Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Games Are No Cause For Murder

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 25, 2007 10:55 AM
from the there-very-rarely-is dept.
Entertainment Games
An anonymous reader writes "At Gamers With Jobs, Shawn Andrich speaks out against pointing the finger at videogames as a causative factor in a murder cases. He makes the excellent point that, though we may enjoy the metaphor, life is not a game. There is no simple connection between event A and event B. Our actions are dictated by experiences from a lifetime, and they should be addressed that way for good or ill. 'Life can't be framed up like a game of billiards. There is no easy eight ball, corner pocket shot to be made when trying to draw a line between cause and action ... Lasting, positive change will only come when we stop reaching for causes and start creating conditions that will support kids and teenagers who need it. We can't make anyone put the pin back in the grenade, but by supporting active, caring people who want to help, we might be able to influence some of those fateful decisions before it gets that far.'" GamePolitics on Joystiq has an editorial up looking at a similar question.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Games Are No Cause For Murder 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdotNO@SPAMexit0.us> on Friday May 25 2007, @10:59AM (#19271045) Homepage
    ...you realize that Jack Thompson will have something to say about this.

    Not that it will be anything worth while, but that's never stopped him before.

    • Anti video-game crusaders cause violence. Proof: Look at the constant stream of hatred spewed frotyh by pretty much everyone. The gamers, the courts..even the media are starting to realize "Hey, we kind of looked idiotic putting this crazed man on camera" and are turning against Jack Thompson. Of course this only drives him on, making him even more aggressive...

      Come to think of it, I think lawyers cause violence. Eveything involving them certainly is violent...

    • Re:Of course... (Score:4, Funny)

      by eln (21727) on Friday May 25 2007, @12:10PM (#19272221) Homepage
      I agree, video games are a perfectly good cause for murdering Jack Thompson.

      See? Video games breed violence! (against Jack Thompson)

      • Re:Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Damned Yankee (829738) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:27AM (#19271521)
        Mmmm... no. Simulators are training, and the debriefings that follow their use aren't designed to help them deal with any sort of emotional trauma, but rather to evalutate how they did in said simulator and where room for improvement might lie.

        Plus, add to that the fact that, unlike most folks who play GTA, soldiers in simulators are training for actual situations that they will face in real life. Real life, it's generally acknowledged, is generally the source of most physical and psychological trauma.

        But nice try, Mr. Thompson.

      • Re:Of course... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday May 25 2007, @12:39PM (#19272745)
        You overestimate the "simulation" environment that these games provide.

        I remember reading a story about a drill sergeant who had noticed a difference in how his newest recruits who played FPS games adapted to training in relation to how the non gaming recruits performed. Needless to say that this was picked up by every media outlet possible and misrepresented to make it look like video games were training our children to be killers.

        I agree that there are some elements that a FPS, or any other action game for that matter, can most certainly influence - but these things are useless without weapons training.
        1. Tactical Priority - the closest thing to you is slightly more dangerous than something far away. Anyone who has ever played any game involving bad guys who attempt to hurt you is that the closest guy is generally the biggest threat.
        2. Tactical Sequence - Sometimes baddies come extremely fast and everything needs to be slowed down. Basically the theory of "get em all bleeding first."
        3. Using cover - No, not in actuality, but in theory. Identifying what can be used as cover from certain vantage points is most certainly developed when playing any video games. "He can't see me if I hide behind this!" Now, lets address the practical use of cover. A video game is not going to teach you that you shouldn't lean on or crowd your cover, something everyone does off the bat because they see it in movies. A game also can't teach you what cover is actually protective and which is merely visual cover. Real training does that.

        None of these skills are practical without significant weapons training. In fact, they're pretty close to worthless, so I think the term "combat simulator" is a little harsh. Maybe combat game is more accurate.

        • Disclaimer: although I did get drafted into the army, and in case of a war I'd be a sergeant, this was a long time ago and I don't think I was some expert even then. Also, I'm an AA guy, and we did less infantry training than the _real_ infantry. So take it with a grain of salt.

          That said, I think that games offer an even more distorted view than even you credit them with. E.g.,

          1. Tactical priority: games offer a massively distorted view of that. Sometimes stuff that's far away is of higher priority than stu

      • Re:Of course... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Sj0 (472011) on Friday May 25 2007, @12:47PM (#19272877) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, I know last time I was murdering someone, I grabbed my railgun, jumped off a third story balcony and kept on running, then started shooting while jumping to avoid missle launcher fire.

        And if you believe THAT, I've got some lovely beachland in Florida to teach you.

  • A profound couple of sentences (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PrescriptionWarning (932687) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:03AM (#19271131)
    from the article "Getting mired in the minutia of cause and effect keeps us in a constant cycle of fear and blame. It's an utter waste of time."

    straight, to the point, and in my opinion very accurate. kudos for this one!
    • Sadly, that's no way to get your point across on correlation between games and violence. Ive actually come to expect a little flamebait here, a little logical fallacy there. No one even seems to pay attention unless you're screaming 'think of the children' or 'help, help, I'm being repressed'. Common sense ... hhmmmmmf.

  • Preaching to the Choir (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rycross (836649) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:04AM (#19271153)
    I'm not sure that gamers and game journalists repeatedly stating, "Games don't cause violence," is doing any good. Usually, its preaching to the choir. In the cases its not, simply saying, "Hey they don't cause violence," isn't going to convince anyone not already convinced. It seems to me that articles of these sorts are more mental masturbation than anything else.

    Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof? If you want to convince people, how about trying something a bit more scientific?
    • think outside the gamers defending themselves stance, and think of it more from a completely logical standpoint. To claim that A caused B, without any consideration for C through ZZZZZ is to simplify things to the point that it has no more place in logic anymore.
      • Well true, but since when have people like Jack Thompson had any regard for logic in the first place? If you read some of his correspondences, it becomes clear that his train of logic is more of a derailed-crashed-into-a-ditch-exploded-into-a-ball -of-flame train of logic.

        I think that there needs to be a new tactic for dealing with this. Some actual science wouldn't hurt.

    • Re:Preaching to the Choir (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pla (258480) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:19AM (#19271389) Journal
      Oh, and am I the only one who's tired of the old, "I'm a gamer and I'm not violent so obviously games don't contribute to violence," gem being busted out time and time again, as if its actual proof?

      When dealing in absolutes, yes, it does constitute a valid (dis)proof.

      To prove causation, you must show the precondition as both necessary and sufficient. If I play violent games and haven't killed someone, you can't say that playing violent games cause murders (without any qualifiers).

      Now, that doesn't disprove the idea that playing violent games may apply another CCW turn to some people's screws. But that means a whole world of difference, putting "violent games" in the same ballpark as "pain", "alcohol" (or other drugs), "a good scare", "isolation", "Military experience", and "divorce".

      • Re:Preaching to the Choir (Score:4, Informative)

        by Rycross (836649) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:23AM (#19271463)
        Its only a valid disproof if your opponent is saying "Violent games always cause violence." What they're saying is more along the lines of "Violent games can sometimes be a trigger for violence," or more frequently "Violent games can increase violent tendencies, which may have an overall effect of increasing societal violence when systematically applied to a large population." The whole I-play-games-and-I'm-not-violent defense is pretty much worthless against such arguments, and makes you look uninformed. Why would anyone take you seriously if you don't even seem to understand the basic tenets of the argument at hand?
        • "Violent games can increase violent tendencies, which may have an overall effect of increasing societal violence when systematically applied to a large population."

          I agree with the game critics here. At least for some small segment of the population (certainly not everybody). I'd add that violent movies can increase violent tendencies in some small group of people. So, can violent TV and books. Guns, knives, garden tools, and cars can be used by violent people to kill and harm people.

          Where the critics a
          • Do you really think that one of these people who is susceptible to media violence is going to watch '24' one night and think, "hey, yeah, it might be fun to tie some guy to a chair and torture him"? Violent media may inspire the form of violent action--for example, I recall the case of two criminals who tried to kill their victims by making them swallow drain cleaner after they saw it in a 'Dirty Harry' movie. But would you really argue that but for the movie, they wouldn't have have sufficient "violent te
      • I wore khaki pants to work and didn't get in an accident, ergo khaki pants prevent car accidents just like video games cause crime.
    • Listing studies and statistics, is logical if you believe that video games are games, but is futile if you believe video games are something you don't understand or value. If we assume that Slashdot posters, when compared to the general population, are more logical, more male, and more likely to value enjoyment derived from video games, then logical arguments would be "preaching to the choir".

      If we assume that those whom believe video games are not fun, have no value, and are tools of the devil, then it

    • If you want to convince people, how about trying something a bit more scientific?

      Forgive me if I am overshooting or being pretentious with this remark. One does not simply “try” being more scientific when attempting to persuade. Science depends entirely on experimentation to disprove an assertion. It seeks evidence and tests that evidence against a hypothesis, doing so until a reasonably exhausting sources of evidence or when the hypothesis is contradicted by evidence, in which case the h

    • Because all the studies that show there's no causal link between video games and violence are ignored by Jack Thompson, despite the fact that most of them are initiated to support his assertions?
      • I hear that a lot but people don't actually bring the studies up. Its repetition after repetition of the same old straw men: "I play video games and I haven't murdered anyone LOL" or "Man they're so stupid how can playing quake teach you to aim a gun LOLOL." It would probably be a good idea to at least throw out a link or two if there truly are so many studies.
        • The idea that Quake or any other FPS teaches people to aim a gun is fairly foolish, as it does nothing to show people how to line up their sights and get an appropriate sight picture. However, having been trained in the military how to shoot after having almost no experience with firearms prior to that, I can tell you that training someone in the basics of aiming and firing a weapon can be done in a very short amount of time (twenty minutes or so in a classroom environment). You can also easily do a Googl

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Rycross (836649)

            The idea that Quake or any other FPS teaches people to aim a gun is fairly foolish, as it does nothing to show people how to line up their sights and get an appropriate sight picture.

            I agree, its incredibly foolish, which is why people aren't saying that. Its a strawman that gamers and journalists bring out to pound on so that they can feel oh-so-superior to the anti-game lobby. What Jack-o and company are claiming is that it can mentally prepare them to kill another human. That is, it can lessen the psychological resistance and after-effects of killing another human being. Now, I think that this is bullshit, but its not really quite as clear-cut, which is why I suspect my fellow

      • Ideally thats how it should be, but real life isn't ideal. If we consider ourselves as defending against Jacko's attacks, then we should collectively make better arguments. As it is, we're flinging around straw men and anecdotes, then patting ourselves on the back for a job well done, while everyone else is rolling their eyes at us.
  • I am shocked that more people don't make the connection that: of course the murderer kid played violent video games... s/he was a violent person! If those games "made" people violent, then wouldn't there be a direct correlation between when a new game is released and some huge spike in murder statistics, where the new murderers mostly also owned the game?

  • In other news (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Afternoon tea is no cause for solar eclipses

    Wood polish is no cause of sleeping sickness

    Radio waves are no cause of cumulus nimbus

    • In other other news. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by u-bend (1095729) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:32AM (#19271593) Homepage Journal
      Video games cause obesity and heart failure.

      I mean, if I'm playing video games all the time and not exercising and then subsequently die of a heart attack, then it's the video games, not my sloth, that killed me, right?

      In other other other news, parents are not to be blamed for anything.

  • Simplest answer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:21AM (#19271417) Homepage
    How video games inspire violence in 3 easy steps:

    1) Psycho plays video game
    2) Psycho likes what he did in fantasy world
    3) Psycho goes outside and lives out his fantasy world with the best weapons he can find

    There's the issue, in a nutshell.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by El Torico (732160)
      The key words in your post are "Psycho" and "fantasy", not "video game".
    • You can replace step one with "Reads a book", "Watches television" or heck, even, "daydreams" and it will be just as accurate - which speaks volumes on the worth of the argument put forth

    • Re:Simplest answer (Score:4, Insightful)

      by The Living Fractal (162153) <execyte&execyte,com> on Friday May 25 2007, @01:10PM (#19273247) Homepage
      This is not the issue in a nutshell. This doesn't mean shit.

      Just for example: if we didn't have violent video games:

      1) Psycho plays outside with friends in violent games like tackle football, "smear the queer", or any number of the violent activities children, teens and adults engage in.
      2) Pyscho likes what he did in these games.
      3) Pyscho does it outside of the games. It gets worse, and Psycho eventually kills someone.

      The same could be applied to reading books. Hey I know, we should ban any book with violence because some psycho might read it!

      The only real thing you said is "some people are psycho".

      Stating the obvious is not helping the situation -- with people blaming video games when there's an infinite number of other things in life that can set somebody off.

      We need to be able to figure out who has violent tendencies, who is psycho, and make them cease to exist before they harm others. And that, as an issue, both logisticall and ethically, is not too easy to fit into any 'nutshell'.

      TLF
  • It's about the lack of self control and discipline that causes kids to recreate what they see/do in a videogame. TV is no better then a videogame except for one key detail. The detail being a videogame is far far more interactive. The illusion is more complete. The experience more real.

    The kids parents (or their legal guardians w/e) are responsible for those kids. They either need to keep them in line or find assistance from another source to do their job. I know there are lots of great parents out there do

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lurker2288 (995635)
      "It's about the lack of self control and discipline that causes kids to recreate what they see/do in a videogame."

      I think that to suggest that it's self control and discipline that prevents kids from acting out what they do in games is pretty damn absurd. Do you think that every kid (or even most) who plays Counterstrike is thinking, "man, it would be so great to go machine gun my school...ah, but I really shouldn't."

      I don't think most people have any desire to act out violently in real life. If a kid comes

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Lurker2288 (995635)
          And my point is that most gamers have no desire to commit violent actions. Video games aren't a corrupting influence that creates violent intention where formerly there was none. If a kid is inclined to violence, he's going to do something violent. If he's a heavy gamer, it might be game-influenced. If he likes movies, maybe he'll act out a film scene. The media may influence the form, but it doesn't magically create the desire to harm other people.

          To speak to your example, if the idiot kids hurt emulating

  • Jack Thompson Translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:30AM (#19271563)
    I decided to run the Jack Thompson Translation software on the first comment from TFA...See the results below. Comments in italics, translations are not.

    Just off the top of my head, benefits I've gotten from gaming
    1. Faster, more accurate typing skills     (for dodging bullets)
    2. better reading comprehension     (so I know who to shoot)
    3. Sharpened Problem solving skills     (when the gun doesn't work, switch to the knife)
    4. Computer and Programming knowledge     (old aimbots didn't install themselves you know!)
    5. Experience using CAD like programs     (to make maps of my school of course)
    6. better hand eye coordination     (the better to shoot you with my dearie!)
    -
    I had a good signature until format c:

  • Cause for murder? (Score:4, Funny)

    by killmenow (184444) on Friday May 25 2007, @11:37AM (#19271663)
    I don't know. I've played some games that made me want to kill...the developer of the game.
    • I don't know. I've played some games that made me want to kill...the developer of the game.

      Yeah, actually, I avoided playing Daikatana...
  • As much as I disagree with people blaming video games for violent actions in young people, it is plausible that exposing an 8 year old to violent video games and movies will have a violent influence. However, when a violent incident involving kids or teenagers occurs and people look to video games as the scapegoat, they neglect to consider that parental intervention is what really could have prevented something like that from happening. I think parents should be held accountable for something like that ha

  • Blaming video games is ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OneMHz (1097105) on Friday May 25 2007, @12:26PM (#19272503)
    1) an oversimplification, as you can almost guarantee that it is NOT the only source of violence, 2) a scapegoat that simply removes the responsibility of the person who committed a crime, those who influenced the person toward violence (*coughparentscough*) and anyone else who could have had an influence. People see a freak, and they treat them like a freak. Yet they're surprised when that person does something... freaky. If we blame violence on video games because they exposed someone to violence, then can't we blame the news too? How about violence in the streets or the home? Let's ban all of it! It would seem (to me) that "real" violence might have a more significant impact than fantasy violence, at least in developing a personality/irrational responses/violent tendencies. Most importantly, correlation is not the same as causality. And more imprtantly A implies B does NOT mean B implies A. A violent personality making someone like violent video games dose not imply liking violent video games means a person has a violent personality. And it especially means liking violent video games causes a person to have/develop a violent personality.

  • Reverse cause and effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CokeJunky (51666) on Friday May 25 2007, @12:33PM (#19272647)
    One argument I have not heard very often, but I think should be brought to light, is that someone predisposed to engaging in violent activities may be drawn to violent video games, more than the average person. That point of basically allows that someone may use video games as an out, or that they could maybe be involved with pulling that person deeper into whatever is causing them to have violence problems. One wonders if the preconditions for someone who will be violence affects how they percieve themselves, and the real world versus the video game world.

    More simply put, seeking violent video games may be one of the effects, rather than the cause. The problem is that most gamers are not in this category.

  • Zergling (Score:3, Funny)

    by owlman17 (871857) on Friday May 25 2007, @10:57PM (#19279631)
    After watching the trailers for StarCraft 2, I had a sudden urge to take six dogs and rush my neighbor...
    • What the heck is with this meme, anyway? I mean I understand where O RLY? and NO WAI come from, but what's with all the crazy misspelling in the sentence?

      Is it like those little image sigs people have with some cute animal/photoshopped image that says something like "I'm a ninjuh, steeling yur change!"? I just don't get it.

      I've never felt so old, and I'm only 27...=(
    • "Political correctness?" Really? I think you'll find that bad parenting predates the term. One can find such parenting even in morally rigid, highly unrelativistic families. A hundred hours of GTA are nothing next to a lifetime under an abusive dogmatist for a father, for example. Parents who want to be the buddies of their kids, though annoying, do far less damage to society than the ones who do their best to grind the kids' self-esteem under their heels.

      And saying the games are a catalyst still impli

    • You know, I've never handled a firearm in my entire life (unless you count an air pistol when I was 8... no, didn't think so either.) And I can honestly say the idea that running around a UT map switching between shotguns and rocket launchers is unlikely, to say the least, to have taught me a single thing about guns that I didn't already know. I believe essentially the facts one can garner about them from the average video game are:

      1. If you point a gun in a particular direction, and pull the trigger, the b

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.