Slashdot Mirror
Senior Game Designer Talks About Game Violence, Real Violence, and Lead (Video)
William Volk may not be the world's oldest game designer, but he's up there. He started out as a play tester for Avalon Hill in 1979, and since then has worked for Activision and other major players in the game space. His current job is with PlayScreen, where he's working on their Word Carnivale iOS game, which is not violent at all. But over the years Volk has worked on slightly violent video games and has watched public outcries over video game violence since 1976. He's also tracked how much less violence we've seen since lead was removed from gasoline. (Editorial interjection: Aren't most remaining pockets of massive gun violence in cities where many poor kids grow up in apartments that have lead paint?) Due to technical problems during the interview, some of the conversation is missing, primarily about the recent spate of multiple murders. It seems, for instance, that Newtown shooter Adam Lanza was heavily into violent video games, which is sure to spark plenty of new discussion about how they affect players. But then again, as Volk reminded me in an email, "If people were influenced by video games, a majority of Facebook users would be farmers by now," a meme that has been floating around Facebook since last year, if not earlier.
if farming wasn't hard work with high overhead and a risky payoff.
It's abortions and stronger morals that have allowed this reduction in violence.
Farmville does not realistically represent the manual labor or complexity of farming in the slightest, whereas FPSes compete with each other to include the most gore.
(Granted, the gore isn't realistic either but, if anything, it's exaggerated for dramatic purposes.)
Most homes in New England (especially in Northern New England: New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine) have lead paint. Yet, New England (and especially Northern New England) has some of the lowest levels of violence in the USA.
One thing that is important is to keep in mind is perspective:
The millions murdered in World War 1 & 2 never played video games.
So I'm not sure ready to jump on the "video games == violence" bandwagon; no doubt "video game violence" and the "causation vs correlation" will be debated till the end of time so I did my own experiment. As both a game programmer and designer I have found that when take a month long break from gaming I have found that my mind is significantly calmer. I have also done experiment with Aikido, meditation and yoga (found Aikido to be very interesting, meditation to largely be a waste of time, and found yoga to be extremely helpful.) Gaming with my online buddies is also a great stress reliever since we're almost all 40+, can joke around with each other, have fun cooperating, and don't have to worry about the typical bullshit drama. I would wager to bet that we all find it therapeutic after a long day at the office. The point of all this is that each person needs to find out what works for them. i.e. Listen to a new genre of music and keep a log of how it effects you, etc.
Since the human brain is at least a threefold structure ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain ) I wouldn't be at least bit surprised if the reptilian complex ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_ganglia ) is responsible for some of the inherent violence in men. A civilized person doesn't want to beat the living crap out of another person -- yet our species is "entertained" by such mindless violence -- one has to wonder if it isn't deeply ingrained in our genetics.
--
Only cowards use censorship.
Does playing violent games cause people to be violent in real life or do violent people in real life prefer to play violent games? In both cases there is a correlation but the cause and effect are reversed.
See: http://xkcd.com/1138/
Talk to any marketing 'professional' about the effects of various forms propaganda on humans.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'd be willing to bet $1 that there is at least one person out there that has tried to duplicate at least some part of their Farmville crop at home, even if it's buying a tomato plant. Why would the effect only be legitimate if a majority of people follow it?
They quote the Sun, as a source the Lanza played video games? Supposedly going off the word of a plumber who supposedly heard this from his mother? Why am I not surprised no other major news outlet has claimed this despite the fact the Sun published it's claims in mid December. Even if it were true, I'm willing to bed a significant portion of the younger generation has played CoD at one time or another. I have. I'm willing to bet they breathed air at some point or another. Are we to ban that?
If video games affected kids, then they would all be running around a dark room eating pills and listening to electronic music.
Unfortunately though, that happened. It was called the rave scene.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Here is a better article than the small blog post cited. Read the whole thing. The clincher for me was that when lead was removed from gasoline in different states at different times the reduction in violence in those areas tracked perfectly two decades later. Not only that, but the shape of the violence reduction data tracked well with the shape of the lead reduction data. (i.e. a fast phase out of lead resulted in a fast reduction of crime twenty years later.)
The video games/violence debate is extremely flawed from both angles. In this regard it reminds me of the nature/nurture arguments -- whenever someone takes a side one way or the other I'm convinced they're wrong. The problem with the 'video games cause violence' argument is that people are free to make choices of their own. The problem with the 'video games don't cause violence' argument is that the choices people make, especially among children, are influenced by environmental factors.
I'm critical of video gaming as a lifestyle. I have no problem with them as an occasional diversion, but playing for hours on end is like running a screensaver on your computer -- it's keeps things active enough to stay on, but nothing useful is happening. I've seen children who act violently, mimicking video games/tv/movies/etc., but that's not what really concerns me. What concerns me is that the children who play lots of video games have an extremely adverse reaction to any suggestion that they should read, do something constructive, or exercise. All too often these 'gamers' are confused for nerds (or geeks or whatever word you choose to use). They are not. They're morons and they'll remain morons as long as they spend the majority of their free time on XBox Live or the Playstation Network.
That's not to say I think video games are a scourge to society. They're no different than TV in this regard. The problem is parents who allow their children to plug into these diversions from actual life on an almost permanent basis. Many of my friends have children. The ones who limit video game/tv time and only offer it as a reward for doing constructive things have well adjusted children who are bright. The ones who let their kids zombify themselves in front of the boob tube have maladjusted morons for children who think an example of fine art is a Michael Bay film.
When people claim that video games cause violence they're oversimplifying the issue -- however I can't disagree that children who are raised by video games moreso than their parents will be more prone to becoming violent adults than those who aren't. When people dismiss the idea that 'video games cause violence' that's not really what they're objecting to -- they're objecting to the very true assertion that playing video games extensively has a negative impact on an individual's life.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
No one would play a hyper realistic farming game. On some level though we all seem to enjoy throwing stuff at moving stuff, even if simulated. It seems logical to me that repeated simulated murder could warp the mind of a young or weak mind. But what I heard was Adam Lanza played WoW...
Video games might have been a factor without being a cause. From the reports I've heard (which, admittedly, might still be pure speculation), he saw his shooting body count as a "score" and was trying to top the "high score" set by the Norwegian shooter. Of course, your average gamer into games of that nature might try to top a "high body count" score within the game, but isn't likely to try to replicate this outside of the game.
He also trained at shooting ranges for this so it's not like video games were his only "target practice." Is anyone calling for shooting ranges to be shut down because they're "obviously training killers"?
This was likely a case of a mental illness causing fantasy and reality to blur. People like this should steer clear of violent video games and seek help to manage their conditions. Sadly, too many fall through the cracks or aren't diagnosed at all (until they go on a rampage). Banning violent video games to keep a small population of mentally vulnerable people from turning into killers is like banning peanut butter from all stores lest someone with a severe peanut allergy ingest it.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Everyone knows it's not the violent video games, it's that evil Jazz music corrupting our youth!
If you want to learn more, I strongly suggest you read Grossman's _On Killing_. While it's not a rigorous scientific study, it's the best I've seen. Ethics boards won't allow the rigorous study, fortunately.
What games compare to movies like Saw?
- The guy doing the interview is completely leading the speaker.
- The speaker is talking about the history of people being overly butthurt by violence in games. Then speaks about the media being hyper sensitive to violence in games.
- We are asking a guy who has never worked on a violent video game, his opinion on video games and expecting there to not be a bias?
HOWEVER! I was in a car accident, and my car flipped, and landed upside down. The first thing I did was kick out the driver side window, crawl out, and get some distance between me and the car. Then wait for police to arrive. Why? Because when you flip a car, it slowly catches fire and explodes. I will admit, that sounds like I was trained by video games. Namely GTA. Could it have been because I got hit in the face with the airbag? Trauma from the accident? Either way, I dont go around shooting places up. So take it how you will.
yeah, "tomato" plant...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Both sides of the "violent video game" argument are idiots.
The "pro" violent games people never seems to come to grips with the fact that as living things, we've been evolving for millions of years and this whole video games thing is such a RADICALLY new form of sensory input requiring unprecedented (from an evolutionary standpoint) sensory/emotional/cognitive processing.
It's a little like the internet porn thing. One could say the same about TV. They are pretty new phenomena. To argue that it has no effect on people, or that any effect is purely benign, reflects a naivete that is difficult to overstate. I'd argue that TV is FAR worse for people's minds than porn or video games, but that's another topic for another day.
People who describe themselves as "gamers" - just because you THINK you are well-adjusted doesn't mean that you ARE. IMO there is something wrong with people who need to sit in front of a screen being entertained for hours every day to feel normal.
The "anti" violent game people just don't see reality. It's the same shit as the anti gun people. So there's a small minority of people who will react adversely to violent games, just like there's a small number of people who sometimes go crazy and kill people with guns. I KNOW, LET'S BAN GUNS AND VIOLENT GAMES, THAT'LL SOLVE THE PROBLEM!
Idiocy.
Centers of violence in big cities; there are a lot more points of commonality than just old buildings with lead paint.
- Industry or the remains of it (with possible associated environmental effects)
- High 'welfare state' environment (probably most of the big cities)
- Very bureaucratized government, and associated organizations (school districts, teachers unions).
- Run for decades or longer by democrats or left leaning governments/bureacracies (hence the welfare state and 'strong' governmental organizations and NGO/unions resistant to change)
- Police more restricted in options for dealing with gangs and crooks for political/racial reasons (for this look at New York which 'got tough' under Giuliani and saw noticeable reduction in many areas of crime along with years of complaints about racism and profiling)
- Criminal gangs. There was an article in the local paper (sorry, no link I could find) that claimed 80% of the shootings in Chicago were gang caused or gang related. If you listen to the Chicago police bloggers they are both badly undermanned and also politically restrained from dealing effectively with (largely minority based) gangs.
But the US is the only industrial country with so high a level of gun violence. Maybe it has to do with gun culture. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/crime/larsgun.htm
" Aren't most remaining pockets of massive gun violence in cities where many poor kids grow up in apartments that have lead paint?)"
Care to venture any actual evidence for this?
I believe the quote goes:
"If video games influenced kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms eating pills and listening to repetative music."
The joke being that Pacman is the game they're using as an example and it shares a lot of simularities with raves and nightclubs in general.
Crack-heads, street gangs, the mafia, drugs cartels, the 1%, etc... don't care about video games. They care about power, they like to spread fear in people's eyes, this feeling is much more powerful than playing video games. We should ask what Genghis Khan thinks about that.
"If people were influenced by video games, a majority of Facebook users would be farmers by now"
This made me laugh for the "in your face" factor, however quip hardly closes the door on the debate. I would submit that generally it is much easier to influence socially undesirable behavior in people than it is to influence desirable behavior. It's human nature - the forbidden fruit is always calling. The appeal of the easy score, and "being bad" for real excitement has no substitute in farming vegetables, paying taxes and enjoying a good round of Go Fish. Just because Farmville players are not easily subdued into actual farming, it does not follow that more violent games cannot have a subversive effect on its players...
"If people were influenced by video games, a majority of Facebook users would be farmers by now"
Idiotic statement. A) We're not talking about farming, and B) just because everyone had not transformed into a farmer does not mean people are not influenced by those games, and C) farming and killing (in games) most likely stimulate completely different parts of the brain. You're comparing apples to pineapples. Yes, they sound similar but are mostly different. Every single thing you see or do has an influence on you at some level.
Good to hear that someone from Avalon Hill is still around. I've been playing their boardgames (and those from SPI) since the mid-70s. That's way before video games were invented (uh-oh...that's bound to start something). And I remember that some 'conventions' - where a dozen or two dweebs would gather at a school meeting room to play through a WW2 simulation - were picketed by protesters who believed that the boardgames were promoting violence.
I wasn't either side of the fence - I got my kicks from a different group, but in those days and in that town (London, UK) there was no shortage of like-minded opponents.
What does this mean? People always protest against activities seen to promote violence. BTW, anyone see any protest against the scouts, or paintball?
And anyone up for a game of 'Pax Brittanica'?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
*ANYTHING* that a person is exposed to will have some influence on that person. It only stands to reason, regardless of what sort of thing they are exposed to, that t sufficient frequency of exposure is going to have a profound impact on what sort of person they become. This does not mean that environment determines behavior in any sort of absolute sense, but it is somewhere between naive and completely ignorant to assert that human beings are not ever going to be affected by what they are exposed to. Bad or good. And yes... that even includes playing video games.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So apparently video games are highly addictive and people will play them and play them and not do anything else, but at the same time they'll go outside. Something's not adding up.
exactly! your ADDITION is causing violence! time to lynch the mathemologists! we'll fix the violence by hurting the statisticians until they stop finding reasons for violence!
The Call of Duty series are some of the best selling games out there, and they are violent as hell. If they lead to more violence, well then we should be seeing a lot of it given how many people play them, and that the number who do is increasing. But of course we don't. The best kept secret of the media, it would seem, is that violent crime has been on a steady decline, which is a wonderful thing.
Also it rather ignore nature. A big part of play in many critters is fighting. Their play mimics their combat in many ways, just non-harmful. Get a couple of kittens and watch what they do: They stalk and ambush each other, the wrestle, bite, kick with their back feet, etc. Well guess what? This is what cats do when they are hunting/fighting, only the claws are out and the moves are full-force. This is true even of cats who are 100% domesticated, and never have to hunt for food or defend themselves. They can tell the difference, they don't accidentally rip each other apart, play and combat may be related, but they aren't the same thing.
So why would we think humans would be so different? Why wouldn't our play be play fighting, and why wouldn't be be able to tell them apart?
I've never seen someone threadjack their own submission before. I guess this is a nice change from your normal astroturfing product "reviews".
you can't say video game A causes people to be violent, but video game B does not.
Fallacy of composition -
CoD is a first person shooter. Farmville is a 2D overhead view game. The stimuli can be extremely different, therefore causing different effects.
I don't read AC A human right
I think the effect is for lead in gasoline more than paint, no?
Lets get real. Lots and lots of poor Whites in places like Kentucky and West Virginia and Idaho and Montana and Wyoming with plenty of access to guns and lots of lead paint ... never even APPROACH the levels of violence in places like Chicago and Detroit. Where lead paint has been removed decades ago and big housing projects have been replaced (like the Robert Taylor Homes) with small, Section 8 housing scattered across new, lead-free construction.
The reality is the violence comes almost exclusively from Black people, to a lesser extent Hispanics. The murder rate in Mexico over the past five years exceeds that of IRAQ! during the same time period. About 500 people were murdered in Chicago, almost all of them by young Black men (and most of the victims were young Black men, to a lesser extent Black women and children and elderly who were targets of convenience). This pattern is basically tribal warfare, seen extensively among stone age peoples in the Amazon and Borneo.
The original poster is going through mental gyrations and contortions to avoid the obvious truth: Western society and America has a major, MAJOR PROBLEM WITH BLACK PEOPLE. AGAIN: BLACK PEOPLE.
No, Black people are neither racially inferior nor superior. They do have a major, major problem with violence that is out of control. Even with spree killers, lone young males, they outnumber in victims and crimes, young lone White males: Colin Ferguson the Long Island Railway shooter, Omar Thornton the New Haven shooter, Cookie Thornton the Kirkland Colorado shooter, Nkosi Thandiwe the Atlanta shooter. And of course LA's own Christopher Dorner. All targeting deliberately Whites, Asians, and Hispanics (Dorner wrote online he was targeting those specifically).
Black people have always had violence levels higher than Whites, and Asians (who have historically the lowest levels). Nothing like this. My view is that the most likely explanation is the widespread illegitimacy levels (approaching 100% in the urban core and approaching 80% nationally) among Blacks. And the well known but taboo fact that the most hardcore, gangsta killers have the most kids.
Again a pattern seen among the stone age tribes in the Amazon and New Guinea. Or for that matter Neolithic Europeans.
Black people are able to act this way because there is no penalty. The cheapest and easiest way to stop the violence in Chicago would be to sweep through the Southside and Westside of Chicago, and arrest all Black males found with guns illegally. This would mean sending to prison for twenty plus years about 40% or more of Black males ages 14-45. Which would solve the violence problem.
It is cheaper than the current cost of violence but politically impossible because Black votes form the bedrock of the Chicago political machine and such targeting of criminals is illegal due to the Civil Rights Act (which gives Black people special protected class status) and many, many Supreme Court decisions and DOJ rulings.
Young Asian men consume in Japan and elsewhere, appallingly violent video games and are known as Otaku or grass eaters or herbivore males. Many places where they live in South Korea and Japan still have lots of lead paint. Compare/contrast the violence levels of herbivore males in lead-paint housing versus Black young men in lead-free housing.
Until we imprison young men for carrying guns illegally, and also shame and impose costs on young women who choose the most violent thugs for the fathers of their children, we will have violence up the wazoo, just like Stone Age tribes, Amazonian or European.
This just in: young men will happily kill anyone if it gets them laid, and produces kids (they don't have to care for) and they have few consequences. The "No Snitch" policy of the Black community leads to the murder clearance rate in Detroit approaching about 10%. Or conversely if you are a young Black man in Detroit (90% Black population) and inclined to kill someone there is a 90% chance you will get away with it, and the rewa
Wouldn't motorcycle riding be more moral than driving because of the fuel savings? Or does the health cost outweigh the fuel savings in this case?
Has anyone done lead testing at the Newtown shooter's home?
It might be interesting to see the results. Actually you could go back and check the homes of other mass murderers in the past few years, and even track back to where they lived previously, and homes of relatives like grandparents where they may have spent a lot of time.
That's one of the most insightful things I've read in a long time - and looking to the username, I'm not surprised. Glad to see you're still around.
The problem with play fighting and real fighting is that the average moron actually can't tell the difference. I'm sure you saw more than a few play fights turn serious in school. I know I did.
The premise that the brain can't distinguish between fiction and reality is what makes our imaginations so powerful. We can train in SPORTS by imagining. Look it up.
When I play violent games (and I am entertained by them), I do notice myself becoming restless. While I dont go out and shoot people, I can certainly believe that someone might. Violent games aren't a single cause of real violence, but nothing is. It's a combination of bad times (!!), social acceptance, need, and training that makes for violence. Games are only one of the ingredients. We must control ALL of them to effectively control violence.