Violence in gaming, a legitimate concern, or just media nonsense?

Remove all ads!

This has been a concern for quite some time, and I have always thought it was just an easy target for ignorant people to blame. Now I wanna know what you think here at the boards.

 

Media nonsense.

I was always the same person. That in the game is not real world and I'm aware of it perfectly. It can't determine my way of life.
However, I don't think you should show it to 3 years old kid, but then again - would 3 year old kid be able to play such game?

Media nonsense.

 

I've been playing violent games like forever, and it's a bunch of crap I think. I'm a very friendly person and only being evil as in jest (if you've been in the chatroom you know what I mean)

 

No way! You are evil Lokken!


EDITED HERE: I feel I should add some more; Give a psycho inspiration from a computer game and he might use it. But he was a psycho before playing the game and would have found some other way to produce violent acts eventually. In no way do computer games and movies foster psychos.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 13, 2001).]

 

Media nonesense

I am outraged (twitch) that people think (twitch) that gamers like us (twitch) are violent because of games (twitch) when all we want to do is have (twitch) fun killing things...........i mean on the screen (jerk)...........not in real life! (jerk)
I did not do it i tell you she asked for it!
DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(twitch)(spasm)(twitch)(jerk)(spasm)

 

Better fake violence than real violence...

 

I wrote a paper on this last quarter and found that the same arguements get recycled each time a new form of entertainment comes out. First it was books, then movies,then TV and now video games. Wait till something new comes along and then it'll be what causes us to act violent.

 

Pokemon trading cards...

 

You should not make fun of this. I feel that if more gore and maybe some closer views of a good combat sword strike was added to Icewind Dale, I would have brought swords to school and tried to fight people

 

Now obviously most of us are mature reasonable people that wouldn't be affected by violence in games. Mind you I say most of us Now admitedly violence in music, games, tv, whatever hasn't made me a violent person. I don't like it in real life; I probably never will. However, I doubt very little that such things will fuel people prone to senseless, mindless violence (and beleive me there a plenty of testosterone charged people running around looking for any excuse to fight). Now admittedly, there are crazies who will kill no matter what. But also, really the more people are desensitized to violence, the less it will mean. Some people see it, they play it, they get off on it. Violence in games obviously isn't the cause of anything whatsoever. But it would be a terrible oversight to dismiss the idea that copious amounts of media violence, whether in music, tv, movies, and games isn't a contributing factor along with other things. Just because it isn't the cause of a problem doesn't mean it can't be part of it. Just something to think about...

 

I believe small kids should not be allowed to play violent computer/video games or watch violent movies/tv programmes. They do not have the same understanding of reality as older people have.

 

people with violent tendancies playing violent games will cause them to be violent.
peaceful people who play violent games will still be peaceful.
the only fear is when the violent people get violent entertainment.

 

I couldn't resist responding to this thread as I've been raving about it on my own board recently. Basically it is one of those subjects that always wind me up especially when I see misinformed hyped up nonsense spread across the press. I was also attracted because of Capt. Tripps and Crawl's comments and would like to add to them.

Anyway, firstly a couple of recent articles that I have seen on the 'video games are bad' theme. The first related how a Japanese professor (deliberate use of the lower case as if the article has any truth at all he is not deserving of any academic honours) was claiming that video games stunted the development of childrens' brains. Now I don't know the full extent of the research but even the little bits that were hinted at suggested incredible bias in the research methodology (narrow range of games, unrealistic length of tests, small survey sizes, unrealistic control groups, no investigation of other effects, etc). Also, based on my own acadmic career, I know how difficult it can be to find funding at times, so my belief is that the prof was using media hype to generate cash for his department. Interestingly the Dr.s at Bioware responded to his article by pointing out the prof had not subjected any of his findings to the acadmic peer review process. As any academic knows, no theory is taken as remotely serious until it is subjected to the scrutiny of relevant peers. Of course the press don't consider any of this they just jump on the 'games are bad for you' theme.

The second article recently was even more outrageous in its misrepresentation of the facts. So much so that I wrote a letter of complaint to the editor. The article gave details about a terrible tradegy in Russia recently were some teenagers had killed their parent over a gaming habit. Now the whole tone of the article tried to present links between, drugs, habits, violence and video games. However, when you read the article it became clear, to anyone in the know, that these teenagers were in fact using slot machines and gambling. They were not playing video games at all. Instead they were taking part in a passtime, gambling, that has long been associated with addiction and violence but that the public has come to accept because it realises these problems are caused by a minority of gamblers. So, as that avenue is less dramatic for the journalist, he has to blame the most recent source of public concern video games.

It as Capt Tripps said, each new release of technology becomes the focus of a certain section of society. These people seem to not be able to cope with the chanages in society overall and so need to find an easy target to blame rather than dealing with the bigger picture. In my life time I have had to endure people attacking me for scateboarding, being a football fan, watching videos, playing games, liking certain music and even, at the time, saying that I shouldn't be watching Starwars as it was a bad influence(unbelievable I know). Anyway, preaching that new hobbies or forms of entertainment are harmful (basically because they are new and not understood by the complainers) is misleading and unhelpful of those people. All they do is alienate even further the very people they can not understand.

However, as Crawl says, if anything at all can contribute to causing a person to cause violence then it should concern us. And painfully I have to admit that there is a good chance that scenes of violence in a game, film or book, might encourage some people to commit acts of violence agaisnt others. This is a terrible things and worth thinking about. Of course another terrible thing is state control and censorship. So, while I remain open to new ideas about controlling violent behaviour (off the top of my head how about tighter gun controls, or physcological test along with normal school exams to identify potentially violent people) I think we all need to consider the hyped up media coverage from a rationale perspective. Ask yourself four questions:

1) how many millions of people play computer games and how many of them then go on to cause bloody massacres?
2) how come people used to commit violent acts before there were books, videos, films, games etc?
3) what other causes can lead to people becoming violent and what can we do to address these problems?
4) I am just complaining about a hobby because I don't understand/like it and have I the right to ruin the enjoyment of milions of people without really finding out the facts?

OK I admit that all of those questions are leading, but at least they are not as bad as the sensationalist, misinformed, hyped-up rubbish that the press rams down our throats just to sell more copy. On that topic, I supose there should be a final question that applies to most things in life, not just games:

a) do you think it is a good idea to let our lives be lead by a very small bunch of jumped up self opinionated journalists who seem to know what is best for us on every subject despite being qualified in none of them?

I suppose I should add that I don't have any disrespect for journalists per se, especially those who write for specialist publications. My scorn is for those that work for the tabloid style papers and preach morals to us just to sell more copy and so make themselves richer.

[This message has been edited by Slappy (edited September 13, 2001).]

 

I have to say though that I generally like games where blood and gore is toned down. The baldur's gate games are mild compared to others...but not every video game has guns or blood in them. It's a few really sick games that gives the industry a bad name.

 

If I may add one point to my argument. I do beleive video games are the least realistic form of violent entertainment out there and it's likely easier for children to differentiate between such violence and the real thing. But like all things, that may be how it usually is. But there are noteable exceptions. There are several war simulation games that are much more realistic, such as raibow six or other games that might be along that theme. Now I don't think games like that are popular with most teenagers, and I don't know how many games like those are out there for the console systems. I'd think those would be the most realistic violent games out there.

Anyway, regardless, a constant desensitizing of our population to violence may not cause violence outright, and some could argue that it isn't a specific contributor to violence. Regardless, if the effects of violence become insignifigant in a young perosn's mind from such things, even if there is no causal relationship between games and violence, it can't be a good thing. Most children just don't understand the consequences of their actions. Really, I'm sure all of us at one time or another have been the same way. If most children do not truly understand how violence affects others, and that violent actions have far reaching consequences, can it be good that the media is constantly overexposing them to it in so many forms, thus reducing it's impact to them on a personal level? I hate to bring this up during such a tough time for many Americans, myself included, but it does make a point. I was watching the news today, and a mother was interviewed. She said when her child saw the plane crash into the WTC and explode, he thought it was cool. It was only after she explained to him how many people were killed and how many mothers and fathers died did he seem to grasp what had happened. Now a good question is how many times do you think that child say a vehichle or plane explode on tv or in the moves and up until now didn't understand what such a violent act, even on the huge scale such acts of violence are on, really means? Just a thought to consider before someone defends their favortite form of entertainment vilignetly, blindly,or dismissively without really considering what the other side is saying.

Incindently, that was a truly well written post Slappy. You make some good points about the detractors of violence in the media and video games in general.

 

*claps* wonderful crawl and slappy, I have to say you two have brought the most light and vibrance to this discussion. Just wanted to say kudos to you both.

I would just like to bring up one point about the psychological testing in schools that you brought up slappy. I am morally against psychological tests as mandatory for all students, it is too prying, and can be a deciding item in several matters, possibly even if the student is allowed to continue to attend which cannot be decided on what I think would be a fluke test not even done by an expert. I suppose it would be a good idea to perform psychological tests on students who have exhibited odd or violent behavior, or any kind of mental instability or exceeded stress however, so I am not completely dismissing the idea.

[This message has been edited by Azirath (edited September 14, 2001).]

 

So the moral is Crawl, Don't let kids play if they can't comprehend.

 

Thanks Crawl. I also think that you're making your point extremely well and I agree with you that creating an impression that violence is 'cool' and without consequence is definitely a bad thing for society. I think we're agreed that these things have to be thought through clearly and logically rather than just jumping from one extreme position to another and blindly following hyped up nonsense.

So with that in mind here's some rambling thoughts........

Addressing the problem of becoming unaware of the consequences of violence it is important to realise that this is not a new issue. As a child I used to play war games and shoot other kids with imaginary guns, I used to read books about heroes who killed people, I saw films that told me how great it was to be a hero in the wild west or in WW2 etc. Further back in time before film, kids would still listen to stories about great heroes and play at being soldiers against each other. I guess one of the issues is how real the portrayed violence becomes. As games and films improve in the quality of the special effects the violence becomes more real yet still appears to carry no adverse affects. This leads to the problem of an individual not being able to differentiate between the game and the real world. I can see that argument but I think there is another side to it as well.

Let me give you two examples. Firstly one that I’m sure most of you will be familiar with. Saving Private Ryan is widely regarded as the most realistic war film ever made. The first 20 minutes during the landing rushed me through a wide range of emotions (and it had this effect on most people I have talked to about it). Most of those emotions were on the side of fear, horror and disgust. It certainly did not make me think it would be cool to have been involved. The only positive emotion it generated was to have an even greater respect for the incredibly brave people who were really involved. Looking at games and a less dramatic example, I have been playing Operation Flashpoint for the last few weeks. It’s the most realistic soldier sim you can buy. I admit I love it and it is like playing war in the park as a kid again. However, the realism does get to my emotions again. There are times when it makes me feel very vulnerable and afraid. Now it can be argued that this game is glorifying violence as a form of entertainment. But it also reminds me that I am so glad that I have never had to do this for real. So, as well as the argument that some people might not be able to distinguish between real and highly realistic and so act out the ‘highly realistic’ fantasies; surely there must also be a case that highly realistic shows you clearly that you do not want to do this for real.

However, it isn't even in these 'entertainment' forms that kids are exposed to these images. There was a Simpsons episode that made a nice point on the subject. It was the episode where Bart forms an army to deal with the school bully. at the end he sits there on the desk and reminds us that wars are not cool....but if you'd like to know more you should go to your local library where there are lots of really great books on the subject some with really gory pictures. Even at school, most of us are taught how heroic we have been as a nation in various wars throughout our history.

Unfortunately, I think part of the problem is that we are a violent animal. We like to think of ourselves as a social animal and look at the good side of that. Sadly we forget that we also tend to be fiercely protective of our ‘own’ social groups and its values. We judge most other groups from ‘our’ perspective, assume we must be right and are quick to resort to force when other won’t accept ‘our’ reason. On a similar note, Crawl mentioned the current tragedy in the US but how many people are sitting down and thinking let's solve this peacefully and find out why the terrorists were so aggrieved that they could be moved to commit such a terrible act. Many people call for justice when they really mean vengeance and, as incredible as it may seem to us, some people in the world think the act was justified (don't get me wrong, I'm totally against terrorism but you have to try and understand what motivates it if you are going to stop it - see http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11503 for a good rational view of the current situation). Society in most places has tried to restrict the aggressive side of our nature but the attraction of violence is always there (look at how popular sporting heroes from Boxing, American football, wrestling, etc are). We like to think we are above violence but it is scary how false that impression is. Look at how easy it is to stir up people to commit terrible crimes against their neighbours (rape murder genocide)- for example in many African countries and Yugoslavia. I know that we have people on these boards from Yugoslavia so I won't dwell on the tragedy there other than to say that that was a typical European civilised country one minute and a warzone the next with people burning women and children alive.

What are some of the options for addressing these problems. Well at the extreme end of the scale we can try to radically change the values of society and denounce all aspects of violence - sport, play, literature, film, games, etc. We would also need to denounce all aspects of our history where violence was used (whether to defend good or not) as, if violence is a bad thing, then we can't start introducing grey areas where it is sometimes a good thing. You can't be a partial pacifist.

At the other end of the scale we can let human nature run its course. I fear that approach would lead to anarchy and intimidation of the weak by the strong. Again it is easy to think that human kindness would stop that but remember history shows how easily mankind is attracted to evil and violence.

Thirdly we try to take a sensible approach. From what has been said I think the key thing to this is education. So while we teach kids how important it was to win WW2 for (what we consider to be) righteousness we also make it extremely clear that the cost was horrific and shouldn't be repeated if at all possible. We also have to think about the values that we promote - being brave, tough, heroic, strong, etc. We try to limit kids exposure to realistic scenes of violence until they are old enough to judge them more appropriately. Films have long been subjected to age restrictions and games are following suit (certainly over here anyway). We continue to investigate the causes of violence from all areas. We continue to discuss rationally what we think is acceptable to 'all' areas of society.

Another final thought to consider and I'd like to see some research conducted into the issue from this perspective - do scenes of violence make us violence or is our natural tendency to violence expressed through creating violent entertainment. The latter argument is similar to the one about violent games and such being a means of releasing violence in a way that does not harm others. I know that argument is usually dismissed out of hand (by the anti-gamers) but, if we are trying to take a rationale view we should consider all aspects.

Anyway, just some food for thought to add to the debate and in closing......to ruin my credibility.....

PS any person that now stands up and starts ranting that all games should be banned to protect their children rather than actually taking on the responsibility of being a good parent and raising their child properly (it's so much easier to blame others) should be shot