GTA Violence, the Media, and the Gamers 511
jvm writes "The Video Game Ombudsman and Curmudgeon Gamer currently have posts with opposing views on the recent and oft-criticized NY Post article about the violence in the Grand Theft Auto series of games. The Ombudsman discourages gamers from getting upset over the 'false and irresponsible' writing in the NY Post, equating it with a 'National Enquirer story saying that video games cause AIDS'. In response, this Curmudgeon says that's plain wrong, that gamers should 'stop dodging the issue' of game violence and 'start talking realistically about degrees of harm, freedoms, and responsibility'. So what's a gamer to do? Ignore the obviously clueless mainstream press or start the soul searching? Oh, and Penny Arcade has its own angle on the perils of dealing with the mainstream press, in response to how the noble Child's Play was represented."
Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like complaining that the levels of sex in porn movies are harming our children. The populous needs to understand that there are more adult gamers than kids. I don't think there is anything wrong with providing games with more 'adult' content, since we make up a huge part of the market.
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provides them. They don't want to take responsibilty for their actions and their lack of parenting. "My darling little Tiffany was never a naughty girl until she played Quake and then she took Papa's gun and shot her schoolmates".
This is not just an issue about parenting, and the use of TV and computers as a replacement for paying attention to your offspring, it's about taking responsibility for your actions, parent or not.
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, when these stories come up, there are many slashdotters who oppose any limits / labeling / whatever for games / movies / the internet. Parents do not have time to educate themselves on every possible form of entertainment that their child can run into.
That's where the start the soul searching part comes in. Should games which, if a movie, would get an R rating be available for purchase by children under 17?
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Interesting)
What most
Tom
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Interesting)
Right... I know I run into children under the age of 10 that are sitting alone in rooms reading the writings and philosophies of Aristotle and Socrates (who, incidentally, was accused of corruption of the youth in Greece), trying to decide what the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are, just so they have a good moral, and logical argument to give their parents when they confront them about wanting to play Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Happens all the time. Maybe, instead of the gamers doing the soul searching (remember, we're talking about gamers with a problem telling real-life from a video game here, not the 30-yr-old playing Final Fantasy Tactics), we should be asking why the parents (or other legal guardians) aren't trying to teach their children why the man has the gun, and why he gets shot by the police when he does something very, very bad.
Should games which, if a movie, would get an R rating be available for purchase by children under 17?
No, and they're not. Watch the little monitor at Walmart the next time you buy a Mature-rated game. It clearly says "Is cust over 17?" That is, of course, if you can see it before the 16-year-old proud graduate of the 8th grade, before dropping out to work full-time at Walmart, hits the OK button and clears it. The problem isn't that children want to play the games. The problem isn't that children want to buy the games. The problem is that adults, whether they're parents, or clerks, let them.
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:3, Insightful)
Parents do not have time to educate themselves on every possible form of entertainment that their child can run into.
it's a parent's job to educate themselves on what their kids might run into. as they get older, good sense and personal judgement will take over.
if you're that focused on your career/making money/busy with other crap, that you can't take the time to meter what your kids come in contact with in early stages of development, it's time to take a little time off.
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, you've got Media and Government colluding together to remove the rights of parents to educate and raise their children, in order that there may be future 'markets', 'consumers', 'citizens' well-trained to do as those in power say, that society may prolong itself in a way which keeps vested interests happy.
On the other hand, you've got idiots in the middle complaining that 'its all the parents fault', freely ignoring the radical social programs of the 60's, 70's and 80's which were carefully calculated to reduce the rights of parents to raise their children properly. By properly, I mean that the parents right to control and help the childs growth is removed, directly or indirectly, by social pressure, 'trend', or 'market plasticity'.
The fact of the matter is, there is no black and white issue here. Dialectic discourse has failed and always will fail, completely, on this subject.
You think Madison Avenue respects the rights of parents? Fuck no, especially if it means one less consumer to plug product into.
Video game violence is a reality. Kids growing up with the notion that there are 7 different ways to kill someone (all available at a hotkey) are not the same sort of kids who grow up knowing that death and mayhem are not something to value, and should not be 'respected'.
Yeah, sorry, but kids getting all goo-gah over "the cool graphics in GTA" are demonstrating a form of 'respect' for the subject matter.
Blaming parents for not raising their kids properly is one thing. But also, putting responsibility on those who produce content which -intentionally- makes it difficult for a parent to govern is another thing entirely. Video Games are -designed- to destract people from other lifestyles. If a gamer isn't paying full attention to a videogame, the game producer isn't happy. While that's happening, nothing else can impinge on a persons consciousness
"Tommy, stop playing video games and go outside and climb a tree" == anathema to the gaming industry, who hate the notion that there should be any other influence on a person than the products they are producing.
I once worked for a video game company whose sole product line consists of war and combat simulation software. When their first networked-player server went online, and it was discovered that some players had been playing for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the first 4 weeks of the launch, all of the executives were ecstatic. To them, there is no better way to dominate their market
If you do something, take responsibility for having done it. If you -dont- do something, take responsibility for not having done it. Video games detract from this simple parental mantra, quite extensively
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:3, Insightful)
Children, as a matter of law, are not expected to be able to always make good decisions. They can't consent to sex, buy liquor or tobacco, go to an R rated movie, enlist in the army, decide which medical procedures are appropriate for themselves etc.
The arguement against tobacco ads with cartoons is essentially that kids are dumb enough that you can "make" a significant portion of them do what you want them to with clever advertising. The same could be said for adults, but
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about your parents, but mine had abilities far beyond the TV, computer, game console... they could interact with me, even when I didn't specifically ask for their interaction. It takes some pretty sad parenting to give up whenever the kid decides he/she doesn't want to listen.
If you honestly believe it's impossible to parent a child that decides TV and video games are more interesting, please do us a fav
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Interesting)
You're confusing the people who are complaining with the people who are causing the problem. It's not my kids' parents that I'm worried about. It's the crappy parents down the street who worry me.
If GTA3 influences their son to cross some mental line and beat my daughter to death, all the parenting in the world that I did wouldn't have mattered. How do I hold that other parent responsible or force that other parent to keep GTA3 out of their problem-child's hands?
In many voter's eyes, maybe it's just easier to ban the video game totally than to force someone else to be a better parent?
Put another way: I think that it's logical to assume that the people most interested in banning violent video games don't allow their children to have them, so you can hardly say that their looking to excuse their own bad parenting. Instead, their looking to circumvent their neighbor's bad parenting.
Don't get me wrong. I would never agree with such a ban. I'm a libertarian through and through. I don't like anyone telling me what I can say, what I can sell, what drugs I take, whom I can pay to have sex with, where I'm allowed to travel, etc.
However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that critics of games like GTA3 have a legitimate concern. Studies have shown that video games directly influence behavior. I have no doubt that in some case somewhere, some violent video game led to the taking of an innocent life.
- We could try to solve the problem by banning the game.
- We could try to solve the problem by holding parents responsible for their kids' actions.
- We could just accept the problem as the cost of living in a free society and move on.
I think that some combination of the second two makes the most sense, but I understand why the first one seems so attractive to some people.Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was something my father told me when I was about 12. He said, "Son, you'll never be able to control other people's actions. You'll only ever be able to control your own." You'll never be able to control the crappy parents down the street. There will always be some form of media showing children that it's cool to do something wrong. You can only hope that the upbringing you give your children has a positive impact on their friends, which raise their children the right way, etc. Which leads me to another great piece of advice my father gave me. "The best revenge is success." Raise your children to be successful, in every aspect of their life, and others will envy them, and hopefully, try to imitate them.
For a more immediate solution, why don't you invite the other parent's son over to play with your daughter so you can have as much time to influence him as possible?
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Interesting)
A ban is censorship, and censorship always sets human progress backwards. That poorly raised kid down the street is not so borderline that GTA3 and only GTA3 will push him over the edge. Anything could, if the kid has no respect for others. And if nothing else existed he could just fall back on the voices in his head. Before defense lawyers become prolific that was all the defense these nuts would have - now that's a rarity: it's always someone rich's fault.
As I've said every time this issue comes up: in the 50's it was comic books. Then Rock music. Then science fiction. Then Disco. Then Dungeons and Dragons. Then Heavy Metal. Then Rap. Now video games. The only real difference between video games and these past 'corruptions of minors' is the higher level of communication now. Not just the internet, but news channels and misinformed talkshows all looking for ratings. So video games seems much worse when statistically they almost certainly aren't.*
*(Of course, if anyone did a statistical comparison of various alleged 'corruptions' and their real effects it would be a waste of time. Anyone swayed be sensationalism will never be swayed by numbers.)
You need to get a grip. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provides them.
-Then later-
It's all about taking responsibility for your actions.
Wow. Did you go to a sociology convention for that, how many doctorates in human behavior do you have?
Your generalizations are unscrupulous. You talk about taking responsibility for your actions. Your generalizations show that you take no responsibility for the accusations you fling out towards the world.
But the populous wants excuses, and the media provi
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
I was raised in a house with gun(s). My Dad took me out when I was like in 5th grade for target practice with our handgun. I was shown how to shoot it...load it, and most of all, respect it. I knew perfectly well where the gun was at all time, and it was loaded. I also knew better than to even THINK about touching it unless my safety at home was in peril. Both my parents worked, and I was a latch-key kid..I was often home alone from about 3 till 5:30. Thing is...I was TAUGHT things by them, and I respected them. I only took the gun out once..during one summer at home alone....a really haggard man came banging at our front door asking for a drink or something. I told him to go away, and he wouldn't. I had the gun, safety off, slide pulled and ready to go in my hand....still with the door closed and locked, but ready in case he tried to force entry.
He finally went away. I put the gun back on safety, and put it up...and promptly called my parents to tell them. All worked out well, but, it just shows a young person when raised correctly has no problem with guns or acting responsibility. I grew up with Bug Bunny and plenty of cartoon violence. Most everyone I know did....and somehow we understood that in real life you don't get back up after the anvil hits you. Growing up, I had free reign in my neighborhood with my friends...I would often leave at 10 in the mornings during summer...and not come home except for lunch and dinner. I just called to check in with my folks every couple hours, till I was old enough to where it wasn't necessary.
So...what is the problem today that kids can't be trusted with responsibilities...and understand that games are games...but, real life has consequences? I had video games...but, didn't spend all day playing them...why don't kids go play outside with their friends today? It HAS to be lack of parenting....and time spent with them...
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me start off by saying, I agree GTA and it's like including quake3,Ut,UT2003,etc are made for adults.... 16+ years of age. and yes parents that buy their kids anything they want and let them do whatever they want have alot more to worry about then the effects of GTA on their kids... how about the 14 year old with tattoos and 30-40 piercings? only a idiot would think that child knows what he is getting into and was able to make such an important decision instead of just being a copycat.
What if a company comes out this year with a new blockbuster game where you serially rape women and then must dump the bodies? We had a rape video game already, Custer's Revenge and it generated more media hype back in the 80's than anyything RockStar games ever made. What about a Racist video game? Where your band of KKK members in a diablo style game run throughout the south killing blacks? is that acceptable? and it's "counterstrike type" of expansion pack where an angry black mob goes through killing all the whites?
Where do we draw the line people? what is acceptable and what is not?
Personally I think that the GTA series does not have a large enough warning... it really needs on the cover "if you buy this for your kid then you are a fucking moron" in bright red....
because that is the only message that most of the career minded parents will get.. Remember work and their career is certianly more important than their children..because we can not live without that 6 figure income and a second Volvo in this exclusive neighborhood....
granted it's not only the rich kids problem, It happens in most income groups... but usually low income families pay much more attention to their children and are far less likely to buy a $50.00 game for their child instead of that week's worth of groceries.
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:5, Insightful)
The content in the "realistic" action/adventure genre tends to parallel that found in Hollywood offerings. For instance, Vice City is similar in many respects to the movie Scarface, but you don't see anyone squirming over the recent release of the special edition DVD.
Because to 99% of people, games are for kids (Score:2)
you're right... BUT (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I know, they need to sell games, and have every right to. But you can't have it both ways: knowingly making money off
Re:Not for kids... get a grip (Score:3, Funny)
Good to see that that's working out for you.
"you stupid fucking lazy mother fucker."
Nice.
BF Skinner was right (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you let the government define that balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:2, Funny)
Video games effect behavior? Please...
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:2)
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:2)
These are not new concepts for adults (the intended players). How many action movies have you seen recently? How much violence have you commited?
I disagree with your assertion that the outcome can ONLY be violent behavior. I have watched hundreds of violent movies and played many many violent video games over the years. I have not become violent. I don't feel any less disgusted when I see violence in real life. My compassion hasn'
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:2)
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:3, Insightful)
A
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:4, Funny)
I think the biggest problem I suffered was driving on the right in GTA VC, and then having to revert to the left when back behind the wheel of a real car. Lucky I live in a quiet estate.
Re:BF Skinner was right (Score:2)
And another hint: If you have unstable children make sure they can't get hold of guns or explosives when they leave for school in the mornings.
Kids are the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a kid's game
It's a game for adults, like me, to play. Suggesting that it's going to aid in changing the actions of a full grown, reasoning, sensible adult is like saying magazines like Playboy make people watch Porn, or like saying advertising is the only thing that makes us do anything.
It's bunk
Re:Kids are the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kids are the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
"concludes that despite what may appear to be a high prevalence rate of arrests for serious offenses among NFL players, these players in fact "seem to have a lower [crime] rate than the comparable population," even though they are members of a profession that rewards violence on the football field."
http://www.amstat.org/pressroom/nflcrime.html
I admit to being surprised.
jef
Re:Kids are the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
How do crime rates amongst NFL players compare to those in other with similar incomes rather than those with similar backgrounds, or compare them with baseball and basketball players, with similar backgrounds and incomes.
Football players often come from backgrounds of poverty: its over generous to compare their offending rates with people who may be stealing to eat.
Re:Kids are the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
drugs, sex and alcolhol aren't for kids either...yet we clearly see (and many first hand experienced) that kids do have access to drugs, sex, alcohol and other adult oriented things.
>>But that's irrelevant
Well i just proved you wrong. Kids are going to have access to this stuff, they always have, always wil. So you just can't make up reality.
I don't pretend to know the answer or where the balance should lay between freedom and morality, but I do know that there shou
It's Columbine all over again (Score:2)
Re:It's Columbine all over again (Score:2, Funny)
Just remember what the MPAA says... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, shouldn't that be "Naughty words are ok, as long as Michael Jackson doesn't play Grand thef..."
AW Screw it, I'm confused.
Is anything going to shock us in 10 years?
Re:Just remember what the MPAA says... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think poop sex with dead horses will become mainstream anytime soon.
Did I say that out loud?
The Penny Arcade campaign was stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
But they must be stupid if they thought their charity drive was ever going to change public perception of gamers or game violence. A gun control advocate is still going to think the NRA is just a bunch of gun nuts, even if the NRA raised $200K for a childrens hospital.
Re:The Penny Arcade campaign was stupid (Score:2)
I'm not saying that the NRA are gun nuts.
Just making a point that you can combine attributes and one attribute does not necessarily negate another.
Re:The Penny Arcade campaign was stupid (Score:2)
And another thing, why is the NRA raising money for a childrens hospital, except to try to improve its image as a compassionate and caring organization?
The Child's Play campaign was cheated (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if what Tycho said in his January 2nd post [penny-arcade.com] is accurate, the final media report about Child's Play was blatantly and irresponsibly incorrect, to the point of being intentionally deceptive:
It's one thing to expect that people are going to change their view of gamers overnight (which I don't think Tycho and Gabe actually believed would happen) as a result of one amazing act of charity; it's another thing to have their hard work effectively dismissed by attributing it to someone else and vastly understating its value.
Jay (=
Re:The Child's Play campaign was cheated (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunatly, its compleatly legal for the media to lie and twist as much as it wants. You should be suspicious of anything you see. anything.
"Free Speech Zones" my American ass. Its already fascist.
Re:The Child's Play campaign was cheated (Score:5, Informative)
If Children's Hospital Seattle is anything like Children's Hospital Boston, where I worked, it has a PR department able to have put this drive as a heartwarming story on the night newscasts of three networks on the same day, just by having a well-filled Rolodex of exactly who to call. The media don't appaear where nothing is expected, for things like this they need to be told in a very targetted way. I would suggest that Child's Play next time work a little closer with the available media-handlers at their target, as much as they have a distaste for the media.
There are PR handlers looking at this like a totally wasted opportunity on all sides, both for getting Children's Hospital Seattle and Child's Play in the news.
Re:The Child's Play campaign was cheated (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes- they did not play this in the slightest. As such, they got what they deserve- web notariety within the circles who already know them, and jack-shit from the rest of the world.
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, I can't say it better than Running With Scissors (makers of Postal): "Violence belongs in videogames - Not on the street!"
Violence has an effect on children. (Score:4, Interesting)
This only stopped when beating children became more and more unpopular. My grandsons still have trouble to understand how I could German soldiers in WW II as a sniper - they view violence and especially killing as ethically evil.
Re:Violence has an effect on children. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your logic seems to be - if you beat children, they will go to war in the future and only the teaching of violence leads to war.
There are a couple of fallacies with that. The basic one is that wars haven't stopped. The US, the UK and other developed countries where parents are discouraged from smacking their children around are still willing to use violence to protect their interests. Vietnam. The Falklands. Grenada. Panama. The Gulf I and II. Etc. etc. They just haven't met an opponent strong enough and that they were willing to take on, to cause a world war. The Soviet Union was too powerful too fight in a warm war but there was still a cold war with plenty of of proxy violence.
The other fallacies include the facts that kids are violent little sods even without any adult schooling in the ways of violence and that violence seems to be an inherent characteristic of mankind that cannot be educated away.
If your grandchildren can't understand why you sniped Germans (to stop Hitler turning the world into a nightmare, to save people from the gas chambers, etc. etc.), then you might want to have a little talk with them about ethics and self-defence.
Also - take a look around you. Most people believe in the US believe violence is justified by national needs.
Re:Violence has an effect on children. (Score:2)
The Germans you killed may have been good people but they were defending an incredibly evil system.
Sometimes the good die for a bad cause.
Guns and games (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it that whenever a killing supposedly happens because of playing a video game, it is only the game manufacturers who are blamed? Why are people suing the coders, and not the parents of those who actually went out and killed people? Why not the gun companies, without whom there wouldn't be guns in their hands? Why don't we actually go after those responsible? If parents are incapable of keeping inappropriate materials away from their offspring, be they video games or firearms, we must seriously questi
easy answer (Score:2)
People don't want to place responsibility where it belongs. People want to cash in on misfortunes. Cha-ching.
Re:Guns and games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guns and games (Score:2, Insightful)
OTOH, one of them is (like alcohol and smoking) legal for those above a semi-arbitrary age. Selling to those perfectly allowed to posess and purchase is fine.
In the case of drugs, the crime is committed typically outside the home and away from the parents. In the case of minors playing adult computer games, the 'crime' is committed within the house, an environment which is the direct responsibility of the parent, an
Re:Guns and games (Score:2)
Re:Guns and games (Score:2)
Parents poor, Rockstar rich.
How long will it be... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How long will it be... (Score:3, Funny)
I use a small fictional furry animal as my online avatar. I am deeply shocked, offended, and appalled that you would even suggest the senseless murder of a member of a minority; not to mention the gross lack of racial sensitivity that would allow you to even conceive of such a horrific act. On behalf of nerds who use small furry animals as their online avatars, friends of people with small furry animals as
Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
From discussions I've had with various people, here's what I can remember us coming up with:
1. Ratings System -- Why is there not ONE unified ratings system spanning Movies/TV/Games/Music, etc. I'm sure it has to do with copyright and licensing, but that aside...having 3 different ratings systems that aren't all that obvious (TV is the worst culprit) leaves a bunch of confused parents and consumers.
2. Regulation -- Ratings exist, but why, unlike movies and alcohol, can a 12 year old walk into a gaming store and buy GTA/Doom/whatever? If they want to get a hold of it, it shouldn't be easy -- just like getting beer when you were 15 wasn't.
3. Social Responsibility -- Even with the above in place, there are some parents or people who just don't care. Mostly they're misinformed and don't know little johnny is beating up a prostitute behind a bush, but there are those out there who are perfectly willing to buy their 13 year-olds GTA (everyone's favorite example, so I use it). Society draws lines all the time -- alcohol sales, cigarrettes, pornography -- why should the same not be applied here?
4. Censorship -- This is a stupid answer. If I can watch someone's head get blow off in a movie, I should be able to do it myself on my TV too. So, call this an anti-answer.
The real thrust of the article(s) I thought is that games are seen differently from other forms of media and that gamers are taking the flak. I never understood this. When a really violent movie comes out, are viewers of the movie ridiculed for going to see it? No. So why are gamers compelled to defend gaming? Why is there not something being done to educate the public. Games aren't just Mario and Donkey Kong anymore -- it's not them weilding shotguns and stealing cars. Video games have expanded to include new audiences -- I just don't think the public understands this. Everytime I tell someone the average gamers age is 25 (maybe it's 28, I forget)...they can't believe it.
Ok, done defending.
Re:Responsibility (Score:2)
No, it should not be behind curtains as it is not something to be ashamed of. Think of what you are saying here, you are suporting segregation (if only in a very small way). Now you know this I hope you ralise wht you said was dumb.
Anyway porn is the only thing that tends to be shoved off to it's own section (18 cert films are in the a-z like everything else).
Actually in my local rental shop porn is on the bottom shelf (yes bottom) near the counter.
What needs to be changed is pe
tools (Score:3, Insightful)
Games can be used to amuse, to teach, to kill time.
Guns can be used to defend, to intimidate, or to kill.
Cars can be used for joy rides, trips to the library, or mowing down a crowd of people.
It is my opinion that tools and the tool manufacturers should not be blaimed for illegal use of their tools.
The only exception to this rule is if a tool is so poorly designed that it can cause harm even though the user of the tool has taken reasonable precautions to obey the law and use the tool safely.
Re: (Score:2)
This quote says it all... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you show a man sucking a woman's breast you get an R rating. But if you show the same man shooting the woman's breast off with a shotgun you get M."
De Niro, I think.
Not sure how accurate that is (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure if you can get to actual sucking in R ratings, yet. Handling, yes, but sucking? In the US we're still way more squeamish about sex (as opposed to implied sex) than about violence.
I went to see a PG-13 movie last year, and it was full of incredibly disturbing violent images. Someone choked someone else to death -- played for laughs in the movie. Someone stabbed someone else's neck many times until, all on camera, the victim wheezed and died. PG-13.
Meanwhile, if you see anything more than a glimp
Culture of blame and misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
And a small history lesson... there were badly behaved people before video games were even thought of! *gasp*
If people who are against videogame violence were to be believed then the first murder happened shortly after space invaders came out. Gang rapes started happening after pacman, and paperboy bought on genocidal tendencies.
The blame of any kids that do bad things should be squarely on the parents instead of trying to find someone else for their own failings. If i did something wrong, I got smacked for it and I learnt not to do it again.
If anything they should censor the news or clean it up, how many murders with gruesome details to they report on each day?
Culture is a Two Way Street (Score:3, Interesting)
Video games are no different than any other input to our brains. Anything we experience influences us in some way, and if we experience blowing people away as a fun, of course we will have a shift in values that is more tolerant of violence. Children are especially vulnerable to programming by experience (see the results of wife-beater/drunk parents), so I could certainly see society want to stop kids having access to these ideas.
That said, noone should feel they have the right to tell any grown adult what to think or experience. If a video game makes me more violent, let it be on MY head if I go out and shoot someone. However, the best way to ensure that video games for adults are not banned outright is to make sure that they stay out of the hands of kids. As everyone knows, enforcement of the ratings system is a joke.
gdp
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Those advocating "freedom of expressi
We live controlled lives, you know... (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing is that we live a technologically advanced life, especially in western cities. I can't go to the toilet in the street,
Why ONE standard of risk tolerance for the whole? (Score:5, Interesting)
Violent video games do have an effect on the young. The question is, how willing are you to accept this risk in exchange for greater freedom?
The tolerance for risk varies from person to person, so the answer to that question will vary from person to person.
At some point, a compromise must be reached amoung people about just how much risk they should all accept. It is possible though, that some people accepting risk in one part of the country add no extra risk to those in another part of the country. What game kids play in Seattle has little affect on the people of Tampa.
The best approach to this problem, IMO, is to allow cities/communities to set their own standards. There is no single "right" answer for the whole country. This seems like it ought to be a "cities-rights" issue.
Two points (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Am I the only PERSON WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES who is sick of hearing the word "gamer"? If someone plays sports then they're a sportsman/woman and that has a certain credibility. If they drive racing cars then they're a racecar driver and that has credibility. When I hear SOMEONE WHO PLAYS VIDEO GAMES describe him/herself as a "gamer" it sounds to me like they're trying to wrap their fun hobby in a veil of credibility, as if it has social merit or importance. It doesn't. You play games because they amuse you. Chances are you only play games when you have nothing else better to do. Please stop trying to create some sort of respectable social niche to put yourself into.
Re:Two points (Score:2)
It all depends on your point of view.
For example, I could absolutely not care less about football - and I'd have a lot more fun watching someone who was a world champion player annihilate people in Quake as opposed to watching two teams of lunks toss a ball around.
One is using your muscles and getting m
Re:Two points (Score:2)
People who describe themselves as "gamers" should remember that they're talking about a hobby which involves nothing more than picking up a controller and moving something around on a screen. It's hardly something to respect or adm
Child's Play (Score:4, Insightful)
Child's Play [penny-arcade.com] wasn't done to get the "public" to like gamers, nor to counteract the "games make you a psycho-killer" lobby. It was done to help some kids. You can be cynical and disagree, but so what? Sure it also has the effect of projecting an image of games as fun, as something good for a change, but "two birds with one stone" isn't a crime (provided you stay metaphorical).
In many parts of the world motorcyclists organise "toy runs" where lots of bikies/bikers collect money and toys, meet at a pre-arranged spot and then ride en masse to a children's hospital where they hand the goddies over. This creates an alternative image for the media. They can run a story about bike gangs / speeding "organ donors" or one about subverted stereotypes and outlaws with hearts of gold. It's a cliche either way but at least the toy runs give them the option.
It sounds as though the media didn't know what to make of Child's Play, so they pretended it wasn't there. The kids still got their toys, and if it becomes a regular feature, perhaps the media will have to develop a similar bifurcated view of gamers.
Sure they'll still be tossing a coin, "heads = GTA psychos, tails = human interest story with sick kids", but at least there's a positive stereotype in there too.
This won't change the fact that games, like motorcyclists, span the gamut of psychos and idiots through to saints and whatnot, but it might help a little. Give it time.
Of course, it's worth keeping up just for its own sake too.
TV (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't switch on a channel without somebody getting shot, even the news channels now show dead bodies in full color.
It is about time that we drop the legal age for soft porn movies to 12 and make programs/movies with violence 18+.
Or it is time for some familie value sessions, but he, the parents are at work 60 hours a week, no can do.
Time honored solution (Score:3, Funny)
Then they'd have some real news to write about instead of fabricating bogus issues to distract people from things that actually matter. But, really, nothing after point 1 is significant. Someone who is messed up mentally will likely act out, and I personally would rather they have a virtual environment to fill that need. Games being a whole lot of fun for a sane person at the same time is just an added bonus.
Violence != criminality (Score:2)
Evil to him who thinks evil (Score:5, Insightful)
And now it's video games.
Can you say Generation Gap? Can you say power grab? Can you say neurosis? I knew you could.
You can cite study and statistics stating that video games are mostly harmless (and maybe even beneficial) until you're blue in the face, and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good.
You can't have a rational debate with those who are irrational (equating game playing with molestation... I guess Michael Jackson isn't so creepy after all). If god himself came down from on high and stated he got a kick from jacking FBI cars, they'd only say that the FBI were the tools of Satan. You can't win.
So forget mentioning the game was displayed at a major museum as a work of art, forget mentioning that with the sheer number of copies sold you'd expect at least a slight blip in the number of crimes being committed, forget that several generations of youth have grown up with comic books, video games, and rock music without seemingly any adverse effects: they wouldn't understand you.
This isn't about video game violence. It's about control.
And I shove it right back in their face: "Where are all the damn Satanist? Where are the Communists? Where is this Legion of Doom sent to corrupt the youth? Where the fuck are they? You've been WRONG so many other times, why should I believe you now?"
We are a schizophrenic nation: we want the freedom to take away everyone else's freedom; we want freedom from freedom.
So no, let's not talk about video game violence. Let's talk about how many serial killers have read the New York Times. Coincidence? I think not. Let's talk about how people fear technology and change. Let's talk about how easy it is to gain political leverage by enforcing arbitrary rules against those most defenseless: the children. Let's talk about that.
Video games? Never touch the stuff personally, why do you ask? Ooh look, did you know the murder rate goes up with every unsavory editorial piece the New York Post does? See, look at my graph, it's true. Just between you and me, I hear if you run the Times backwards through your fax machine, it tells you to invite NAMBLA to cater your child's next birthday in Gaelic. I read it in the Washington Post, so it must be true.
Upon reading the Times article, I went up to a little girl and asked if she would rather be raped, or prefer me to continue playing GTA. She said she'd rather me continue playing the game, but she could still kick my ass in Virtua Fighter 4.
Who ya gonna believe?
God bless insomnia.
Game violence (Score:2)
Re:Game violence (Score:3, Interesting)
These law-breaking, violent and pornographic games are aimed directly at YOU the responsible adult and NOT at impressionable children.
Because you are a responsible adult with the ability to know "right from wrong" (at least to an extent that's acceptable to most laws in your country/state), these games are fine and dandy for you to play. They're just a wild break from reality that your mind is happy to enjoy for a while.
Stupid ideas about responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's what I don't understand about life in the US, and I grew up here.
Why is it that we let 16 year-olds operate heavy machinery at high speeds, yet we don't consider them legally responsible for anything, except perhaps the odd ticket they migh receive in relation to that mentioned machine-operating privilege?
Does it make sense to anyone out there how there is no graduated system of gaining control and responsibility over one's life, and how magically at age 18, suddenly one has control over all areas,
My reply to the "curmudgeon" (Score:2, Interesting)
When you (or anyone) try and say that games or movies make the world more violent, you're arguing that h
Violent Games vs. Alcohol (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They are meant for adults but kids still get hold of them.
2. They cause violence.
By same arguement, you'd figure they'll also call for the banning of alcohol for the same above reasens, not to mention the various health issues. However, I doubt that it will happen because:
1. Many of the critics probably enjoy alcohol and most people are all for banning everything except for things that they enjoy.
2. Alcohol industry lobbiests gets paid more than the gaming industry lobbiests.
NY Post Article (Score:3, Insightful)
This one quote in the Post article regarding GTA Vice City sums it up for me, saying the game "is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy". That's it. Enough. I have 2 small children and I have played both GTA games (never letting them see it of course). Anyone who could equate sinister premeditated child molestation with an adult playing a video game that harms no one should be fired from their job as a reporter. Period.
We all know the game is not what you'd want kids to see, but neither is porn. Is that against the law? Should the platform in which something is viewed or experienced dictate the way in which its content is judged? Ridiculous.
The GTA games are so great for just the very reason that they are such complete departures from reality, where anything can happen - and guess what? No one gets hurt for real.
What are gamers to do? (Score:3, Interesting)
If a personal, child or adult, runs outside and starts shooting people, conservatives/Republicans (loose label) start screaming "electric chair!" and "get him!", whereas liberals/Democrats scream initially while under fire, only later to figure out who their next target for the blame should be. Gun manufacturers? Gangsta' rap? Violent video games?
Never mind the fact that man has been capable of doing his worst since before the age of technology began. Never mind that even cable television sometimes shows more gruesome depictions of violence than the video games currently under fire. Never mind that none of these children who do these things were not taught by their parents or peers the difference between right and wrong, or even how to handle negative emotions that might incite such violent acts.
After all, it is very clearly marketed for adults, which puts the responsibility on their children playing those games on the adults, not the kids (exception: idiot store clerks who sell games or any other products illegally to minors).
But who cares? Blame the video game. After all, spending months designing an incredibly realistic 3D environment in which we may run around and do the things we would never do in real life (i.e., quench our thirst for blood in fiction rather than reality) is the same thing as pulling the trigger, isn't it?
Is this the correct questions to be asksing (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, after heavily debated research, violent video games are shown to make it "easier" by desensitization to commit acts of violence. What does this mean? Should we seek to rid our society of all violent content that desensitizes us to such actions? Should all simulations of violence either real or fictional be removed from American culture? Would we revert to movies of the quality of action made in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? While certainly there were some good shows made during those time periods, I doubt the public would appreciate the perceived regression. Perhaps we would see literature and music that relied less on the action and thrills of violent content, but I doubt it would be a welcome reversion.
Perhaps the real question should not be "Does video game violence contribute to real life acts of violence?", but "Why are violent video games such as GTA a huge seller in the video game market?". Additionally, we should perform some introspection on why our society creates violent content in the first place? Could it be that we are a society that still finds violence an acceptable method to reach our goals? Perhaps, or pehaps not.
Personally, I think the researchers are barking up the wrong tree. The questions they should be asking are not being asked. If they are, we don't see the media reporting on such research. Rather, we are playing the "blame game" and "pass the buck". It is easier to pass the blame than to address the underlying issues. Why do we play violent video games in the first place? Because they are "fun" is not a sufficient answer. What makes simulated violence fun? Why do we enjoy going to action movies that depict peoples' heads being chopped off, massive explosions resulting in death, etc...? Is it a substitute we seek to fulfill a lack of "excitement" in our own lives? We should be more concerned with how to create a responsble person in today's society. Responsible people do not believe that violence is an acceptable measure to accomplish their goals. Responsible people can be trusted to drive a car sober, parent their kids appropriately, own firearms, and generally "fit in" with society on a level that precludes violence altogether.
A round of applause for Captain Obvious, everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, gee, Sparky, I think that's the whole point of that "M - Mature" emblem on the lower left corner of the box. You can't blame the game company if parents don't keep their kids from playing violent video games, any more than you can blame the power company if parents don't keep their kids from sticking a fork in an outlet.
Or did you mean some sort of "Leisure Suit Larry"-esque means of preventing people from playing it, by asking a bunch of questions only people old enough to play would be able to answer? Not that that scheme would work longer than five minutes in this day and age, before 'prepubescentgamerz.com' posted the full list of questions and answers.
~Philly
Re:GTA violence (Score:2, Insightful)
a game that could do with restricting as to who can play it.
It has an 18 certificate - what more do people want? Sure the game is violent, but it's only a game. Shops shouldn't sell it to underage people, and parents shouldn't buy them for kids and then complain about the content.
Take the GTA arguement and substitute "Booze" or "Porn" for GTA - the story completly changes - suddenly it's completly obvious that its wrong to buy lit
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:5, Informative)
Except that when guns were more common we didn't have these types of actions, it's not the device but something in the people.
When my dad grew up (b 1944), every hardware store and mass merchant sold guns and ammunition freely. Kids grew up with guns all around, got their own rifles at a young age, hunted after school, shot rats at the dump, you get the idea - they were everywhere. How many mass shootings occurred then?
When I grew up, they were more restricted - the 68 GCA had passed barring under 18 sales and limiting firearms dealers. My friends still hunted after school sometimes and several trucks in the high school parking lot would have a rifle in the back window. Shooting comps were not an activity where I lived but they existed. Again, how many shootings were there in that timeframe?
OK, flash forward to todays school kids. We have zero tolerence on "weapons" in schools - kids have been suspended for bringing butter knives. Rifle Team - long gone. Thanks to the brady bunch and PETA hunting isn't allowed to be mentioned. Even think about firearms in school and you'll probably be expelled. Hell, kids are disciplined for pointing their fingers at each other and yelling "bang".
By your standards, since we've taken huge steps to eliminate the "gun culture" today the streets of 1944 should have run red with blood while today kids should be playing marbles or some other non violent game.
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, but they did. Or haven't you heard of the Second World War?
The reason domestic guns could be prevalent then and yet not used is becaused a large proportion of the adult population had just seen the horrors of what happens when guns really get out of control. This generation hasn't seen that - there have been wars of course, but the population itself hasn't been draf
Firearms Limitations: schools and parents (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2)
Not what was said. To reiterate: using guns in a war situation is bound to affect your outlook on guns. Probably in a rather negative fashion.
I'm rather happy that "Really out of control guns" stopped a bloodthirsty genocidal dictator
No. 'Really out of control guns' started a bloodythirsty genocidal dictator. Check out the pre-war German gun club history.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems that americans are violent, but when you compare suicides its places in europe that always at the top of the list.
Is it better to be violent and happy or be suicidally depressed?
Anyways places in america with the highest rates in gun ownership have the lowest murder and violent crime rates. In my neighborhood everybody and their mom owns guns. I own a rifle and a handgun, I see people carring shotguns to and from target practice. The local hardware sells guns and hunting supplies, and th
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I would hate to come off as some conservative and agree, but I think I agree. There has been an "awakening" as to the danger and (now) unnecessity of guns. People increasingly don't need guns (because the
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummm... Yeah, I'd take that opinion.
I watched the (admittedly short) bits of the films they showed on the news. I listened to the newscasters complaining about the fact that the Columbine kids were comparing bowling pins to human outlines. Honestly, I was much more offended by the lack of respect that the kids showed for their weapons and the lack of control that they displayed
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:3, Informative)
Especially telling was the large amount of time he spent contrasting Canada with the US. We're exposed to the same games, same movies, and the same media, but shootings are murders are all but a fraction of that in the US (even comparing similiar sized towns, adjusting for population, and such).
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2, Insightful)
because it doesn't have to do with movies or games or media.
America is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world and it still hasn't found a way to cope with that fact.
there's your problem folks.
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2)
oh wait, that might be totalitarianism.
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:2)
Canada has lots of guns too. Not too many shootings there. Shootings have nothing to do with the number of guns or the number of people. I can't tell you why we shoot each other a lot, but I can sai that the number of guns have nothing to do with it.
>The greatest danger where I live is that after playing GTA, I'll start driving on the wrong side of the road. I have found myself eyeing up some parked v
Re:I always laugh at you Americans... (Score:3, Insightful)
I always laught at clueless forginers...
you make such statements without a clue as to what you are rtalking about. First off stop insulting and entire continent of people... canadians, Mexicans and south americans will take a major offense at your remark.. it's like me saying you europeans are nothing but terrorists. Its a wrong generalization.
Let's take one simple fact mister... Canada has as much as a gun
Check your facts (Score:2)
Yes, read that again: Guns are not more common in the US than in most other Western nations. In rural Canada, hunting is so common that more or less everybody owns a rifle or two. In Sweden (where I live), I was somewhat surprised when a date of mine once took me home to proudly show me her
Polarization, insulation, boredom. (Score:2, Interesting)