Slashdot Mirror
What Came First, the Violence or the Videogame?
An anonymous reader writes "Another wave of video-game-violence panic is upon us. The pressed suits who read the pop news on television are wagging their so-called neutral fingers at an industry they have never understood. Planet Xbox 360 considers the many games they have played and the real-life murderers they have known in their own lives, and how little the talking heads know about either."
Before videogames, there was violence.
In the 60's, they blamed it on the rock 'n' roll.
In the 50's, they blamed it on Elvis' hips.
As far back as history records, there has been violence. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just grabbing for straws that aren't there.
I suspect that the Wii is likely to re-invigorate the controversy of video games. For example, in Red Steel, instead of just pushing buttons and killing fake people, you are moving your full upper body, which if intense enough, will get your heart pumping and feel more "real". You're then going through the actual motions. While I wouldn't agree with the complaints of people like Jack Thompson, I can see why it would worry them more.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I'm relatively sure the crusades came before pac-man. . . So my guess is the violence, just a hunch though.
Yeah, they intentionally phrased the question so as to mislead you. The crusades were started by people influenced by the graphically violent board game chess, which has since become a video game. It is games in general that are the root of all violent behavior, not just video games.
I'm pretty sure kids ran around shooting each other before Doom arrived on the scene. In fact, I believe the oldest known video game, Space War, was preceeded by millenia of violence, much of it perpetrated by persons under the age of 25.
Violence is a part of human nature. The only reasons you hear so much about the kids who kill other kids is a) the news media is pretty much 24/7 and spends a lot of that time twiddling its thumbs, and so it jumps on a story like Columbine; and b) because there are MORE OF US so it's more likely to happen.
It's not the fault of the video games. It's the fault of negligent parents and a society that doesn't seem to take any interest in disciplining children anymore.
What was the name of that video game Hitler used to play?
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing... There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
I remember when I was like 4 or 5, going to my dad's office for the first time. He sat me down on his lap, booted up his copy of Windows 2.0, and then said "watch this..."
From the first time I saw the rook piece fuckin' swallow the queen whole in Battle Chess, I knew computers were going someplace.
So, if studies consistently showed a mirror neuron response while playing shooters, would we not be obliged to take violent games off the shelf...?
No, we wouldn't. It undermines several principals of our government. The first is liberty. You might note boxing is not illegal. Watching boxing is a lot more likely to stimulate that part of the brain than video games are. Participating in boxing has been statistically shown to correlate with violent crime and sexual assault. It doesn't matter. We have free will and are responsible for what we do. Does red meat increase testosterone and increase the likelihood of violence? If so should we ban it? Meat in general? All sports? Walking into high oxygen areas in lower altitudes? Not taking hormone suppressants and sedatives to keep us passive and nonviolent?
It is not the government's job to take measures to force individuals to not take any action that might increase their chances of commiting crimes by running their lives for them. Arguably it is the job of parents to do that for their children, but never the government.
It's called personal responsibility.
Are you insinuating that World War II was more than just a game?
I thought it was a "genre".
Wow.
While I do somewhat sympathize w/the writer of the text, I think it's important to point out that some soldiers and security experts actually do think that playing FPS - type games does do one thing for you, which is called `operant conditioning'. That is the exact method that the armies have used to get the soldier to shoot at each other. Most untrained ppl actually DO NOT shoot at each other in the battle-field. I'm not going to elaborate on this for very long, but rather ask you to get the book that Grossmaan wrote - it's called `On Killing'.
The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger sounds easy enough, but most untrained ppl will miss at point-blank range or will just be unable to shoot at another person. The "fix" the armies came up w/was programming shooting at ppl-shaped targets. It's like in boxing, one does eventually get the punches and the slips programmed into the brain, and will react w/o a second thought. So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.
However, as it is psyhologically very damaging to kill one's own species, this type of training makes the psychological costs of going to war even more severe. The ppl who would normally be unable to kill will kill out of conditioned reactions and will many tymes be emotionally crippled for life for the things they have done.
Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures. You get the conditioning that is used for soldiers. Now I am not saying that this will make you necessarily more violent, but this will for sure make a person having done this much more efficient in killing others if this person happens to lose it and go on a rampage.
So, the truth of the matter to me appears to be that the games actually do help in making a shooting a lot more lethal in ways of enabling the shooter to actually shoot at ppl proper and keep on hitting the target w/ease because of having conditioned the appropriate responses out of hir system.
Make of it what you will, this is what some of the experts say.
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne
As a sporadic member of the video game industry, the issue of violence-in-video-games is not at all new or novel to us. Nor have we been deliberately ignoring it. Far from it. Game authors have been considering the issue for about as long as video games have existed.
In 1977, a man named Steve Dompier wrote a game for the Sol-20 Terminal Computer called TARGET. Ships flew across the screen, and it was your job to shoot them down. I'd like to share with you a thought from the game's author, printed in the manual. It seems that video game violence was on his mind as well:
The above quote serves as evidence that video game authors have been thinking about violence in games for thirty years, if not longer. So if you think some zeitgeist-chasing politician or religious extremist who just started shrieking about the issue last week has any deeper insights than we do... Well, then you may be interested in this bridge I have for sale.
Schwab
P.S: If you're interested in finding out what was so horrific about TARGET, download the Sol-20 emulator and try it yourself:
EX 0
and press Enter. You must enter the command in upper case.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Arrr, I otta cut ye open by the gullet fer tryin' t' pass yersef off as sumone yer not, matey, but I drunk too much grog, and can't swing me sword straight. Still, I'll have none o' that on me ship. Walk the plank ye scurvy cur, or I'll let me first mate have 'is way wit ya, and believe me, mate, ye don't want none o' that! He's a mite queer, that one!
Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
After playing a marathon chess session I found myself unable to control the urge to kill people "en passant".
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Should it be legal to drive a tank? After all, it is the pesronal responsibility of the person driving the tank to not..you know.. kill everyone. Yet we restrict access to tanks, because letting an individual own a tank is just not in the publics best interest.
There is a guy here in town that owns a tank. He needs permission to take it on public roads, because of the potential damage to public property, but her does own one and drive it on his own land.
We let government regulate someones actions for the greater good. Freedom certainly has limits, and it is up to the government to set those limits.
Actually, we theoretically allow the government to arbitrate certain freedoms and situations where one person's freedoms come in conflict with others. For example, your freedom to fire a cannon, is restricted by the damage it causes to the property of physical persons of others. So long as you're firing it on private property and not damaging anything belonging to another, or hurting anyone the government has no legal or ethical right to restrict you. Realistically, the government has become corrupt and exceeded their authority by claiming additional power for a few individuals who would be our rulers.
The problem is determining what is truly in the best interest of a society is REALLY hard.
No it isn't. The US was founded on the principal that consolidated decision making is dangerous, because overriding the decisions of individuals easily leads to abuse and power corrupts. Thus, the government must demonstrate not only a majority opinion, but an overriding public interest in some action that does not conflict with a predefined set of rights and which is within certain areas the government is allowed to regulate. Take the issue of video games. Will playing a video game result in a person becoming a murderer? Can you prove that with reasonable scientific certainty? If so then, with two thirds or representatives voting you can overturn the freedom of speech that allows people to distribute said video game. Otherwise, the government has no business and the choice should be left to the individual (or individual's parents) to decide.
Those are the types of questions we face, and we (as a world community) will be struggling with them for as long as we exist.
Certainly individuals should be considering these issues, but until there is a real, provable consensus and a clear mandate from the people, governments should not.
How many people didn't go out and perform real-life violence today, because they found relief in a violent videogame?
I guess statistics are a bit hard to come by on that one.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.