The State of Play - Violence and Videogames

mozen writes "The BBC has an article up discussing the effects of videogames on the mind and how the media are reluctant to talk more openly about violent games. From the article: 'People who've grown up with Mario see him keeping pace, running and jumping along the building tops that streak by on a train journey. At best, it's a pleasant daydream — a happy reminder of a pastime you enjoy, and at worst, it's a mild distraction. Until, that is, you swap the games around. What if my screen dreams aren't of something so patently harmless as Puzzle Quest? What if they're of the stealth kills in Manhunt?'"

Comments

Better quote from the article

[faloi]

Games are under such sustained, and unfounded, attack because of the violence that they portray - still dramatically less gruesome that what is commonplace in film and TV

Wait, come again?

[Thansal]

The media DOESN'T like talking about violence in video games? What news sources do they use?

Or Pac-Man.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pac-man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music."

I'd post more, but I've gotta go to a rave tonight.

Re:Or Pac-Man.

[HTH NE1]

"Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pac-man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music."

I'd post more, but I've gotta go to a rave tonight. Just don't go around trying to eat the cops afterward.

happens to me all the time

[acvh]

my first memory of this phenomenon is after playing Lode Runner on the C64 for hours, then trying to read a book. the letters would drop off the end of the line as I read.

when I played Katamari for too long I would see everything in terms of "can I roll it up", which could be dangerous when driving.

I still find myself strafing around corners in office building, entering elevators backwards, and being very aware that landing a plane is just a controlled crash.

None of that, however, has made me more likely to shoot someone when the elevator door opens or run my car over a pedestrian to hit my 10m goal.

Re:happens to me all the time

[the dark hero]

Sometimes i see a reticle that turns green or red depending on who i'm looking at.

Re:happens to me all the time

[Solra Bizna]

I've been known to walk at a ~30 degree angle for extra speed.

-:sigma.SB

Fucking hell.

[Pojut]

What if my screen dreams aren't of something so patently harmless as Puzzle Quest? What if they're of the stealth kills in Manhunt?'"

Then that means you daydream about that time you actually got the red kill. Big deal. You aren't daydreaming about murdering someone and then attempting to cover your tracks, worried if you will be found out, living with the guilt.

You are daydreaming about pressing fucking buttons. If you get those two confused, you belong in a VERY padded cell.

Media's reluctance

[aztektum]

Hopefully because they realize it's bullshit to blame videogames for idiots who act badly. I watched Zappa on Crossfire (via YouTube) yesterday and it was the same argument ~20 years ago, except about rock music.

If you don't like the content DON'T FUCKING BUY IT.

Re:Media's reluctance

[Control Group]

Absolutely we'd like to know about it. But what do you do? Give your child a list of words never to say? Not let him play with other kids whose families have different policies on games and movies their kids can play and watch?

Frankly, yes, that's exactly what you do. While I'd be - to some extent - offended if some parents down the street stopped letting their son play with mine because they know I take my son shooting, I can't help but respect their commitment to raising their child the way they believe to be right.

Look at it this way: over the course of a normal life, every person is going to have to make decisions about the sorts of people he or she is going to associate with; that's one of the responsibilities of being an adult. When you have a young child, you have to assume those responsibilities for your child until he's old enough to shoulder them himself. No, of course it's neither pleasant nor ideal; neither is the rest of life.

And in the particular instance of swearing, a list of things he's not allowed to say isn't such a bad idea. After all, there's nothing inherently immoral about swearing, it's the use of obscenity in an inappropriate context that's the problem. There's a difference between me saying typing "fuck" on slashdot and me saying "fuck" in a job interview. Regardless of whether your son does swear, as long as he knows you won't tolerate it, and he'll get in trouble if you find out about it, I think you're doing your job well. That's the lesson he needs to learn, after all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The standard denial

[p4rri11iz3r]

Just as the article says, everyone here will give the standard denial out of fear of giving the opposition new ammo.

But they do make a point. I've experienced a similar phenomenom. After playing hours of Tetris, I've found myself almost unwillingly thinking about moves, combos etc... even after I'd moved on. There was a pop-cap game where you shoot off fireworks that did the same thing, making me constantly think of new combos and such. We can deny the affects all we like, but anything that is repetitive will eventually get under your skin when over-exposed. The moment of truth comes in how we allow this to affect our behaviour. Most people are able to shake these affects and move on with their life, but a few can become consumed by it. These are the people who become your psychopaths and mass-murderers. Every person feels that urge every now and again to just go off. Whether you're sitting in traffic, in line at the bank, or doing some other tedious and/or annoying task, the urges exist. Those of us who are civilized and possess the ability to think rationally can get past these moments without incident, but again, there are always the few who can't.

This is why violent videogames are important. They help us to see what lies within us, and what the consequences of giving into can lead to. Games like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto are great not because of their gameplay, but because they allow us to do that which we suppress in ourselves. It allows us to act out our most deviant and perverse fantasies without fear of repercussions. Nobody in their right mind will admit to it (which begs the question if I'm in my right mind), but we all have these fantasies at one point or another.

In a way, video games do affect me, just not in the way the "analysts" think. I'd say I'm far less likely to go on a killing spree or whatever after playing GTA. Why? Because I realize that driving my car into a "Pay n' Spray" will not help me one iota in a full on man-hunt involving the FBI and the National Guard. It reinforces that there is nothing great or glorious about killing someone in whatever gruesome manner the developer has cooked up. But most importantly, it helps me realize just how dark and terrible these urges are, and reinforces in me the need to suppress them.

So mod me into oblivion for speaking the truth if you must (It's the slashdot way, afterall), afterall, we wouldn't want our opponents to know this.

For those who don't want to RTFA before posting...

[Lijemo]

1. He does not claim that playing violent video-games make people violent.
2. He does not claim that violent video games should be banned
3. He acknowledges that there is a witch-hunt mentality about violent video games, and condemns this.
4. He plays violent video-games himself.

He does say that doing something over and over again-- whether it's a video game move or a cross-stitch pattern-- clearly affects the way we think. He acknowledges that this does NOT have to affect how we behave, and usually doesn't. But these things DO have a cognitive effect. His argument is that if we can only ever talk about this effect-or-lack-there-of in the context of condemning or defending violent video games, we are not going to be able to explore what is really happening.

His point is that the cognitive effects-- positive, negative, and/or neutral-- are worth exploring, and cannot be explored when every exploration begins with an agenda of "for" or "against", setting out to prove that games are/are not harmful. Is this really such an outlandish suggestion?