PDA

View Full Version : Violence In Video Games



DwayneA
09-24-2009, 08:24 AM
There are lots of violent video games out there. Parents may complain about too much violence in games, but I say, "They're just games!" In fact, one of my favorite computer games is "Blood", which as the title suggests is a very violent and gory game.

However, in some games I've played, I have questioned the level of violence. For example, the violence in the Tomb Raider games has become more dramatic in terms of human kills with each sequel. Something struck a nerve in me when I played Tomb Raider 3 which has "enemies" such as museum guards, military police, and tribesman. To me, these are just innocent people doing their jobs, yet the game requires you to kill them in order to proceed. I also can't admire a woman who shoots dogs. I thought to myself everytime I did this, "This is wrong and I know it. What were they thinking when they made this game?"

Has anyone else ever experienced something like this when playing violent video games?

SPMiller
09-24-2009, 04:14 PM
Of course others have noticed this. In many modern video games, murder is perfectly acceptable and in most cases required as a means of conflict resolution. I'm not confident in tracking this problem to its source, but some recent games that could have been violent instead bucked the trend. Portal did a decent job putting you in control of a woman who never once had access to a weapon capable of directly inflicting harm. One could argue the Thief series tried to change the status quo by rewarding stealthy gameplay and presenting murder as a last resort. Other games try to solve the problem by having you murder "nonhumans" such as zombies, Nazis, aliens, and the like. And there are other genres of games (e.g., adventure games) that never involved much if any violence, but they're mostly underground now.

Higgins
09-24-2009, 11:00 PM
"This is wrong and I know it. What were they thinking when they made this game?"

Has anyone else ever experienced something like this when playing violent video games?

Sometimes things are very wrong. For example in the extended versions of IL-2, the only Gladiator you can fly is the Roumanian one. Buffalos...sure hey, nobody cares. You can fly a Dutch or Finnish Buffalo, but just try to fly the Brit Gladiator or (heaven help you) the Sea Gladiator. Nope, no way.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Gladiator_Sea_profile.gif

from:

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Gladiator.htm

Jcomp
09-24-2009, 11:04 PM
The only games featuring gratuitous violence against innocents that I've really enjoyed are the God of War games. Growing up, one aspect of Greek and Roman mythology that always interested me was how bad things were constantly happening to decent people and it was just sort of treated as, "Well, that's how the gods behave. Such is life." Somehow, in those games, it just seems to fit.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 01:26 AM
You wanna see something bad, you should play Prototype.

To quote: "Eat an old man, assume his form, then run up the Empire State Building to elbowdrop down onto his confused wife. Then sneak up behind two soldiers, eat one without the other noticing, then follow him back to base and tell everyone else that he's YOU and while they're busy killing him, EAT THEM AS WELL!"

But, well...

The thing about violence in video games is its...kind of...not real. Humans are violent, and we enjoy watching conflict. Conflict interests us and there is not much more compelling then the conflict that ends with one guy living and the other guy dying.

Personally, I prefer violence in video games to real life violence. A whole lot.

And, yes, I do think video games prevent real life violence. There have been plenty of times where I've been pissed off and I just went and blew some shit up in a video game and bam!

Not pissed anymore.

And I'm not the only one: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.144926

Jcomp
09-25-2009, 01:53 AM
Gotta love zero punctuation.

I don't know if I'd say video game violence prevents real life violence, but I do think that for some it can be a release for real life stress. It'd be interesting to see a genuine study on this and find out one way or the other.

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 02:04 AM
My question is the effect on younger impressionable minds, of games that glorify mindless violence, and worse, enforce positive attributes to anti-social behavior.

Games like the Grand Theft Auto series, Manhunt and countless others have raised questions as to how far is too far and what can the possible long-term effects be?

I don't know, nor do I presume to have the answers, but I feel the questions, and maybe a little of the worrying, do have some merit.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 02:10 AM
I've only seen a few convincing studies on potential negative effects, namely those that suggest violent video games desensitize players to shooting at human-shaped targets. But that's exactly what modern military training does, so unless you want to suggest military training is inherently damaging, I don't think your fear has much justification. After all, if video games were really so bad, we should already be seeing those negative effects. (We aren't.)

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 02:13 AM
Yeah, but military training isn't performed on 8,9,10 yr olds unless you're counting Africa. It's actual hands-on training of more mature individuals.

And military training teaches other beneficial traits to counteract the necessary killing - like honor, discipline, integrity, responsibility, teamwork and sacrifice.

These games teach exactly the opposite, traits NOT beneficial to society: selfishness, ruthlessness, non-sensitivity or empathy, greed etc.

scarletpeaches
09-25-2009, 02:18 AM
These games have no influence on me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to hoover dots off the floor of my house, pop a few pills and swallow some ghosts.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 03:03 AM
Yeah, but military training isn't performed on 8,9,10 yr olds unless you're counting Africa. It's actual hands-on training of more mature individuals.

And military training teaches other beneficial traits to counteract the necessary killing - like honor, discipline, integrity, responsibility, teamwork and sacrifice.

These games teach exactly the opposite, traits NOT beneficial to society: selfishness, ruthlessness, non-sensitivity or empathy, greed etc.Cool. Let's assume you're right that desensitization to shooting at human-shaped targets is an undesirable effect with potentially negative social consequences. Do you have any evidence to prove that this has had any impact on society?

Do you have any evidence to prove that violent video games do not teach any positive qualities?

Furthermore, do you have any evidence to prove your other claim, namely that "[these] games teach [...] selfishness, ruthlessness, non-sensitivity or empathy, greed etc."?

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 03:16 AM
Cool. Let's assume you're right that desensitization to shooting at human-shaped targets is an undesirable effect with potentially negative social consequences. Do you have any evidence to prove that this has had any impact on society?

Do you have any evidence to prove that violent video games do not teach any positive qualities?

Furthermore, do you have any evidence to prove your other claim, namely that "[these] games teach [...] selfishness, ruthlessness, non-sensitivity or empathy, greed etc."?I'll copy my answer posted upthread, which is merely an opinion based on observation and anecdotal evidence:
I don't know, nor do I presume to have the answers, but I feel the questions, and maybe a little of the worrying, do have some merit.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 04:13 AM
That's too bad, honestly. If you had something other than nebulous feelings, this thread could go places.

Izunya
09-25-2009, 04:14 AM
Yeah, but military training isn't performed on 8,9,10 yr olds unless you're counting Africa. It's actual hands-on training of more mature individuals.

Personally, if I had an eight year old, I wouldn't let her play—oh, for example, Resident Evil 4. Doesn't mean the game shouldn't exist. In fact, it's a favorite of mine, and I'd probably be perfectly okay with a child of mine playing it when they're (pulling a number out of my hat) say, fifteen.

That being said, I personally avoid most games that require you to go up against legions of human mooks. (The Fire Emblem games are one of the exceptions, possibly because the deaths are rather bloodless and stylized.) But I recognize that that's just a personal taste.

Izunya

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 04:25 AM
That's too bad, honestly. If you had something other than nebulous feelings, this thread could go places.That's too bad you feel that way as this forum is a place to provide opinions, whether you agree with them or agree with the manner they're come by or not.

My focus is on writing, and I'll occasionally post an opinion on a topic, as the whim suits me. I don't come to argue or prove any points, and I feel there are other places more suited for that type of activity. If it's how you enjoy your time, more power to you, but I feel it's a waste of my limited time and energy. As well as why P&CE is considered a waste of time by many. Instead of a place to exchange ideas and opinions, it's deteriorated into a place where too many regard it as a battlefield to prove their own thoughts and beliefs are correct.

Feel free to pick the thread up and carry it wherever you like if that's your inclination.

Romantic Heretic
09-25-2009, 04:27 AM
If I had young kids I'd monitor what they played and they would not be playing things like Grand Theft Auto. That isn't for kids.

I'd also be teaching them about ethics from an early age.

A responsible parent doesn't leave the raising of their children to the media.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 04:51 AM
Yeah, but military training isn't performed on 8,9,10 yr olds unless you're counting Africa. It's actual hands-on training of more mature individuals.

And military training teaches other beneficial traits to counteract the necessary killing - like honor, discipline, integrity, responsibility, teamwork and sacrifice.

These games teach exactly the opposite, traits NOT beneficial to society: selfishness, ruthlessness, non-sensitivity or empathy, greed etc.


...h...

Oh...n...

Hmm

Okay, let me see, how to respond to this.

Firstly, there are games that show characters that are ruthless, non-sensitivity, or greed. But then again, there are books and novels that do the same thing.

But the thing is, these are only PARTS of the game, not the whole of it.

Let me take some examples.

Most popular gory shooters of recent times: HALO and Gears of War.

Halo involves a heroic, selfless man named John-177 fighting a collection of alien races called the Covenant who are currently attempting to kill all the humans. Not the most complex plotline, but the basic ideas of heroism and fighting evil are there.

Gears of War is essentially a gritter, gorier version of Halo, wherein you play as a guy named Marcus Fenix who fights evil bug people from the center of the earth (wearing silly hats). The basic idea of good versus evil is once again present, though its hard to tell with all the gray and brown colorings.

Now, one could argue that Fenix is a fucking sociopath, he still does save the world and the human race at least twice, so we can give him that, right?

However, these two games represent but a minute fraction of the games that come out every year. Here are some more examples!

Half-Life 1 and 2: Bespectacled MIT graduate who fights to free humanity from the fascistic control of an extra-dimensional invasion.

Call of Duty 4: Alternating between an S.A.S operative and a Marine, the plot involves (again) saving the world and stopping badguys.

Bioshock: A man trapped beneath the sea in an objectavist utopia gone wrong must escape. There's a moral choice system in here, so if you the player WANTS to be evil, they can. Most people I've seen play as good, if only because being evil in Bioshock is really dumb.

Planescape Torment: Okay, this game isn't recent, but its the most philsophically deep and amazingly written and fantastically made games I have ever played, so everyone should immediately go out and get it right now.



I can go on and on, but games DON'T teach selfishness and a lack of empathy. They don't teach you to murder people. They don't do any of these things!

What games do is TELL A STORY. And more than that, they allow people to experince these stories in a new and exciting way, one that allows for a deeper emotional connection too the characters and the plot and the action.

And more than that, the average age of the MILLIONS OF GAMERS is...


TWENTY
FIVE.

Twenty five. TWENTY FIVE!

Gaming is not a kids medium anymore. Its not JUST for kids! Its not aimed at kids. Iis not marketed at kids exclusivly anymore! In fact, its VERY RARELY marketed towards kids!


<pants>


Okay, I'm done!

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 05:05 AM
Yeah, of course there are many games that don't do any of these things or show any of these things, but there are games that do. Of course there are good games etc. But there are also some that some people find questionable.

Games are an interactive medium, and the fact is that young kids do use them as well as older people, never mind who they're marketed at.

And we see examples everyday of people who are dimwitted enough to take things out of context or not show common sense. There no intelligence restrictions on games.

The OP questioned the level of violence in some games, not ALL games, and it's a concern many parents have. It's a one thing for a 24 year old to play a game that is extremely violent and nihilistic, it's another for an 8 yr old. Or do you not feel that is true?

My position is that, as a parent myself, I can relate to those concerns and wonder if there could possibly be long term effects we don't know about on young minds - not that THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY LONG TERM EFFECTS.

Producing videogames is a venture conducted for one thing and one thing only - to make money. Some companies that don't have mass capital, spectacular production values, good writers/story, etc rely more on shock and the "Wow" factor - just like in many other media venues.

Their intent is to make their product stand out, one way or another, and so reap a gain on their investment. Even if it means catering to the lowest common denominator or producing a game of questionable merit. Some of them use hyper-violence.

Is there a potential longterm negative to being exposed to this type of stuff at an early age? (Or even an older age for some. There are such things as socially underdeveloped 24 yr olds.)

I don't know, but I do feel it's a question worth asking.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 05:10 AM
Then how do you feel about the ratings system that warns parents away from violent games and makes it difficult or impossible for kids to buy violent games on their own? If you don't think it's effective, just say so. But my understanding is that it was implemented for the same reason there's a rating system for movies.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 05:11 AM
Well, we've been exposing our children to real as fucking hell violence for almost as long as this has been a country.

Football ring a bell?

I don't have the stats on how many kids have been killed or injured in football, but its a whole hell of a lot larger than those who have played video games.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 05:15 AM
Football's a bad analogy. Instead, you should compare entertainment media. Perhaps the old panic about rock & roll being Satanic and the explicit lyrics causing kids to do evil things.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 05:16 AM
True, but...its still funny that no one is complaining about teaching kids to ramming kids into other kids, which can causing crippling injury.

You can get over dying in a video game a looooooooooooot faster.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 05:22 AM
There's a bias against intellectual pursuits in the USA, which happens to include various sorts of games. Physical pursuits are generally regarded to be superior. You can see the same discrimination against non-video games such as Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: the Gathering, which both drew a lot of the same omg-it's-Satanic nonsense as rock & roll back in the day. Football, on the other hand, is good old fashioned fun (would a joke about its homoeroticism be in poor taste?).

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 05:24 AM
Blegh.

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 05:29 AM
Football's a bad analogy. Instead, you should compare entertainment media. Perhaps the old panic about rock & roll being Satanic and the explicit lyrics causing kids to do evil things.Omigod, please don't get me started on that evil rock and roll stuff. It makes me want to lift my walker and rage against the downfall of Swing music.


Well, we've been exposing our children to real as fucking hell violence for almost as long as this has been a country.

Football ring a bell?

I don't have the stats on how many kids have been killed or injured in football, but its a whole hell of a lot larger than those who have played video games.

And if you can't see the difference between the real live cause and effect learning curve of someone physically ramming against someone and the life lessons learned when engaging in a team sport, as compared to the relatively painless method of couch potato fantasizing of desensitized violence, well you must have never played football.

And entertainment media is just as culpable.

Hmmm, Are kids more violent nowadays or have they always been shooting people down and raping and killing etc throughout the 20th century?

Is it just a media conspiracy leading us to believe this?

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 05:30 AM
There's a bias against intellectual pursuits in the USA, which happens to include various sorts of games. Physical pursuits are generally regarded to be superior. You can see the same discrimination against non-video games such as Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: the Gathering, which both drew a lot of the same omg-it's-Satanic nonsense as rock & roll back in the day. Football, on the other hand, is good old fashioned fun (would a joke about its homoeroticism be in poor taste?).Hahahahahahaha! So, to you, this is a geek vs. non-geek thing? Hahahahahahahaha!

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 05:31 AM
Have you played a video game, Brokenfingers?

BigWords
09-25-2009, 05:39 AM
Violence in games helps clean my hard drive. (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-09/22/the-computer-game-that-destroys-your-files.aspx)

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 05:42 AM
Have you played a video game, Brokenfingers? I play video games all the time. I love video games. Doesn't mean I don't question the value of some, or wonder if some kids wouldn't be better of not playing some of them.

Just cuz you and I have no problems doesn't mean NOBODY can possibly have any problems. Especially younger children not fully developed or those who are not as socially or mentally proficient.

To say we know exactly what all the possible effects could be, including long term, and that there can't be any negative - without any serious studies done - is hubris in the extreme, to me.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 05:47 AM
Well, we have yet to see a massive upswing in youth violence.

If anything, we seen a drop in teen violence in the past 2 decades.

Not that that has anything to do with video games. It might, but correlation does not imply causation.

brokenfingers
09-25-2009, 05:51 AM
So there were more school shootings 20 years ago?

More kids carjacking?

More shootings among teenagers?

More violent crimes among teenagers?

More need for metal detectors and security guards in schools?

More violence, cruelty and and beatdowns posted for fun and pleasure on video sites?

More kids being convicted of hardcore crimes like murder, rape, aggravated assault and armed robbery?

There was more of this twenty years ago or more, eh?

Interesting.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 05:52 AM
I believe so.

BigWords
09-25-2009, 06:00 AM
I blame WWII on people playing violent video games.

aadams73
09-25-2009, 06:36 AM
I believe so.

Speaking as someone who was in high school 20 years ago, I have to say you're so wrong that you're not even near the ballpark.

Things have changed drastically--and not for the better or the safer.



More kids carjacking?

More shootings among teenagers?

More violent crimes among teenagers?

More need for metal detectors and security guards in schools?

More violence, cruelty and and beatdowns posted for fun and pleasure on video sites?

More kids being convicted of hardcore crimes like murder, rape, aggravated assault and armed robbery?


These things were practically unheard of when I was in school. And today they're so commonplace they're barely a blip on the news.

Don't be so ignorant about history, Zoombie. Look back as well as forward.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 07:31 AM
I think it may be a locality thing as well as a historical thing. My school barely has a fight every other year, and yet we get bombarded with panicky warnings from a mass media that enjoys terrifying people.

Is it that there is more violence, or is it that it gets screamed about more often?

In fact, none of my friends high schools ever had any of these issues beyond scattered, isolated incidents.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 03:20 PM
We can always rely on facts to demonstrate that things haven't gotten much worse since the 80s. One resource (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/224537.pdf) from the USDoJ states the juvenile violent crime index increased 6% between 1985 and 2005 (homicide -7%, robbery -15%, rape +1%, assault +23%). From this we can conclude that as of 2005, juveniles were less excited about murder and theft, about the same on rape, and far more interested in fighting (and I can make a good case that last statistic is partially a result of stiffer anti-fighting policies at schools leading to more prosecutions than in the past).

There was a curious spike in juvenile crime in the early 90s, but rates have declined drastically since then. It's 2009, not 1994.

SPMiller
09-25-2009, 03:45 PM
Hahahahahahaha! So, to you, this is a geek vs. non-geek thing? Hahahahahahahaha!And no, I said nothing about "geeks" or "non-geeks". Don't know where you got that from. Projection?

You can see other manifestations of American anti-intellectualism in, e.g., the way news reporting has declined in quality, preferring to report sensationalistic stories or engage in pointless party-lines bickering rather than impartially recount current events. This is not a new thing, nor is it restricted to just one aspect of our culture.

Prozyan
09-25-2009, 04:12 PM
These things were practically unheard of when I was in school. And today they're so commonplace they're barely a blip on the news.

This isn't necessarily an accurate statement. Well, it is, but it isn't.

Thing is, 20 years ago there was no such thing as 24/7 news, the information highway, or any of that fun stuff.

A very simple argument can be made, quite effectively, that there isn't a rise in violent crime or sexual predators or things of that nature (backed up by the links from SPM). There is a rise, however, in people being informed of such things.

20 years ago if it didn't happen near you, it was most likely you'd never hear about it unless it was one of those rare instances that sets the media on fire.

Today, you hear about every incident in every school, town, city, county, and state in America.

Romantic Heretic
09-25-2009, 04:29 PM
Yep. People's perception of risk is rather skewed thanks to the media.

Higgins
09-25-2009, 05:49 PM
Yep. People's perception of risk is rather skewed thanks to the media.

When I was a kid a beating was a beating. We didn't use any sissy weapons like assault rifles, we just knocked the good clean shit out of each other with anything we could find.

Which is why I find it really wrong that you can only get the Roumanian Gladiator in IL-2. That is sick and wrong. No wonder kids today go for flimsy, commercial weapons like assault rifles rather than using say the whole drinking fountain cooler thing that is a pure head injury in the making no matter how you hurl it at somebody. Who needs massive exit wounds when you can scare people much less expensively by just ripping the cooler thing off the wall?

The Sea Gladiator. It's the cooler thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/ZZZ_003915_E_Gladiator.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/ZZZ_003915_E_Gladiator.jpg)

Here's Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Far_Fighter_Flight

Jcomp
09-25-2009, 09:26 PM
We can always rely on facts to demonstrate that things haven't gotten much worse since the 80s. One resource (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/224537.pdf) from the USDoJ states the juvenile violent crime index increased 6% between 1985 and 2005 (homicide -7%, robbery -15%, rape +1%, assault +23%). From this we can conclude that as of 2005, juveniles were less excited about murder and theft, about the same on rape, and far more interested in fighting (and I can make a good case that last statistic is partially a result of stiffer anti-fighting policies at schools leading to more prosecutions than in the past).

There was a curious spike in juvenile crime in the early 90s, but rates have declined drastically since then. It's 2009, not 1994.

You and your goofy statistical evidence.

also....


A very simple argument can be made, quite effectively, that there isn't a rise in violent crime or sexual predators or things of that nature (backed up by the links from SPM). There is a rise, however, in people being informed of such things.

20 years ago if it didn't happen near you, it was most likely you'd never hear about it unless it was one of those rare instances that sets the media on fire.

Today, you hear about every incident in every school, town, city, county, and state in America.

This. The problem with any of these perceptions, when it's one person's opinion, is subjectivity. If you live--then or now--in an area where there seems to be no violence you'll believe that it's not as much of an issue as it may be / may have been. You ask someone who lived in D.C. in the late 80's / early 90's whether crime is better or worse now and they'll say, based on their perspective, that things have gotten better. If you're depending solely on your own experience as a measurement you can't give a truly accurate account.

Regarding how violence in video games and other entertainment media may or may not affect kids, there are varying studies out there, some saying they have negative effects, some saying it has very little or no effect. It's something worth further analysis and questioning but there is nothing conclusive yet, and the easiest way to temper it regardless is for parents to step in and keep their kids from owning such material. You can't police what your kids consume 100% of the time but the average 10-year-old doesn't have the money or cunning to buy a violent game on his or her own and sneak it back home without mom and dad ever finding out about it.

Zoombie
09-25-2009, 10:23 PM
And I need to reiterate!

GAMES ARE NOT A KIDS MEDIUM!

They are made, marketed too, and played primarily by ADULTS!

Romantic Heretic
09-26-2009, 12:47 AM
When I was a kid a beating was a beating. We didn't use any sissy weapons like assault rifles, we just knocked the good clean shit out of each other with anything we could find.

Which is why I find it really wrong that you can only get the Roumanian Gladiator in IL-2. That is sick and wrong. No wonder kids today go for flimsy, commercial weapons like assault rifles rather than using say the whole drinking fountain cooler thing that is a pure head injury in the making no matter how you hurl it at somebody. Who needs massive exit wounds when you can scare people much less expensively by just ripping the cooler thing off the wall?

The Sea Gladiator. It's the cooler thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/ZZZ_003915_E_Gladiator.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/ZZZ_003915_E_Gladiator.jpg)

Here's Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Far_Fighter_Flight
I remember those days too well. Beating me up was an afternoon's amusement. If I fought back, four people would hold me down while the others put the boots in.

I wish they'd had video games back then. It would have given those twisted fucks characterized as 'normal' something to do that wouldn't have involved injuring real people.

Izunya
09-27-2009, 05:16 AM
Yeah, of course there are many games that don't do any of these things or show any of these things, but there are games that do. Of course there are good games etc. But there are also some that some people find questionable.

Games are an interactive medium, and the fact is that young kids do use them as well as older people, never mind who they're marketed at.

And we see examples everyday of people who are dimwitted enough to take things out of context or not show common sense. There no intelligence restrictions on games.

Can you think of a storytelling medium these statements don't apply to?

Okay, I suppose you could say there's kind of an intelligence restriction on reading, but there's certainly no maturity restriction. There's nothing to stop a precocious seven-year-old from slogging through Famous Serial Killers And Their Bloodiest, Most Horrifying Slaughters Which We Really Aren't Glorifying At All, Honest. Well, nothing except the parents—the same people who would keep them from renting R movies, watching 24, or picking up Watchmen with the notion that it's a fun lighthearted superhero comic full of people to be emulated.

Every storytelling medium I can think of has works that I would never, ever, ever present to a little kid, and some more that I would only let them see if I was around to answer questions. Be a bit odd if there weren't video games "that some people find questionable."

Izunya

Pepper
09-27-2009, 05:36 AM
The Wolverine game that came out recently was excessive. >_<

C.bronco
09-27-2009, 06:41 AM
If Lara doesn't shoot the wolves, they eat her, much as in real life.

My son is in the Scooby and Ape Escape phase, but he gets the constant reminder that in video games and cartoons, the characters come back to life. In reality, they do not. This applies to Tom and Jerry cartoons and Looney Tunes cartoons. Remember Wile E. Coyote?

Nick Blaze
09-27-2009, 07:48 AM
I play video games often. I love RPGs. I love the storyline. The killing is barely even close to 'real'. Rarely is there ever even blood, or even a corpse. Of course, most gamers prefer the games that require less thinking. I have played many shooters and games like God of War. While I love God of War, it's very much mindless (though the story was entertaining). The brutality was great and added good atmosphere. Other games, though, do not have logical blood and gore and it does not enhance the gaming experience in any way.

However, I do not believe violence in video games spawn any sort of urge for gamers to murder people. This argument has been done a million times and it ends with stubborn people forcing their beliefs down others' throats. It is pointless. People who watch video games may hurt others. People who have never even seen one may hurt others. It's just how the world is.

BigWords
09-28-2009, 05:31 AM
The Wolverine game that came out recently was excessive. >_<

They toned it down from initial ideas which were discussed. At one point there was to be a nuclear explosion with Wolvie at ground zero, after which he could be played as a walking skeleton with claws. Can you imagine the nightmares that would have given the kids playing it?

GeorgeK
09-28-2009, 06:34 AM
So there were more school shootings 20 years ago?

More kids carjacking?

More shootings among teenagers?

More violent crimes among teenagers?

More need for metal detectors and security guards in schools?

More violence, cruelty and and beatdowns posted for fun and pleasure on video sites?

More kids being convicted of hardcore crimes like murder, rape, aggravated assault and armed robbery?

There was more of this twenty years ago or more, eh?

Interesting.

By total number, no, but by a percentage of people involved, yes. Remember to take into account the increase in population when you look at those statistics.

ChristineR
09-29-2009, 04:48 AM
When I was a kid, we had the Detroit riots, Kent State shootings, and 1968 Democratic National Convention. Somehow people don't count that stuff as violence, though.

Zoombie
09-29-2009, 11:36 AM
Yeah, but it was different.

Cause it happened in the past, and the past is ALWAYS better than the present.

Romantic Heretic
09-29-2009, 01:21 PM
Only if you don't look too closely. ;)

brokenfingers
09-29-2009, 02:49 PM
When I was a kid, we had the Detroit riots, Kent State shootings, and 1968 Democratic National Convention. Somehow people don't count that stuff as violence, though. So, let me get this straight; you’re equating large-scale public riots and demonstrations among adults with youths perpetrating random acts of individual violence and thuggery (basically, the topic of discussion) and things like school shootings, public beatdowns (many broadcast on youtube), killing for sneakers or because of wearing the wrong color or just for fun, kids raping kids, etc?

Interesting.

This thread made me curious and here’s a quick rundown on what I’ve found as pertains to school violence only. Note: This is a list of school-related attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks). These are attacks that have occurred on school property or related primarily to school issues or events. I chose this at random as a barometer, but there are other indicators one can search for.

Regular kid-on-kid violence (by which I mean violent, felony level crimes like rape, felony assault and murder, not just beating someone up) is something else I feel has risen, but haven’t bothered to research.

(I used 1994 as the cut-off year to divide video-game era from before.)

Primary school incidents:

From 1764 – 1993: 27

From 1994 – Present: 33

Secondary School Incidents:

From 1882 – 1993: 63

1994 - Present: 135

College/University School Incidents:

1908 – 1993: 42

1994 – Present: 51


Those are the numbers. Now, remember – I’m not saying videogames are bad. But I do think there’s a possibility that some – repeat, SOME – videogames are bad influences on young children. And even older children and adults. Again, many grown adults have limited capabilities and can be easily influenced.

And that this is something that should be examined further.

I just find it humorous how some people dismiss it out of hand and automatically start blaming bias against intellectuals or exclaiming that if someone thinks this they’re “too old” etc. Hahahahahahahaha! Yes, I’m quite the old man and afraid of all this newfangled stuff like TV and microwaves and rock and roll and gasoline powered buggies and video games. :D

Some people are too young to have any idea of how life was just 20 short years ago, but the world has truly changed in large ways, many unacknowledged, in the past 20-30 years. Just cuz you haven’t seen it and only know the world you’ve been raised in, doesn’t make it less real.

And again, I’ll state: Do some video games help remove or ease society’s sanctions against violence in some people? I don’t know, but I think it bears studying.

As for the numbers, I posted some above. Come to your own conclusions.

cethklein
09-29-2009, 09:15 PM
I have a problem with violence in video games, but it's not for the reason you'd think. I've got no issue with the violence itself. My problem is that developers use that to mask a lack of creativity. The idea for too long has been "let's just make it really gory and violent and it'll sell". Violence can work well in a game, like Gungrave for example. It was stylish, simple, but stylish. There is a distinct lack of creativity in games now. But i guess that's another discussion altogether.

LOG
09-30-2009, 12:43 AM
I have a problem with violence in video games, but it's not for the reason you'd think. I've got no issue with the violence itself. My problem is that developers use that to mask a lack of creativity.
Heheh.

Like Zoombie said, most of the very impressionable age group lack the capacity to play a video game unless they have/know an older family member/friend who has access and would give it to them. Those who can still manage to get their hands on one, if we're talking younger than a teenager, I doubt most of them are capable of much more than repeatedly pressing buttons. I've watched little kids run themselves into walls for 10 minutes straight and not understand why they aren't getting anywhere... If the game possesses much in the way of puzzle/strategy then younger kids wouldn't find it easy to play successfully.


Hahahahahahahaha!
I don't see what's so incredibly funny, the way you laugh like that makes you sound derisive of the others opinions...

As has been said, there has been an explosion of media in the past 20 years, there are more violent video games, but there is also alot more of violent news. "The news is where they begin with good evening and then proceed to tell you why it isn't."

Besides, kids are already pretty violent, who didn't spend their days going after bugs and ripping off wings or crushing them underfoot for no good reason. A kid is actually pretty bratty, just look at babies, their first lesson tends to be, 'If I scream loud and long enough, I can get whatever I want. So I'm going to scream loud and long.'
Kids in the medieval ages made a pretty regular habit of beating the crap out of each other.
There are also violent acts in any time period, which we can now tell everyone. French revolution in one age, the civil war in another, then WWs in yet another, lately the collapse of the towers and the war in Iraq.

Also, I just noticed, why was Higgins banned?

Zoombie
09-30-2009, 12:47 AM
Cause he's confusing?

clockwork
09-30-2009, 01:07 AM
Also, I just noticed, why was Higgins banned?

Bad behaviour on other parts of the board.

Starhorsepax
09-30-2009, 01:46 AM
Video games have the same problem sometimes as the movies. They just decide to use violence in place of having a real story. How about a good game with some ingenuity and saving the violence to take out bad guys to solve a goal, as opposed to the goal being just to shoot people and see how nasty you can be? You'd still get the action.
I saw a dragon movie on tv so violent that when it struck the blood acted like it struck the camera. Who decided that was fun?
There are kids affected by the games. But the games probably just contribute to other issues that busy parents haven't realized are building up. It can't be just the games or there would be far more of them.

Sometimes I miss Circus Atari. The little man could bounce off balloons onto the seesaw. If he missed he went splat, little stick legs waving. :ROFL: Now they'd probably be shooting the balloons or something and if he missed instead of a funny scene there would be blood and gore. :evil

Why practice stuff in a game that would get you arrested in real life?

Nick Blaze
09-30-2009, 06:54 AM
As a general rule of thumb, the better the graphics and the more the game is marketed for the graphics, the worse a game it is (example: Halo). However, obviously most NES graphics were very similar (though some were better) they didn't have the graphical power to have muchblood or gore. It can be done artfully or realistically, but it rarely ever is.

There has no doubt been a slight increase in violence due to video games. That is not to say the person would not have done anything violent without them. Even so, it is a small portion. I have no evidence to support this, as it is an opinion. This topic still has been beat to death. There may never be a good study done on this. In general, it's the older generation that dislikes video games. I have had people tell me that "video games are always bad and always have terrible violence and that none teach you morals". Most do have violence. Others, like Harvest Moon, are innocent and very fun (though get boring after a week).

In comparing The Book of Five Rings to the Heiho Kadensho, one advocates killing immediately. Samurai are meant to kill. The other, however, has a line "if in killing one person, you save one thousand, then kill that one person." Most, not all, but most video games are about saving the world, or at least saving a village/town/province/kingdom. You kill horrible people to save good people. That's a theme common in movies and books and has been for a long time.

paperbacklove
09-30-2009, 09:57 AM
Um... maybe I'm missing something, but is the idea here that people can't figure out the difference between reality and fantasy? Shooting something in a game is nothing like shooting something in real life. Pressing a button on a controller is not even remotely like pulling a trigger, and anyone not mature enough to realize this shouldn't be playing those sorts of games.

As it's been stated earlier, these violent games aren't marketed toward children. They're even labeled with a rating system, just like movies. Parents shouldn't even be buying games like that for their children; it's their own fault if they pick up a game for little Timmy without checking to see if he'll be blowing up zombies in a fight for survival or putting the square peg in the right hole with Barney.

If you want to blame something for the desensitization of the younger generations, why not look to television or movies? There are far more people who watch those than play video games on the whole, but they're somehow not a part of this? Or, better yet, check out the psychological profiles and other influences of the people involved instead of rushing to blame things.

There are more cases of people saying they play violent video games to relieve themselves of anger -- I've even heard of a monk who does this! (reference (http://kotaku.com/5363596/buddhist-monk-games-satiate-my-desire-for-aggression), for those that want to read the article.) It's like screaming into a pillow, to a degree. Besides that, not every game has violence in it.

I'm pretty much trying to say that pointing to video games to explain such an increase in violence is like saying McDonald's is responsible for people becoming overweight or that murders happen because the killer listened to metal and read Stephen King.

Pepper
10-01-2009, 04:07 AM
Parents shouldn't even be buying games like that for their children; it's their own fault if they pick up a game for little Timmy without checking to see if he'll be blowing up zombies in a fight for survival or putting the square peg in the right hole with Barney.

This.

I think, regardless of what one's viewpoint is (games do or don't contribute to violence), parents should be more responsible when it comes to what their kids are playing.

I was horrified when my kid cousin came over describing the carnage he unleashes in his various games, from running over civilians with his car to spearing someone through the chest and watching the head fly off on top of a fountain of blood. My cousin is 7 years old.

I think it's similar to telling a child in detail all the sorts of sexual acts that adults do, from what lovers do to someone being abused. I think it's making the kid grow up too quickly. Letting a child play games that are rated for adults is making the kid mentally grow too quickly, and not in a good way.

I'm not scared that my cousin is going to become a criminal. I do think it's disturbing that his face lights up when he speaks about the gruesome ways he slaughtered the bad guys in the game. Tsk tsk to his mum, who buys him all his games. >_<

MGraybosch
10-03-2009, 08:00 PM
I'm not impressed with the argument that virtual violence causes people to engage in real-life violence. The first movie I ever saw on video as a kid was Caligula, but I don't go around raping women and fisting men. I've played violent video games of various kinds for years, but when I resorted to violence, it was to retaliate against others who had used violence against me.

MGraybosch
10-03-2009, 08:09 PM
I'm not scared that my cousin is going to become a criminal. I do think it's disturbing that his face lights up when he speaks about the gruesome ways he slaughtered the bad guys in the game. Tsk tsk to his mum, who buys him all his games. >_<

I don't see the problem. When I was a little kid, instead of telling my parents about the battles I won playing video games (I didn't have any games to play at the time), I'd tell them about how I'd fight off the monsters under my bed and my little brother's bed. Did I go into bloody details? Hell, yes.

Humans are violent, aggressive creatures by nature. We suppress the aggression within us in order to live in civilization, and try to channel that violence into constructive pursuits, but there's no denying that violence. Your cousin has an outlet for his aggression that allows him to express it without actually hurting anybody, and that is a good thing. Don't begrudge him that, or worry about how he's "growing up too fast".

And above all, don't romanticize childhood. A child's lot is one of ignorance, impotence, and dependence upon others. The sooner this state is left behind, the better.

MGraybosch
10-03-2009, 08:16 PM
Why practice stuff in a game that would get you arrested in real life?

Because it's fun. Yes, I said it: it's fun. I am a violent person. I like to blow shit up. I like to massacre people, monsters, demons, and even gods. Video games allow me to indulge my violent urges without actually harming anybody. Is that such a horrible thing?

LOG
10-05-2009, 06:55 AM
Because it's fun. Yes, I said it: it's fun. I am a violent person. I like to blow shit up. I like to massacre people, monsters, demons, and even gods. Video games allow me to indulge my violent urges without actually harming anybody. Is that such a horrible thing?
No.
Society is after all, intended to surpress several of our urges.

Zoombie
10-05-2009, 07:36 AM
Heck, I'm venting my urge to dominate the galaxy right now. Yes, I'm sorry Eoki Continum, your sun is far too red, I'm going to have to destroy it with a nucleonic cascade torpedo.

Salis
11-12-2009, 01:06 PM
Yeah, but military training isn't performed on 8,9,10 yr olds unless you're counting Africa. It's actual hands-on training of more mature individuals.

And military training teaches other beneficial traits to counteract the necessary killing - like honor, discipline, integrity, responsibility, teamwork and sacrifice.

These games teach exactly the opposite, traits NOT beneficial to society: selfishness, ruthlessness, non-sensitivity or empathy, greed etc.

They don't teach anything. They're games. I started playing games before I was 10, I'm now 24, and I have never gotten into a fight in my entire life.

Blaming video games for violence makes as much sense as blaming rock and roll for violence.

It is pretty stupid how much coverage this gets in the media, considering how little scientific basis there is to it.

Zoombie
11-12-2009, 01:09 PM
Video games teach things. They teach quick reflexes, they teach rapid decision making, they can teach morals and philosophy if they story is well written and engaging (see Planescape Torment or Dragons Age).

They don't teach a kid how to fire, or operate a weapon. And they DEFINITELY don't teach kids to harm innocents.

Aside from Prototype.

Salis
11-12-2009, 01:44 PM
Torment did not teach me how to be immortal. :|

Bufty
11-12-2009, 05:34 PM
As a kid - and like thousands of other kids, long before the advent of computers or video games - I played with plasticine and ripped the limbs and heads off whatever I built.

I used to parade my toy soldiers and hang them on thread nooses. I rammed my dinky toys into the wall. I played outside, killing the 'enemy' with my toy pistols, shotguns, or knives and bows and arrows, swords, or flying my spitfire or bomber etc..

Nobody objected to any of that and I haven't turned out to be a bloodthirsty rampaging killer or destroyer of vehicles!

Having said that, and as an avid gameplayer for a decade, I don't really wish to play Grand Theft Auto or the recently issued Modern Warfare, simply because they're not my idea of spending fun time.

Fallout 3? yes. Half-Life? yes. Quake? yes. Halo? yes. Bio-shock? Yes.

Each to his own.

Jcomp
11-12-2009, 06:50 PM
I dunno... based on video game proficiency, I'm fairly confident in my ability to hunt ducks with a pistol....