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

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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?