Violence In Video Games

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.

DwayneA said:

"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?

Click to expand...

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.



from:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

brokenfingers said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."?

SPMiller said:

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."?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

That's too bad, honestly. If you had something other than nebulous feelings, this thread could go places.

brokenfingers said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

SPMiller said:

That's too bad, honestly. If you had something other than nebulous feelings, this thread could go places.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

brokenfingers said:

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.

Click to expand...

...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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?).

Blegh.

SPMiller said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?