existant.

Re:Objective?

[thatguywhoiam]

Child wellness, government regulation, self gratification, and an emerging media format combine to form a really confusing issue. Other subjects approaching child wellness are easier to deal with. Alcohol and drugs stymie proper development, guns can lead to early death, TV can result in mimictry - which is more rude than culturally shifting in my opinion. The interactivity of this medium adds a new twist that is not easily quantifiable.

Well said - we are in agreement. And really, you nailed it there - its not the video games, its the drawing-in of interactive (maturing) entertainment into the child-rearing discussion.. which will be contentious, well, forever. Thanks for the reply.

Re:Objective?

[Bongo Bill]

And at this stage in the debate, TFA was attempting to demonstrate why the common arguments are not truth.

Won't anyone think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Seems to me that her campaign of pleading "won't anyone think of the children", and then promising to do just that seems doomed to succeed.

I think she's just getting her votes where she can.

At least I have chicken.

[Lendrick]

HAAARRRRRRYYYY JEEEEEEENKINS!!!

(Wow, making this joke is complicated. This line has to be here to pass the lameness filter. Please ignore it.)

Re:At least I have chicken.

[KDR_11k]

Who's Harry?

Re:At least I have chicken.

[ahmusch]

TFA is written by Harry Jenkins.

Who botched the joke again?

Re:At least I have chicken.

[chrismcdirty]

TFA is actually written by Henry Jenkins. So on behalf of the original poster...

HEEENNNRRRYYYYY JEEEEEENKINS!!!

I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

/. readers hate commenting on things if they can't argue about it

Re:I guess...

[BushCheney08]

Do not! >: O

Social Interaction

[Anonymous Coward]

I would personally argue that the social interaction displayed in Online videogames is a mixed bag at best; the annonymous nature as well as the similar desires of everyone in the game can provide a good social outlet to the less socially competent people who play these games, but at the same time prevents these people from learning the necessary social skills needed to interact in the 'Real World.' I have always found it to be an odd that the same person who can be really popular online and form a 400 person Guild in World of Warcraft has real problems interacting with their co-workers on a daily basis, at the same time many real world popular people I have met have upset so many people online that they can't get into a guild.

It's almost worse when you agree with them

[ianscot]

How about this instead?

I hate all one-sided arguments, [even] especially when I agree with them.

For us it's just unnerving to agree with an argument that's weak and malformed because it doesn't face any real criticism or opposition. For an awful lot of people, though, it's comforting to resort to a news source that reinforces their own biases and presents opposing views disingenuously as "straw men." Rupert Murdoch has made his empire by pandering to those who can't stomach anything like open discourse.

I don't know, though: when the simple notion of a "crime rate" adjusted by population, as opposed to a raw count of violent crimes, is supposedly hard for people to follow, how much legitimate debate can people stomach before they mutter the word "nuance" to themselves and flip the channel?

Huh?

[tsa]

90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play.

Is he sure he doesn't mean something else?

Re:Huh?

[SmallFurryCreature]

If you mean that 90+40 == 130 percent then you are misunderstanding him. He means that out of a 100 boys 90 of them play games and that out of 100 girls 40 play. Meaning that 60% if girls do not play games and 10% of boys do not. Wether this is true? Who knows. Trust it like any statistic.

Re:Huh?

[jimfinity]

someone should get an MIT professor to research the relationship between masturbation and game playing

Re:Huh?

[tsa]

I was going for funny, but your reply is a lot funnier than my comment :-)

But we should also be aware of the following

[SmallFurryCreature]

There is a group think enforcement on places like /. where we mod up the posts that say what we want to hear and mod down those who do not.

This story tells us what we want to hear. It may even be true but that does not mean we do not have to ask wether certain games cross the line. Take the games you mention. I would say that there is a huge difference between doom/quake and GTA. In doom and quake your a hero, a marine who is going to safe the world from being taking over by the legions of hell.

In GTA you are scum with no moral values who kills for a few dollars.

Also that whole crap about crime figures going down. I seen these kind of thing before. You simply stop counting some things as crime and voila, reduced crime figures. Are those kids who are judged as adults still counted in juvenile crime figures for instance? What effect has the legalisation of abortion had. And so on.

In the article he says that those who committed crimes had in fact less media exposure. Mmm, well lets go with this. Then the question becomes, wich media were they exposed to. Are the non-violent kids taking in a larger dose of games but more balanced or perhaps, shock&horror, less violent games while the crime committers take in a smaller dose but of purely violent games.

So "normal" kid a play 1 hour doom, 1 hour the sims, 1 hour everquest and 1 hour of need for speed. So he plays 1 clean cut hero, 1 builder, 1 slaughter everything for xp and 1 sorta criminal. Now the "crime" kid plays 3 hours of GTA rampage mode. Can you see the difference?

It is the difference between watching a porn movie and ONLY watching porn movies.

Violent youth play violent video games is not important. If only it was true and to opposite was also true then we could clearly target them. The question the popular media is running with is this. Do violent games make violent kids more violent. This article does not answer that.

On the other hand the so called "problem youths" hanging around malls upsetting other people are obviously not at home playing games. If they were they would not be outside disturbing the so called peace.

A true study should examime what "normal" persons are exposed to and in what measure vs what "violent" persons are exposed to. Even that should be more detailed. In the game GTA you can of course actually try to avoid pedestrians. Do the violent persons perhaps even swerve to hit extra pedestrians?

What "justification" do you have for driving over polygon people instead of trying to avoid them. It is not real? I am roleplaying a gangster and it is in his nature to do so, or I like the way they bounce of the hood if only I could get away with in real live. Same act but I would say that it makes a hell of a difference.

Both sides of the argument about violent games are at the moment made by zealots and I don't trust zealots.

As for my personal prefference in games? GTA crosses the line for me. Although SA mostly in cheesyness. It is so over the top that I can only laugh at it. I mean your rapper friend is upset about not getting a gig and you go out and commit a double murder because of it? (driving the manager and his gf of the end of a pier) Get a sense of proportion.

Then again my first "movie" in the movies was a slasher movie so who knows. Perhaps all this crap about violence is just something that has always been there part of human society and trying to explain it is like trying to explain why people fall in love.

Re:But we should also be aware of the following

[KDR_11k]

GTA doesn't force you to break any laws outside of mission goals. If you choose to gun down a group of tourists, well, that's your choice. It's pretty much a mirror, if you are morally deprived enough to murder a protitute to get your money back after doing her, so is the game.

Re:But we should also be aware of the following

[Minna Kirai]

GTA doesn't force you to break any laws outside of mission goals.

And aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

(Does the mission to kill 12 Haitians in 5 minutes ring a bell?)

Really?

[hal2814]

"62 percent of the console market and 66 percent of the PC market is age 18 or older."

yet

"One quarter of children ages 11 to 16 identify an M-Rated (Mature Content) game as among their favorites."

Do you really think that the folks in marketing aren't aware that their M-rated games are popular among young teens? Do you think they don't go out of their way to cater to that 11 to 16 audience? Sure they'd never come out and say something like that directly, but I'd imagine that a lot of the marketing done for those 18 and older is really targeted at this 11 to 16 crowd.

Marketing Guy: No, the friendly cartoon camel is supposed to appeal to 18 year olds. It's not supposed to encourage kids to smoke!

Re:Really?

[UnidentifiedCoward]

"Do you really think that the folks in marketing aren't aware that their M-rated games are popular among young teens? Do you think they don't go out of their way to cater to that 11 to 16 audience? Sure they'd never come out and say something like that directly, but I'd imagine that a lot of the marketing done for those 18 and older is really targeted at this 11 to 16 crowd."

That does not change the fact that parents and not legislators, companies, sales guys and ad people are responsible for integrity and teaching children fair play and good form. As an adult gamer and soon to be father, I am a big game fan. I like a lot of games in the FPS catagory which are typically classified as violent. I also think Family Guy is funny. Will my child be granted access to those things? No. Why? Because as a parent I am responsible for their care and upbringing and while I feel the content is suitable for adults, it is by no means appropriate for grade schoolers. FOX is not evil because they animate and air a TV show which has what many think is obvious gender bias and thinly veiled profanity. It is their perogative and right and mine to either watch or not to. As such, I will make efforts to not play those types of games in front of my child or watch those kinds of programs with them or repeat the material in them.

Does that extend me the right to tell someone else what is right for their kids? Hell no! Their situation is different. Maybe I would like to think that they have found their child may understand the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, between games and dealing with anger. I could be a foolish optimist, but I am confident that by protecting their rights (morally right or wrong) I in turn protect my own.

Consider the recent line from Family Guy.... Stewie to a prostitute .... "So is there any tread left or is it like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?" I found it funny, I laughed. A child may not even get the reference, but would see "Daddy" laughing and if "Daddy" thinks it funny, then it is okay to repeat on the play ground. Is FOX at fault? Should the FCC regulate television? No. Same applies to games like F.E.A.R. and GTA. Responsibility begins and ends in the home.

Re:Really?

[hal2814]

I'm not laying blame here. I'm not even suggesting that anything be changed. I'm just pointing out that a lot of content labelled 18 and older is targeted towards consumers much younger than that.

BTW, I used the cigarette example because that was a clearcut case where the cigarette company claimed to be marketing toward adults but some whistleblowers prodvided enough evidence to show otherwise.

Re:Really?

[Castar]

Actually, yes. The fact of the matter is that kids don't have any money. Once or twice a year, maybe a little more, they can convince their parents to spend $50 on a videogame for them.

18-35 year olds, on the other hand, buy new games every week, potentially. They have a lot of disposable income, and so they're a better target.

consume media?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

What an odd idea, I wish the idea of consuming media would go away in terms of play and playback. Maybe when tapes and LPs would wear or degrade very slightly with every use, playing new media, when treated properly, won't degrade with each use.

Well lets try one ourselves shall we

[SmallFurryCreature]

I am an avid pc gamer, I do not like games like GTA SA because I think it goes to far, it takes the fun out of being a baddy. Kinda like if Close Combat had a victory screen for the german side were you are congratualated for having gassed X more people at auswitch.

1. The availability of video games has led to an epidemic of youth violence.

   H.J. FBI statistics show that youth crime is at an all time low.

   Counterclaim. Statistics can show anything. Can this be accounted for by A: judging minors as adults and therefore getting some serious crime out of the statistics B: things like abortion being legalized C: things like stealing CD/records dropping because piracy makes it physical stealing no longer worth it.

2. Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.

   H.J. claims that these studies are limited and done wrong.

   Counterclaim. Do them youreselve then "properly" and publish the results.

3. Children are the primary market for video games.

   H.J. claims that the game market is growing up as the first generation is growing up (I an old far myself who played on the Commodore 16 and still does today so it could be true)

   Counterclaim. So game makers will not object to every game with violence in it getting an 18+ rating.

4. Almost no girls play computer games.

   H.J. Claims that 40% of girls play games.

   Counterclaim that is still less then half of the boy percentage and H.J. himself points out that girls play different games, webbased online games. Not violent shooters.

5. Because games are used to train soldiers to kill, they have the same impact on the kids who play them.

   H.J. claims that just there is a different in context then real military training and that people can spot the difference.

   Counterclaim there really isn't one I can say with a straight face. I went through military training and shooting a FPS rifle is nothing like doing it in real life. Not even the best soldier sim comes anywhere close to simulating a real field excersise let alone (I presume) real war.

6. Video games are not a meaningful form of expression.

   Not even going to touch this one. Art is not my subject sorry.

7. Video game play is socially isolating.

   H.J. claims that games can be social.

   Spending time with online friends is not the same as with real people and the growing number of male geeks who cannot easily socialize with their desired sex proofs this. Especially important since online girls and boys move in different circles. Important part of socializing, for heterosexuals, is meeting members of the opposite sex and a quake session is not the most likely place no matter how friendly.

8. Video game play is desensitizing.

   H.J. claims that there is a difference between play fighting and real fighting.

   Counterclaim this is true but the original claim was that over exposure to violence may cause that line to blur. Where the kid in the example does no longer realize that punching a doll is different from doing it to a real human being. Worse, every small child DOES NOT know this automatically and will go through a kicking phase where it does not yet understand that other people can feel pain.

So this article does nothing except make a few people feel good about themselves. The Jack Thompsons of this world will just shrug it off and come up with far better sounding arguments on tv.

The real question is this. Should we ban every human being from doing something because a tiny percentage can't handle it? Should we ban alcohol because some people drink and drive? Ban guns (for you americans) because some people murder? Ban mixed sex train carriages (for you japanese and italians) because some people grope?

Millions of people play all kinds of games with no effect on their lives they cannot deal with. Then again we do have a ban on driving without a seatbelt because we do not as a society want to deal with those people who get into crashes without a seatbelt.

Perhaps game companies should rate violent games higher and really restrict their sales to adults only. Oh and stop pulling stupid shit like the Hot Coffee mod. Geez talk about shooting youreselve in the foot.

Re:Well lets try one ourselves shall we

[Lord Bitman]

Wish I could moderate my own thread. Thank you.

Re:Well lets try one ourselves shall we

[arkanes]

I'm not sure why you think that anything you make up and/or pull out of your ass is very important. You commit every single sin you accuse the author of, without any proof that the author actually committed them. You have not one single concrete point or link to evidence here, and you dismiss evidence cited by the author with handwaving. Your assertions about the juvenile crime rate are especially egregious, because you claim that his statistics should be discounted because your made-up conditions might disagree!

Re:Well lets try one ourselves shall we

[justchris]

The availability of video games has led to an epidemic of youth violence.

H.J. FBI statistics show that youth crime is at an all time low.

Counterclaim. Statistics can show anything. Can this be accounted for by A: judging minors as adults and therefore getting some serious crime out of the statistics B: things like abortion being legalized C: things like stealing CD/records dropping because piracy makes it physical stealing no longer worth it.

The university of illinois conducted a study. You can do a google search for it, it's on their website somewhere. The study referred only to violent crime. It also parsed out what was considered violent crime into different subjects, including bullying as opposed to gun crime, knife crime, and making violent threats. It was found that while bullying has increased since 1999, all other types of violent crime have decreased to such a degree that the overall rate of violent crime is actually less than it was in 1999.

Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.

H.J. claims that these studies are limited and done wrong.

Counterclaim. Do them youreselve then "properly" and publish the results.

The problem with this, of course, is that any study is invalidated if conducted by a biased party. H.J. has already proven himself a biased party. Therefore a non-biased third party would need to conduct the study, with specifications done by parties on either side of the issue, so that it can be explored properly.

Children are the primary market for video games.

H.J. claims that the game market is growing up as the first generation is growing up (I an old far myself who played on the Commodore 16 and still does today so it could be true)

Counterclaim. So game makers will not object to every game with violence in it getting an 18+ rating.

Of course they will, for the same reason that movie makers object to a movie getting an NC-17 rating. Most adults will not go to see such a movie, thus costing the movie the majority of it's revenue. For reasons I'm not entirely clear on, a movie that is rated R (meaning you must be 18 to see it?) is more permissible than a movie rated NC-17 (meaning you must be 17 to see it?). By the same token a game rated M (meaning you must be 17 to purchase it) is more permissible than a game rated AO (meaning you must be 18 to purchase it).

Stores/Theatres will refuse to carry a game/movie rated AO/NC-17, meaning that the target audience, people between the ages of 18-25, will not be able to find it and purchase it, even if they want it. And many will not purchase it even if they see it, because they will assume that the game/movie has material that might be offensive to them, even if it only contains a similar level of violence as in games/movies they already consume, because it is rated AO/NC-17. Also, there is a social stigma related to playing/viewing these games/movies, and even as an adult, peer pressure is a terrible thing, and greatly influnces what we consume.

Almost no girls play computer games.

H.J. Claims that 40% of girls play games.

Counterclaim that is still less then half of the boy percentage and H.J. himself points out that girls play different games, webbased online games. Not violent shooters.

40% is a significant number, even when dealing with, let's assume we limit this to the US, 200 million people. It's less than half the male demographic, but the male demographic accounts for 90% of all males, which is a huge number.

The fact that they play different types of games has no meaning, the point was saying that girls do play games. Certainly girls play different games. Girls also wear different clothes. That doesn't invalidate the point.

Video game play is socially isolating.

It's trivially obvious that we acquire our...

[Darius Jedburgh]

...values from the culture around us. That includes sources like our parents, our peers and what is presented on TV. I see no reason at all why video games are different and why kids wouldn't acquire values from them. Given the number of kids who seem to be brought up on GTA it seems highly likely that there are many people around whose values have been informed by this game.

"Busted", or just "old and tired"?

[drmarcj]

2. Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression. Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." The author is quick to dismiss what turns out to be a large body of well-designed, peer-reviewed studies. For instance, he suggests studies are flawed because they are either correlation-based (looking at whether two behaviours co-occur, not whether one causes the other), because they happen in a laboratory, or because the subjects aren't always "real" video game players. As a counterpoint, allow me to point out an article that came out in the November issue of Psychological Science (a highly regarded journal in Psychology) by Carnagey & Anderson at Iowa State University. They had college age adults play 3 versions of a violent driving game (Carmageddon 2) where they were either a) rewarded for violent behaviour; b) punished for it; or c) played a nonviolent version where killing pedestrian & other players wasn't possible. Afterwards they received a set of objective measures of physiological and psychological aggression, they found that subjects who played the version that rewarded violent behaviours (running over pedestrians) showed increased hostility and aggression. Note that since subjects were randomly assigned to conditions one can safely assume a causal model in which playing a game that rewards violent behaviour does lead to hostile/aggressive behaviour. Now, I am not saying that this means kids who play GTA will go out and kill pedestrians. But I also think it's ignorant to set aside scientific evidence that violence in media has no effect on people's behaviour. It does, both in kids and adults, and both in males and females. If gamers are going to defend themselves against overly zealous politicians, it makes sense to educate oneself about the science. By flippantly setting it all aside, this article does nothing to address it.

Re:"Busted", or just "old and tired"?

[Swordsmanus]

Did the experiment check for long term effects, or only immediately after play? One of the weaknesses of such experiments that I know of is the concentration on doing tests during play or immediately after play (checking only short term effects) and the lack of follow up studies (not checking long term effects).

Secondly, "Afterwards they received a set of objective measures of physiological and psychological aggression, they found that subjects who played the version that rewarded violent behaviours (running over pedestrians) showed increased hostility and aggression. Note that since subjects were randomly assigned to conditions one can safely assume a causal model in which playing a game that rewards violent behaviour does lead to hostile/aggressive behaviour."

Whoa, hold it. What measures were they exactly? Were the physiological measures changes in body temperature, heart rate, body conductivity, eye dialation, etc, or were they actual physical hostile/aggressive behaviors? There's a world of difference between being in a hostile/aggressive state of mind and taking hostile and aggressive action. If the measures didn't include actual aggressive actions, then there is only a correllational relationship between violent games, agressive/hostile mindframes, and aggressive/hostile behavior.

The only way you could establish a causal relationship between violent games and aggressive/hostile behavior is if the rewarded group committed aggressive/hostile actions in the exact same setting that the other two groups did not commit aggressive/hostile actions in, with sufficient statistical significance. Even if such is the case it is only known to apply to that one setting. Other experiments would have to do the exact same experiment, changing only the setting the three groups are subjected to after gameplay to see if it is more widely applicable.

Re:"Busted", or just "old and tired"?

[Irish_Samurai]

Now, I am not saying that this means kids who play GTA will go out and kill pedestrians. But I also think it's ignorant to set aside scientific evidence that violence in media has no effect on people's behaviour. It does, both in kids and adults, and both in males and females. If gamers are going to defend themselves against overly zealous politicians, it makes sense to educate oneself about the science. By flippantly setting it all aside, this article does nothing to address it.

Man, I'm glad someone else agrees with me. I'm constantly getting reamed here for acknowledging things that offend or threaten the group perspective here on slashdot.

If you are going to protect the things you love, you have to be honest with yourself about what they are.

Re:"Busted", or just "old and tired"?

[Bongo Bill]

Whether the subjects showed signs of aggression within an hour after playing the game is trivial in comparison to whether they showed these signs, say, a week (or more) after playing it.

Re:"Busted", or just "old and tired"?

[FredMenace]

Indeed. One of the studies recently that was purporting to show some kind of bad reaction to violent video games based on brain scans I think pretty clearly showed the exactly opposite of what it was being painted as. (It was saying that "violent" video games caused a decrease in emotional processing and an increase in cognitive processing. Which is sort of what one would expect during complex problem solving; it would have worried me if they'd seen the opposite result, that the gamer stopped thinking intellectually and started getting worked up emotionally. It was pretty clear both the researchers and the writers of the various articles about it had an agenda up front and no matter the results they were going to interpret it in the same way.)

Article has a point in myth #8...

[Turken]

From the article: "Here's where the media effects research, which often uses punching rubber dolls as a marker of real-world aggression, becomes problematic."

When I read this, I couldn't help but smile at how right the article author is... why? because of a story my mom told me:

Way back in the day -- before videogames ever existed -- and my mom was a little girl, her mother volunteered to let her (my mom) be a subject in a study on child behavior. So, my mom is placed in a room with all sorts of toys. One thing that catches her eye though, is a clown bop-bag... you know, the inflatable punching bags that are weighted to stand back up after you knock them over. My mom had played with dolls and kitchen sets and many of the other toys at home, but she had never seen one of these punching bags, and she was fascinated. She poked it, and it wobbled. She hit it, and it tipped, but stood back up. So, being a curious child, she hit harder and harder, trying to see if she could make it stay down. The researchers were horrified at the "violent behavior" that this girl was showing... Surely, she must have deep psychological issues, intense hatred of clowns, or must have been brought up wrong. But no, as my mom distinctly remembers, it was simply curiosity in testing the limits of a new toy. She has since grown up and had no psychological problems or aggressive tendancies at all, despite the fears of the "researchers."

Anyway, I think that many parallels could be drawn between this story and the points made by the article author. Particularly that trying to make conclusions on what a child will become or policies to govern her based on a few minutes of observation is at best flawed, and at worst, more detrimental to society than the unsupervised child would ever be.

Re:Article has a point in myth #8...

[Traiklin]

your mom is the reason why the research is always inconclusive. As you said she was just curious about something she had never seen before, wanted to see what all it could do.

samething happens with me and violent games, when Vice city first came out I spent the first 20 minutes just seeing what they changed in the game, seeing what I could do now that I couldn't before. Once that was done I played the game (and I still have yet to kill 1 innocent person on perpouse while playing the game as normal).

when I want to have fun and just laugh I act like a psychopath in game but a news reporter out of it, the guy in the game is going ballistic and killing innocent people while the cops try to stop him, while Myself in the real word pretends that I am flying in a news copter reporting on what is happening on the ground. Why? Cause it's fun to do when you are bored.

does it mean I will go out into the real world one day and do everything I do in the game cause I thought it was fun? no of course not, just like when I would play Mario brothers, I never went out looking for Mushrooms that would make me grow bigger, or Flowers that would let me shoot fireballs out of my hands or Leafs that would turn me into a half human half racoon thing. No feathers that would suddenly give me a cape and the ability to fly.

Re:Article has a point in myth #8...

[Reapy]

I agree with this 100%.

I would like to add examples of times we have all probably been physically goofing around with our friends, perhaps wrestling or something like that.

It was all fun and games, and then someone might get hurt accidently. All of a sudden, play stops, and everybody checks in on the injured person, and the appropriate care level is reached.

A good example to build off of yours would be, while your mom was expirmenting hitting the clown, another person in the room was struck by the clown and somehow injured.

Perhaps as a young kid, they may run and hide because they are ashamed of what they did, or fear the concequences. Or they might go to the person and try to make it better somehow.

I would think the only response that bears concern would be if she laughed and struck the clown again and inflicted more damage on the person.

That would be something to be concerned about, where they cause real harm to another person, and did not express any care or concern for the person, and a step worse, continued it.

Anything short of that is just playing and joking around. I would not be convinced that a guy who spends all day team killing in video games is going to shoot me in the back should we ever be fighting in real life. They are two toally different things and bear no resemblence.

So, again, good points, and I enjoyed the short story from your parent's past.

Re:Article has a point in myth #8...

[vistic]

"Surely, she must have deep psychological issues, intense hatred of clowns, or must have been brought up wrong. [...] She has since grown up and had no psychological problems or aggressive tendancies at all,"

She's just lucky she hasn't had any close encounters with clowns!

I'm telling you, if she gets into an elevator with a clown she's going to snap and go haywire!

This isn't news - we've already read this!

[kingsmedley]

Criminy. You should have all read this over a year ago! This essay is on a web page for a mediocre PBS gamin documentary. Here's the first Slashdot post about the show, and here's the http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/16/ 191253&tid=129&tid=10>dupe posted 12 days later.

I'm not saying it isn't an interesting page, or that it isn't worth a look, just that we should all be WELL AWARE of this page's existence by now. Sheesh.

I think I have more sense than my cat does.

[some guy on slashdot]

TFA brought up an excellent point, and one that I think bears repeating to those that think video games can "bleed" into real world behavior. All mammals distinguish between play and actual violence. TFA mentions primates, but I don't know about primates, so I'll talk about kittens.

Kittens fight. They kick and bite each other, pounce and paw with this wild look in their eyes. It looks like they're trying to kill each other, but this is how kittens play. They intentionally avoid injuring each other, and they have signs to tell the other kittens to stop if they actually get hurt. Yes, this play simulates a real catfight, as that's exactly what it's meant to prepare them for. Yet a kitten knows the difference between play fighting and real conflict.

Some people see kittens fighting, and instinctively jump in to stop them because they might hurt each other. Even more so because they're kittens - supposedly soft and sweet and helpless. I've seen humans peg the kitten who initiates play as "bad" because he is "bullying" the other kittens. Most people don't understand that the kittens are just playing.

I guess my point is, if a cat, an animal with a brain the size of a lemon, can figure out the difference between play and real, surely our own children can. We could at least give them that much benefit of the doubt.

The incoherence of the incoherents

[DingerX]

Counter-counter claims

1. "Statistics lie" is a pretty weak argument. Even weaker is the fallacy of possibility for probability. It's also possible that the statistics cited are a complete aberration due to the influence of a martian mystery cult. It's not probable though. In any case, as a refutation, all H.J. needs to do is disprove the claim of the other. By claiming "Well, crime statistics don't prove anything", you've destroyed the basis for the claim as well (games lead to violence). The burden of proof is on the person making the argument, not the one refuting it.
2. The same. The claim is "You can't use those studies of evidence as proof of anything, because these studies are flawed". Responding "go do your own studies" is beside the point. If you try to tell me "All Robots wear Aprons" based on a study of The Jetsons, I could nullify your claim by pointing out that The Jetsons is a small sample, and fictional to boot.
3. Straw Man and Suppressed Evidence. The author does not argue for or against 18+ games. The Suppressed Evidence is that the #1 retailer in the US will not stock 18+ games, but will stock M games; so game makers will object -- not because they want to sell to kids, but because the rating limits its exposure to adults.
4. beside the point -- or maybe that is the point. Video games aren't just FPS like the public suspects they are.
5. Both you and H.J. miss the fallacy here. The claim itself is just wrong. The military does not use games to train soldiers to kill people, unless in the banal way that all military training is by definition on how to kill people, and all simulations are games. To shoot a gun, or fire a mortar, you might encounter augmented reality: a realistic mockup of the weapon in a room with projections of a battlefield around there. But augmented reality is pretty far away from "games". And the argument usually runs "militaries use games to desensitize soldiers to killing. Therefore kids who play video games are desensitized to killing". And in that sense, the major is false. Militaries do not use games to desensitize. Sensitivity to killing (and being shot at) has significant tactical value. Those armed forces that are desensitized to killing don't seem as concerned about fratricide; and those that aren't sensitive to being shot at don't use cover and concealment effectively.
7. Growing number of geeks? Dude, Geeks and Gays have been around for centuries, and the notion that either of them are growing is inherently wrong. If anything, the last couple decades has shown an increasing number of well socialized folks playing video games. I see the kids today talk about video games as if they were cool. That didn't happen twenty years ago.
8. huh? "overexposure"? where is that defined? and where is the "original claim" that shows that? and for that matter, you're holding up an experience with your niece in non-mortal combat against a bunch of peer-reviewed studies of human, primate and higher-order mammalian behavior?

Consider This...

[youshoulduseunix]

I didn't see any claims that the opposing extremes of these myths were entirely accurate. In other words, he was simply debunking extremist claims of the negative impact of violent video games on children. He was NOT claiming that video games have no impact on children. Unfortunately, regulators have a habit of "picking up the torch" on issues like these. Then, they blindly run with it as though the existence of this torch is evidence enough of its superior integrity. This is, unfortunately, a common theme in society in general. The fact is, there needs to be some middle ground, which doesn't *completely* restrict the video game market or its users. As the author of the article states, "parents need to share some of the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children." Herein lies the true root of the problem. While you can restrict the legal age for purchase of these games, law cannot entirely make up for a lack of proper parenting. However, there is one advantage to creating laws that restrict the sale of mature content to minors: namely, parents will be more likely to realize the necessity of preventing their children from playing such games if there is a hard legal opposition to it. For this reason, I encourage such laws. However, as with any law that restricts the sale of a particular product, there will be a necessary market shift. As with the tobacco industry, the video game industry will have to change its advertising techniques to correlate with correct legal practices. The author of this article obviously agrees: "Clearly, more should be done to restrict advertising and marketing that targets young consumers with mature content [...]" That being said, we should remember that the goal of such restrictive law is to force parents into the decision-making process, rather than to completely dispense of the consumer's right to choose its media for entertainment.

Sorry to say, it's bollocks.

[argStyopa]

As much as I like debunking fraudulent 'studies' against videogames, this one is just as weak.

"1. The availability of video games has led to an epidemic of youth violence.
According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers -- 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester."

Let's just dissect this one, shall we?
-Rate of juvenile crime is at a 30 year low: no causal link. This could have to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it could have to do with computers, it could have to do with the position of the Milky Way in the sky....sorry guys, 0 for 1.
- Criminals consume less media than others: well, 'typical' criminals are poor. Who consumes more media, a poor person or a rich person? Again, not really clearly linked to what they are talking about. 0 for 2.
- The overwhelming majority of kids who play don't commit antisocial acts. Well, yeah, the overwhelming majority of kids who DON'T play don't commit such acts, neither does the majority of kids that eat donuts, or kids who get their hair cut, or kids with blue eyes. Pointless statistic. 0 for 3.
- Strongest link attributed to mental stability....definitely 1 for 4.

So we're one out of four. The rest of the study is equally weakly argued. Look, I AGREE with the authors, but I have to say that this 'study' is utterly unconvincing.

Re:Sorry to say, it's bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point. He's not "proving" that gaming is good for your mental health. He's merely trying to disprove or cast doubt on other people's "incontravertable proof". All he needs is one counter example to make his point.

Re:Sorry to say, it's bollocks.

[Bongo Bill]

TFA uses primarily correlational studies, yes, but that's acceptable since all it's trying to do is demonstrate that the opposing arguments, which do rely on causal arguments, are false.

He's presenting a rebuttal. The opposing viewpoint states that the presence of Foo causes Bar to increase; TFA disproves it by demonstrating that Foo is up and Bar is down. It's not asserting that the presence of Foo causes Bar to decrease. It's asserting that the presence of Foo does not case Bar to increase. There's a subtle difference.

Re:Sorry to say, it's bollocks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

First of all, who said it was a "study"? This is an article.

- The overwhelming majority of kids who play don't commit antisocial acts. Well, yeah, the overwhelming majority of kids who DON'T play don't commit such acts, neither does the majority of kids that eat donuts, or kids who get their hair cut, or kids with blue eyes. Pointless statistic.

Yes, that's the whole point of the article. Not to decisively say that videogames don't cause violence, but that the statistics which say they do are pointless, and that I can come up with statistics with exactly as much merit to "prove" the other side.

The rest of the four are similarly doing their job by debunking the myth, not by actually disproving it, but removing all reason for believing it.

Maybe after reading this article, people will get the message and think for themselves?

Nah...

No subject

[ineedbettername]

I'm a gamer, and I've played almost every violent video game in history. Ranging from Mortal Kombat (ah, the memories) to the Doom series (where the hell did that come from?!), and I've never had the urge to kill someone simply because I could.