The 64% Violent Pacman

DreamWinkle writes "During the recent Senate hearings on video game violence, one expert claimed that the ESRB underrated violent games. They went on to say that Pacman was 64% violent. To some, this means you shouldn't play Pacman; to others, it highlights what's wrong with Senate hearings. Whether a game is violent or not depends on how you classify violence, and the ESRB has the job of doing just that. They're not regulated by the government, they let the game makers recommend their own ratings, and don't play every game they rate. Is the ESRB to be trusted?"

Comments

64% violent, perhaps...

[CaseM]

But I'm 90% sure that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot...mostly...

Re:Anyone have more information?

[Guuge]

I managed to dig up a little from a site by the creators of the study. Here's the juicy bit:

One author (Kevin Haninger) reviewed and coded all of the recorded game play, noting the starting and ending times of each incident of violence toward other characters, the type of weapons used for violence, whether the violent incident resulted in injury or death, and the number of character deaths attributable to the violent incident. The JAMA article contains a table that lists each video game we played, as well as the genre, console, release year, ESRB-assigned content descriptors, and our measures of violence.

So it seems that the number refers to the percentage of time that the game is violent. Now, how is violence defined such that Pacman gets such a brutal rating?

We defined violence as acts in which the aggressor causes or attempts to cause physical injury or death to another character. We did not include damage to objects, accidental actions that unintentionally harmed another character, the effects of natural disasters, or the presence of dangerous obstacles that could not be attributed to the actions of a particular character. We also did not count as violence any intentional acts of physical force that represented normal play in a sports game (e.g., tacking in football or checking in hockey), because the intention of the player is technically to stop the other player without causing injury. We did count excessive physical contact in sports games, such as punching or otherwise attacking another player (e.g., after the football play was over).

If Pacman's ghosts were replaced by rolling boulders, it would have nearly no violence. Discuss.

Re:Anyone have more information?

[Jerf]

Ghosts are, by definition, already dead.

Can you really commit violence against them?

Moreover, it's not immediately obvious that Pac-Man is alive either. (Discuss. :) )

Games Reduce Violance in Games

[aplusjimages]

I was reading Gameinformer magazine and they talked about how video games introduced into prisons has actually helped decrease "unruly incidents" in Oregon's penal system.

I called this WEEKS ago on Penny Arcade

[JoshDM]

[url=http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic. php?p=23797469#23797469Check it out.[/url]

Catharsis vs Television Violence

[BAM0027]

Googling define:catharsis gives "The release of tension and anxiety by recounting and/or acting out past experience," from www.dphilpotlaw.com and "The emotional reenactment in thought or symbolic form of a painful experience that brings relief of the distress caused by the original experience," from www.hec.ohio-state.edu.

I find that playing violent games does not, and has not, lead to me being a more violent person. I also find that playing games like Gauntlet, Lego Star Wars, Full Throttle, and others with my six year old daughter does not lead her to conclude that violence is the answer to her problems. In fact, the net result of playing these violent games is that we have fun and entertain ourselves.

Looking at the #1 "Most Violent Game" per this cited study, I was wondering what would compel a person to play something like "Nuclear Strike 64". I came up with two reasons (there are probably more). 1) someone wanted to enjoy breaking things down a little via harmless video images, or 2) someone wanted to practice making nuclear strikes on someone and this was the best simulation they could come up with.

Yes, those are facetious, but none of the games listed propose to be acts of realism and that's very obvious in the same way that Bugs Bunny was simply funny because it was a cartoon. That is in contrast to prime time television that is reality-based drama or documentary where violence is acted out and manipulated as a form of entertainment. Not only is violence displayed outright but television also provokes an emotional longing for it by leaving shows with cliff-hangers and tension.

As an adult, I can view television with context and objectivity. Children who are still developing emotionally can be dramatically affected from viewing those sorts of images much more so than by interacting with a game or cartoon. I am much more concerned with exposing my daughter to prime time drama television than I am to cartoons and/or video games like the ones cited in the research.

p.s. Bear in mind that I would NOT arbitrarily expose her to GTA or realistic military games either.

This could be revolutionary!

[Meccanica]

Don't you see? We have finally developed a precise, specific way of rating games! No more of those 'fuzzy' ratings. Now you can know at a glance exactly how violent a game is- ANY game! If the same process was used for other factors, it would only be better. Here's an example to use as a guide: Resident Evil 4 -- 71% Violent 16% Interaction With Shady Unexplained Weapons Dealer 8% Drug Use 5% Typewriter Use -- Half-Life Episode One -- 68% Violent 24.5% Dark 6% Crawling in Air Ducts 1.5% Sexually Suggestive -- Pac-Man (revised) -- 50% Violent 25% Overeating 15% Scary Ghosts 10% Floating Fruit --

Re:64% violet?

[FurryFeet]

Some crazy people

Australia and the OFLC

[Spikeles]

In Australia no game can be sold, previewed or displayed for public viewing without first being rated by the Office of Film and Literature. It's interesting because from the article "The Rating Board is a non-profit organization and has no legal authority to force game developers to submit their games for rating.".

The OFLC on the otherhand does have the legal authority to prevent games and movies being shown, indeed they prevented Kent Park from being shown in public theatres. I'm not sure if this makes the ratings more or less important though.

Wack-A-Mole

[BigCheese]

Hmmmmm, by their definition Wack-A-Mole is 100% violent. That's pretty screwed up.

Re:Anyone have more information?

[Jherico]

I should get a PhD and a grant to study this crap.

Yes, nothing like thousands of dollars spent on an eduction so you can write a long winded dissertation stating the obvious. The negative impact of things like sports and smoking and drinking is largely glossed over because these things are institutionalized. Crush people on the gridiron and you're some sort of hero. Snipe people in a game and you're a violent crime waiting to happen. Drink miller and girls in bikinis will flock to you (or so the ads imply). Drop acid and you're destroying society.

State the obvious truth without a PhD and you're a crackpot.

Re:This is why I don't play Pacman

[Shaper_pmp]

I'm generallizing. I realize there are exceptions to the rules, but children who watch violence on TV tend to be more violent than those who do not.

I call BS.

Children whose parents neglect them, or abuse them, or bully them, or simply aren't supportive and nurturing tend to be more violent than kids whose parents aren't.

I was allowed to watch movies that were "above" my age by my parents when I was a kid - I'm not talking about slasher flicks when I was 5 or anything silly, merely more "grown up" films that (yes) included violence.

In fact my parents were remarkably relaxed in allowing me access to media that was traditionally "too old" for me (novels, New Scientist magazine, films, comics, etc).

To be clear, they didn't just allow me to watch/read anything I wanted, and for many videos/books they accompanied me to put it in context, but I was still playing violent games and watching (sometimes-violent) movies.

In contrast, I had several friends with neglectful or overly-authoritarian parents who restricted the kids from watching anything over their age-limit, but also neglected to provide much in the way of love, support or understanding.

Guess which one is gainfully employed and happy, and which have almost all ended up dropping out, in trouble with the law or even enjoying spells in prison?

I'm not saying that violent movies don't exacerbate the problem with an already damaged child, but you've got to have already screwed the kid up quite nicely by yourself for it to have a major effect.