Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Games Are No Cause For Murder

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the there-very-rarely-is dept.

An anonymous reader writes "At Gamers With Jobs, Shawn Andrich speaks out against pointing the finger at videogames as a causative factor in a murder cases. He makes the excellent point that, though we may enjoy the metaphor, life is not a game. There is no simple connection between event A and event B. Our actions are dictated by experiences from a lifetime, and they should be addressed that way for good or ill. 'Life can't be framed up like a game of billiards. There is no easy eight ball, corner pocket shot to be made when trying to draw a line between cause and action ... Lasting, positive change will only come when we stop reaching for causes and start creating conditions that will support kids and teenagers who need it. We can't make anyone put the pin back in the grenade, but by supporting active, caring people who want to help, we might be able to influence some of those fateful decisions before it gets that far.'" GamePolitics on Joystiq has an editorial up looking at a similar question.

6 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Not that I agree with Thompson,and I'll probably get modded way down for saying this), but it needs to be said. Some of these games are not really much more than combat simulators.

    Do our servicemen and women run through combat simulators without having some sort of debrief afterwards to deal with the physiological and mental stresses put on them? Is there a good reason for doing that?

    So, if the people who really DO train people to kill think it's a good idea, why do we argue the point.

    No, I'm not saying that just because you play GTA you're going to go out and steal cars and kill people, but don't be so naive as to assume that there are never physiological and psychological effects arising from seeing accurately simulated violence.

    Thompson's a nutjob, no arguing there. Just saying that just because his extreme isn't right, doesn't make the other extreme right. There is a middle there, and we should probably be thinking about it.

  2. Parental Intervention by the_crowing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as I disagree with people blaming video games for violent actions in young people, it is plausible that exposing an 8 year old to violent video games and movies will have a violent influence. However, when a violent incident involving kids or teenagers occurs and people look to video games as the scapegoat, they neglect to consider that parental intervention is what really could have prevented something like that from happening. I think parents should be held accountable for something like that happening above all else.

  3. Social and moral relativism is simply killing us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Our actions are dictated by experiences from a lifetime, and they should be addressed that way for good or ill.
    I think it's plainly obvious to see just what happens when children are raised by parents who are more interested in their career than their children, are more interested in being "friends" with than applying discipline to their children, and are more concerned with keeping political correctness than instructing their children about the consequences of their actions. Games are not the cause, but they are a catalyst to an unstable morally ungrounded mind.
  4. Blaming video games is ... by OneMHz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) an oversimplification, as you can almost guarantee that it is NOT the only source of violence, 2) a scapegoat that simply removes the responsibility of the person who committed a crime, those who influenced the person toward violence (*coughparentscough*) and anyone else who could have had an influence. People see a freak, and they treat them like a freak. Yet they're surprised when that person does something... freaky. If we blame violence on video games because they exposed someone to violence, then can't we blame the news too? How about violence in the streets or the home? Let's ban all of it! It would seem (to me) that "real" violence might have a more significant impact than fantasy violence, at least in developing a personality/irrational responses/violent tendencies. Most importantly, correlation is not the same as causality. And more imprtantly A implies B does NOT mean B implies A. A violent personality making someone like violent video games dose not imply liking violent video games means a person has a violent personality. And it especially means liking violent video games causes a person to have/develop a violent personality.

  5. Re:Of course... by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You overestimate the "simulation" environment that these games provide.

    I remember reading a story about a drill sergeant who had noticed a difference in how his newest recruits who played FPS games adapted to training in relation to how the non gaming recruits performed. Needless to say that this was picked up by every media outlet possible and misrepresented to make it look like video games were training our children to be killers.

    I agree that there are some elements that a FPS, or any other action game for that matter, can most certainly influence - but these things are useless without weapons training.
    1. Tactical Priority - the closest thing to you is slightly more dangerous than something far away. Anyone who has ever played any game involving bad guys who attempt to hurt you is that the closest guy is generally the biggest threat.
    2. Tactical Sequence - Sometimes baddies come extremely fast and everything needs to be slowed down. Basically the theory of "get em all bleeding first."
    3. Using cover - No, not in actuality, but in theory. Identifying what can be used as cover from certain vantage points is most certainly developed when playing any video games. "He can't see me if I hide behind this!" Now, lets address the practical use of cover. A video game is not going to teach you that you shouldn't lean on or crowd your cover, something everyone does off the bat because they see it in movies. A game also can't teach you what cover is actually protective and which is merely visual cover. Real training does that.

    None of these skills are practical without significant weapons training. In fact, they're pretty close to worthless, so I think the term "combat simulator" is a little harsh. Maybe combat game is more accurate.

  6. Re:Preaching to the Choir by Rycross · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The idea that Quake or any other FPS teaches people to aim a gun is fairly foolish, as it does nothing to show people how to line up their sights and get an appropriate sight picture.

    I agree, its incredibly foolish, which is why people aren't saying that. Its a strawman that gamers and journalists bring out to pound on so that they can feel oh-so-superior to the anti-game lobby. What Jack-o and company are claiming is that it can mentally prepare them to kill another human. That is, it can lessen the psychological resistance and after-effects of killing another human being. Now, I think that this is bullshit, but its not really quite as clear-cut, which is why I suspect my fellow gamers like to trot out the strawman.

    However, having been trained in the military how to shoot after having almost no experience with firearms prior to that, I can tell you that training someone in the basics of aiming and firing a weapon can be done in a very short amount of time (twenty minutes or so in a classroom environment). You can also easily do a Google search and find out pretty much anything you need to know to figure it out for yourself.

    I've fired a handgun, and its fairly easy. You won't become a marksman overnight, but close enough for government work.