Slashdot Mirror
Games Are No Cause For Murder
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.
Not that it will be anything worth while, but that's never stopped him before.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
from the article "Getting mired in the minutia of cause and effect keeps us in a constant cycle of fear and blame. It's an utter waste of time."
straight, to the point, and in my opinion very accurate. kudos for this one!
I'm not sure that gamers and game journalists repeatedly stating, "Games don't cause violence," is doing any good. Usually, its preaching to the choir. In the cases its not, simply saying, "Hey they don't cause violence," isn't going to convince anyone not already convinced. It seems to me that articles of these sorts are more mental masturbation than anything else.
Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof? If you want to convince people, how about trying something a bit more scientific?
I am shocked that more people don't make the connection that: of course the murderer kid played violent video games... s/he was a violent person! If those games "made" people violent, then wouldn't there be a direct correlation between when a new game is released and some huge spike in murder statistics, where the new murderers mostly also owned the game?
stuff |
Afternoon tea is no cause for solar eclipses
Wood polish is no cause of sleeping sickness
Radio waves are no cause of cumulus nimbus
How video games inspire violence in 3 easy steps:
1) Psycho plays video game
2) Psycho likes what he did in fantasy world
3) Psycho goes outside and lives out his fantasy world with the best weapons he can find
There's the issue, in a nutshell.
The kids parents (or their legal guardians w/e) are responsible for those kids. They either need to keep them in line or find assistance from another source to do their job. I know there are lots of great parents out there doing their jobs but their kids aren't the "vocal minority" making waves in the pool. Its the slackers, the drug users, the abusers who end up with dejected kids. And those are the kids I feel sorry for.
~Vexed and loving it!
I decided to run the Jack Thompson Translation software on the first comment from TFA...See the results below. Comments in italics, translations are not.
Just off the top of my head, benefits I've gotten from gaming
1. Faster, more accurate typing skills (for dodging bullets)
2. better reading comprehension (so I know who to shoot)
3. Sharpened Problem solving skills (when the gun doesn't work, switch to the knife)
4. Computer and Programming knowledge (old aimbots didn't install themselves you know!)
5. Experience using CAD like programs (to make maps of my school of course)
6. better hand eye coordination (the better to shoot you with my dearie!)
-
I had a good signature until format c:
Video games cause obesity and heart failure.
I mean, if I'm playing video games all the time and not exercising and then subsequently die of a heart attack, then it's the video games, not my sloth, that killed me, right?
In other other other news, parents are not to be blamed for anything.
u-bend
I don't know. I've played some games that made me want to kill...the developer of the game.
Listing studies and statistics, is logical if you believe that video games are games, but is futile if you believe video games are something you don't understand or value. If we assume that Slashdot posters, when compared to the general population, are more logical, more male, and more likely to value enjoyment derived from video games, then logical arguments would be "preaching to the choir".
If we assume that those whom believe video games are not fun, have no value, and are tools of the devil, then it won't matter how many "typical immature males" cite numbers, statistics, or logical cause-and-effect studies, the "fact" will remain that I know video games have no value, so it's no surprise to me that they make males violent, and if I can further enhance my power, agenda, and feeling of moral superiority, by being "against violence" and "protecting children" then why would I not do so?
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.
You can replace step one with "Reads a book", "Watches television" or heck, even, "daydreams" and it will be just as accurate - which speaks volumes on the worth of the argument put forth
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
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.
One argument I have not heard very often, but I think should be brought to light, is that someone predisposed to engaging in violent activities may be drawn to violent video games, more than the average person. That point of basically allows that someone may use video games as an out, or that they could maybe be involved with pulling that person deeper into whatever is causing them to have violence problems. One wonders if the preconditions for someone who will be violence affects how they percieve themselves, and the real world versus the video game world.
More simply put, seeking violent video games may be one of the effects, rather than the cause. The problem is that most gamers are not in this category.
More Caffeine. NOW
"Political correctness?" Really? I think you'll find that bad parenting predates the term. One can find such parenting even in morally rigid, highly unrelativistic families. A hundred hours of GTA are nothing next to a lifetime under an abusive dogmatist for a father, for example. Parents who want to be the buddies of their kids, though annoying, do far less damage to society than the ones who do their best to grind the kids' self-esteem under their heels.
And saying the games are a catalyst still implies causation, which remains unproven.
"Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
Disclaimer: although I did get drafted into the army, and in case of a war I'd be a sergeant, this was a long time ago and I don't think I was some expert even then. Also, I'm an AA guy, and we did less infantry training than the _real_ infantry. So take it with a grain of salt.
That said, I think that games offer an even more distorted view than even you credit them with. E.g.,
1. Tactical priority: games offer a massively distorted view of that. Sometimes stuff that's far away is of higher priority than stuff that's relatively nearer, especially if you're a specialist in some kind of weapon. E.g., as AA crews we'd give a lot higher priority to a bomber that's currently 75 km away than to infantry at 1 km away. ('Course, if said infantry is currently assaulting your position, the priorities change a lot.) E.g., a sniper has a helluva lot of priority even when he's farther away, and for suppression value (and therefore priority) it ranks up there with a heavy machinegun.
Weapons and priorities also are mis-represented in games. E.g., in Counter-Strike someone with an AK-47 at 200m is as good as guaranteed to miss, due to weapon spread. You can just strafe lots and ignore him. In real life that weapon can be aimed pretty damn well up to 300m or so, after which trajectory curvature starts to be a problem. E.g., in most FPS there are whole classes of weapon (e.g., any SMG) which take 10-20 rounds to kill you, and which you can pretty much plan around taking a few hits to get the gunner with a more powerful weapon. IRL even one shot can kill or disable you. Etc. It's stuff which games actively teach you to give a low priority to, although IRL you wouldn't.
2. Tactical Sequence: In a game it just doesn't work. "Get 'em all bleeding first" is a recipe for disaster in 99% of the games. A badly injured opponent can still move just as fast and hit you just as hard. Putting 1-2 bullets in each of 10 enemies still leaves you with 10 perfectly functional enemies. You don't even get "frags" (points) when one of them finally kills you. In games you'd want to kill them one by one, even at the cost of completely ignoring some.
For that matter, suppression just doesn't work in games either. A lot of what we were trained to do in the army had nothing to do with even making them bleed, but with pinning them down until the heavy weapons get them. (Infantry isn't there to kill any more, infantry is there 90% of the time to pin you down until someone shoots something deadlier at you.) If you will, it's not as much even "get 'em all bleeding first" as just "get them to hit the ground first". Not contradicting your "slowing it down first" point, just, if you will, elaborating on it.
Even if you don't have heavy weapons handy, the most basic military maneuver is pin-and-flank: you pin with 2 units and flank with a third. Whether it's squads, platoons, companies or whatever: pin and flank. Slow them down so you can flank them.
In most games that just doesn't work. Pinning doesn't work and enfilade fire doesn't work. When dealing with 4-5 people running around different routes, there _is_ no enfilade and defilade. You can't learn to understand why it's deadly to have the enemy machinegun sideways along your line, when you don't actually have a line they can shoot at. Etc.
3. Using Cover: You've nailed that one pretty darn well already, but methinks most video games are even worse than that. I can think of all sorts of sins of various video games, such as cover not working at all in some. E.g., as an extreme example, in Postal 2, if the enemy can see any bit of you at all, they'll hit you with 100% accuracy all the time. E.g., if you were in a bunker with a thin slit to shoot through, someone with a revolver at 100m will unerringly head-shot you through that slit. You're no better using any kind of cover than just running around in the open.
But generally, that's part of a bigger problem, that realistic tactics don't work well in games and viceversa. Half of them re
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
After watching the trailers for StarCraft 2, I had a sudden urge to take six dogs and rush my neighbor...