BBC Argues Games Don't Cause Violence 398
RandBlade writes "BBC News has an article on the argued link between violent games and real violence. It examines both scientific evidence, different theories and the facts in order to conclude 'that it is trite and irresponsible of ill-informed commentators to claim that games like Grand Theft Auto are central to terrible crime.'" It's good to know that gamers are not all killing machines lying in wait, or that E3 is not the most potentially dangerous convention ever.
Nonsense. (Score:4, Funny)
I can't agree with their conclusions. Three days after I bought Thief: The Dark Project [eidosinteractive.com] I was out shopping for a blackjack, dark cloak and rope arrows.
The rope arrows were a bit hard to find..
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
The rope arrows were a bit hard to find..
Hey that's nothing. Three days after I bought Tetris, I started laying bricks in the garden like crazy.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
After the first 12 hours of doing it nonstop, yeah, they do!
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Nonsense. (Score:2, Funny)
> Hey that's nothing. Three days after I bought Tetris, I started laying bricks in the garden like crazy.
And three days after I got my first compiler, I was writing crappy code!
Laugh all you like... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I know what you mean (Score:4, Funny)
Of Course (Score:5, Funny)
really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:really (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay you named one tragedy in the last 20 years. Name a couple more. Name some till it rises to the level of crime on a daily basis in the inner city.
Re:really (Score:2)
Re:really (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, my college campus - a place with lots of "spoiled middle class kids" - is the safest campus in the country. 90% of the kids here play video games at least three or four hours a day. Where's all of our crime? If the middle class kids are the most dangerous, why am i not running for my life from crazed GTA players?
profound stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it is profound stupidity to seek general explanations of singular events. Singular events generally have singular explanations--a rare confluence of circumstances that is unlikely to repeat.
Of course, that sort of violence will repeat itself, not because the particular confluence of personalities and events that caused the first one repeats, but because we can't seem to stop talking about it. Huge numbers of disaffected young people saw a handful of kids just like them receive concentrated and ongoing media attention as a result of one violent action. That is an influence far more profound than a million copies of Grand Theft Auto.
Simpsons get it right, again: (Score:5, Insightful)
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...
There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance.
Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
-- `Smartline', ``Itchy and Scratchy and Marge''
Re:Simpsons get it right, again: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its all so obvious (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simpsons get it right, again: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm on the same side here -- I'm from the generation that Dungeons and Dragons would turn into evil, raving, psycho-killers.
But this whole -- there was __ before -- logic is crap. Maybe *I*, as an individual psycho, decide wholly on the basis of AC/DC lyrics to do some unspeakable act. Fact 1: I'd have to be pretty screwed up to begin with. Fact 2: "There were killers before AC/DC" doesn't really have anything to do with this particular killing, the fact that I strangled him with bells painted red in his own blood. Maybe my natural violent tendencies would have found different expression instead -- maybe I just would have beaten the silly bastard. Who's to say?
Everybody wants to deny the influence of everything, because absolutely unencumbered free will is a God-given (heh) right. "X determines behaviour" is a straw man, because the real argument is "X influences behaviour". Video games? Not in any way we can measure yet, in terms of violence. Just cause the kids in my elementary school were doing "Street Fighter moves" a few years ago, doesn't mean they wouldn't have been doing Bruce Lee moves a decade or two back.
But put the "there was violence before" argument in the specious reasoning bin, along with the "I played video games and am not a psycho" anecdote logic, which coincides nicely with "what about Columbine" anecdote logic. Anecdotes prove nothing but what happened in an individual case (if you have insight on it). Leave it to the stats, people. So far, they show no relationship.
Re:D&D and violence (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently, it all stems from a news article about how such-and-such percent of kids who play D&D commit suicide. The case study talks about the hysteria about D&D a bit. It then proceeds to mention that the reporter who wrote the article did bad research, and that she got the suicide factor completely wrong - it was actually TWICE what she reported. On top of that, this doubled suicide rate was still signifigantly lower than the national a
Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quote (Score:3, Informative)
yet (Score:5, Insightful)
think of the children! especially the ones we don't want to take responsability of raising!
Many parents terrify me... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other day I was at a Gamestop (getting Gothic II), and there was a mother there with her two little boys. Her little boys kept looking at games and saying, "Mommy, get me that one, and that one." To which she was very acquiescent. She was there purchasing a few new memory cards for the Game Cube. When the clerk said, "Okay, here are two Game Cube memory cards," she said, "Game Cube? I need memory cards for the Nintendo." Meanwhile in the background, the two little kids were in fact discussing GTA... and acting it out against each other. It was.... disturbing. But more than anything, it made me rather angry. If this woman wasn't even too clear about what console she was buying memory cards for, you can be sure as hell she has no idea about the content of the games she buys for them, and didn't really seem to care either. I've seen similar sights before too. It seems people like her are using games as a proxy for parenting, keeping the kids quiet and out of their way. I admit, I was playing Doom with my dad as a middle schooler, but it wasn't a substitution for parenting. I may have played games like that with their knowledge, but I had the parents who demanded to know who I was with, where and why 24/7 and any applicable contact info. My parents called the shots.... nowadays it seems the kids themselves are.
Please think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific theories and evidence have never been any good in convincing the hysterical please-think-of-the-children crowd. These people have already made their minds and nothing will change their position.
Re:Please think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)
The same can be said of the other party in this debate, fwiw.
Then Show them Irrefutable Data (Score:5, Informative)
I've gotten a lot of milage out of the following teenage homicide graph (other violent crime trends are similar).
DOJ Homicide Trends by Age [usdoj.gov]
I would like you to note the trend from 1993 to today. Please note that it wasn't until around 1993 that the most violent 1st person genre took off.
In fact, if you continue to reseach the DOJ's site, you'll find that our crime rates are comparable to the more "innocent" times (50's, 60's) of the last century, where our war on drugs in the late 80's and early 90's reflect similar crime rates to that of the prohibition.
The videogames are NOT at fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
The danger arises when something goes wrong in someone's mental development and that person comes to believe that people's lives *in reality* are worth nothing, just like in videogames.
This "sliding" of definition (imaginary people = real people = ok to kill) is NOT caused by videogames. Someone who is mentally unstable enough to kill over a videogame would be triggered as well by violent movies, books or his own violent mental imagery.
Re:The videogames are NOT at fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not a person turns into a criminal. The media is not the biggest one, but it is not a small one either. And since low IQ is also a very big factor, video games and movies are generally far more dangerous than books will ever be.
But that's sort of covered in the article. (Score:2)
Given that IQ would be consistent across all nations, then IQ might be a component, but not a big one. It would be nice to see someone run an IQ test of people convicted of violent crimes.
I think the issue is a LOT more complex. It involves (in my opinion):
#1. Biology (as mentioned in the article)
#2. Early social development (it's amazing how many violent people had violent parents)
#3. IQ (the dumber
Re:But that's sort of covered in the article. (Score:3, Interesting)
Japan has a average IQ 5-10 points above the U.S. In fact, within the U.S., group crime rates vary by group average IQ as well -- showing a spectrum from black to Asian populations with whites in between (though closer to Asians).
For data on how nations differ, you may wish to check out "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Lynn. IQ ranges a great deal by country. My weblog actually has a table with Lynn's data on the subject here: http://thrasymac [typepad.com]
Re:The videogames are NOT at fault. (Score:2)
Can you point to any evidence that IQ has a significant relation to the possibility for a person to be criminal?
The high IQ crimes are probably white collar crimes mostly. Can't make any popular game or movie on that
Motivations (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been taking inspiration from Art for years - whether film, books, or in more recent time you could claim video games. No one forces people to read these books, watch these films or play these games - they choose to. If someone decides to go nuts, its their own personal decision - a game doesn't make that decision for them. Now the manner in which they go nuts - thats a different story.
Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Metrics ... Foundation? (Score:2)
More credible work? Maybe
How far can psycho/socio metrics go?
-kgj
Games just desensitize children to violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Games just desensitize children to violence (Score:2)
As opposed to when they watch it on tv?
These are the same kids that will push others down the stairs because they think it'll be funny. Just because the lil' psychos choose to imitate their violence from things they've seen does not in any way mean that they woulnd't have been violent if they hadn't seen it.
Re:Games just desensitize children to violence (Score:2, Insightful)
I think video games might desensitize children to video game violence, but there's little chance a child's reaction to real-world violence would be greatly affected. The two experiences are fundamentally different. Imagine the difference between seeing a castle made of Legos in a toy store and going to Buckingham Palace. If a child acts out a video game and hurts someone, that child was already capable of violence.
Weak article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weak article (Score:2)
I agree... this is no more a respectable article than the one blaming MyDoom on the Linux community. It's just an opinion piece portrayed as fact.
Come on BBC, you can do better than this...
blame someone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:blame someone (Score:2)
BBC does NOT argue games don't cause violence (Score:5, Informative)
Basicly the guy says that there is no clear winner in the evolution vs enviroment debate. Then he uses Canada and Japan, where violence in games is common but murder is much more rare than the US, as an example to counter the situation in the U.S. It's a much more reasoned article than the sentationalistic headline would lead one to believe.
Kids != Adults (Score:2, Interesting)
I think M-rated games don't influ
It's just a bunch of BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It's just a bunch of BS (Score:5, Funny)
> I've herd these arguments all my life and I just have one question. What video game did Hitler or Stalin play ?
Panzer General.
Video games also cause faulty reasoning! (Score:5, Insightful)
Asbestos can cause lung cancer, but lots of people have died of lung cancer without being exposed to it (say, by cigarettes).
Re:Video games also cause faulty reasoning! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as video games have become more popular, more violent, and more realistic, the rate of violence by the age group that plays videogames has steadily dropped. Now that doesn't prove that videogames don't cause violence, but it does prove that any such effect would have to be negligible compared to other social factors.
Re:It's just a bunch of BS (Score:2)
proper object of regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite studies of this nature, I worry that there will continue to be resistance (in the Western US at least) to *any* type of regulatory initiative directed at actual guns, no matter how reasonable.
Its also troubling because regulation of simulated violence presents a greater burden and risk to principles of free speech and expression --- without any corresponding social benefit except for those who object to the content of the games being regulated.
Re:proper object of regulation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct.
It has been repeatedly shown that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens makes them easy targets for violent criminals, who, by definition, do not obey laws, including gun regulation laws.
Just picking an example at random, the University of Arizona is a gun-free zone, which did nothing to prevent [instapundit.com]the shooting there.
Re:proper object of regulation? (Score:2)
There's one thing lacking in the evidence provided to back up your argument: while you cited evidence (and there's plenty) of cases where unarmed citizens failed to prevent violence, you do not cite cases where armed citizens succeeded in preventing violence.
Said evidence would be much more informative, esp. if provided with a study comparing the death toll under the different s
Re:proper object of regulation? (Score:2, Interesting)
And yet, many countries do just well with gun regulation. Maybe it's time the good old US of A look past gun regulation and at culture.
I'm an immigrant to the States, and one thing that really surprised me is the general level of agressiveness. And it's contagious - I find that I'm getting more agressive, too.
So wh
True! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:True! (Score:4, Funny)
The Correct Quote is: "Videogames don't affect kids. If Pacman affected us as kids we'd spend all our time running around in darkened rooms muching magic pills and listening to repetative electronic music."
I'm told its attributed to the VP of Capcom's Marketing Department circa 1989.
I've been playing..... (Score:5, Funny)
Sums it up nicely (Score:5, Funny)
Does that cause comedy in the streets?" -- Dick Cavett
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Comedy certainly causes people to repeat bits of it or to use it as a base for their jokes. Just watch slashdot discussions sometimes.
So why not violence then eh?
Of course if that would really be reliable then we would just show comedy and romance stories and some columbo to remind everyone that the police is
Re:Well (Score:2)
Cooking programs make people cook more. Each new DIY show increases the sales at DIY stores. When playbacking shows were first done I remember that all the street festivals also had a playback show.
All those things are socially acceptable and ordinary.
So why not violence then eh?
Because it's not a normal state? When someone unloads with an AK47, it makes headlines. Not so with cooking a roast.
It's the BBC *NEWS* service... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's reporters might discuss the issues but the BBC itself is not putting forward any of it's own ideas.
Can't Slashdot distinguish the message from the messengers ?
In the words of Eddie Izzard (Score:2)
OK, OK, they don't cause violence but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be it music, TV, games, whatever, they all have some effect on most people and more of an effect on others. So if someone has tendencies towards violence then violent games may help fuel that fire. Not that they wouldn't be violent without the game, but the game probably doesn't help.
I remember my teenage years and I remember thinking that such-and-such doesn't effect me. However, looking back I can see that certain things helped justify unhealthy behavious and so I continued to do things that ended up hurting me in the end. Again, this is not to say that I would not have ever done anything like that anyway but having those fuels definately made it easier.
It would be better if people could take notice of what effects them and not do those things (be it alcohol, violent games, whatever). But people are just too stupid to do that so maybe we do need rules. Isn't that why we have laws in the first place? Too many stupid people.
Oh yes it does... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno, maybe being slapped around a lot? Maybe watching daddy punch and push mommy 'till she's on the floor?
I was the nicest sweetest kid until I went to school, there I met kids who weren't the nicest and sweetest they could be. I learned violence at school: ban the schools.
I think the relationship between violent games and violence is like the relationship between carcinogens and cancer.
And I think the relationship betwee violent games and violence is like the relationship between made-for-tv movies about cancer and cancer.
violence in games (Score:2, Interesting)
The games that are actually dangerous are those in which are realistic enough that there is no doubt that it's human beings that you maim or kill, but at the same time depict those human beings as not really human, thereby introducing a conditionned psychological distance between the player and potential victims.
95% of people have an ingrained resistance to killing ot
thank you, finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Ratings on games are important imho, yes a 5 year old might think that grabbing someone out of a car and beating the person with a baseball bat is cool after playing GTA, but I do not think that a grown up is really inspired that way by violent games...
I am a fan of Silent HILL, Fatal frame, and many Rainbowsix3, GTA, and many FPS shooters and fighting games, and I feel the gaming violence entertaining.... however I think it settles down my agression/violence, not improves it
Yes after playing offroad fury, I ride my ATV/Bike aggressive in the woods
Yes after playing Silent Hill 3 for 4 hours in the dark I have the tendency to scare my wife just for a laugh
NO after playing Rainbowsix-3 I won't get a sniper rifle and start playing jungle fight in my neighborhood
If someone is dangerous, they will get more violence influence from any Hollywood movie, from any local horror-video-rental place.
Re:thank you, finally (Score:2)
That is called catharsis [webster.com].
The people who think games cause violence are the people who are in denial about heir own violent thoughts and impulses and who repress them continually. When exposed to art that brings these natural emotions to the surface they stay in denial but cannot continue to supress them, and so blame the game for generating these feelings.
Then there's the moms that blame
gamers are not.... (Score:3, Insightful)
but some are, so those pesky reporters better keep their mouthes shut.
no really, people that think movies and video games spark violence act like there were no violence before tv and games. This isn't star trek. All animals have some sort of violence built in for survival. If anything, the violence from just watching the local or national news is the one doing the corrupting.
The most dangerous convention (Score:4, Insightful)
No, perhaps THIS [nraam.org] is the most dangerous convention ever.
Or, depending on your point of view one [democrats.org] of these [rnc.org] may be the most dangerous convention ever.
Bowling (Score:3, Interesting)
Statistics actually show that people who play violent games are most unlikely to commit violent crimes. Take the two premises: (1) someone who plays violent games will commit violent crimes; and (2) someone who plays violent games will NOT commit violent crimes. I now pull a statistic out of my hat, which will probably be more or less correct, that out of 10,000 people who play violent games only 1 commits a violent crime. That means there is 99.99% confirmation for premise (2), and only 0.01% confirmation for premise (1). So the odds are that premise (2) is correct and premise (1) isn't. Conclusion: someone who plays violent games will very likely not commit violent crimes. Therefore, to avoid violent crimes more people should play violent games.
Yes, I know, this is no way to do statistics. But it actually is the way statistics are often applied in the media to "prove" very simplistic stands.
Games Don't Cause Violence. (Score:4, Funny)
don't blame games, blame our violent country (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting thing is this:
- the United States is not the only country with alienated youth, check out Japanese kids (in Japan) or countires throughout Europe. In fact, isn't it part of growing up to be alienated and not fit in? Most of us didn't fit in when we were growing up, but who cares?
- the divorce rate in the U.S. is not the highest in the world, Brittain is higher. But we don't see the Brits killing each other left and right, or blaming everyone and their dog for why the other is so violent.
- mainstream music and movies can't be blamed, because they are ALL available in other countries, and in some cases might even be "taken more seriously" by foreigners who idolize the American way of life, so how can we blame movies, TV and music?
- the availability of guns in this country isn't totally to blame either - look at Canadians, they've got millions of guns throughout the country, but we don't see the Kanucks blowing each other's heads off.
I never really had a cohesive perspective on this stuff until I watched Bowling for Columbine [imdb.com]. This is exactly what the movie is about - investigating why this country is so obsessed with violence. The answer, according to Michael Moore (and I totally agree with him), is that we live in a society that thrives on fear.
We're afraid of being robbed, insulted, embarassed... We're afraid we'll get too fat, or get too thin, or be unhealthy about our diet.... We're afraid we won't fit in, or won't get laid this weekend, or can't get a promotion at work, or might get fired, and what the hell am I gonna do when I retire? and how are my kids going to possibly afford college on their own?! and jesus what is up with social security?....
It just goes on and on, and we finally get to fear over our kids, and that's where all the blame lands on TV, movies, music, and video games. If the average parent would spend real quality time with their kids instead of plopping them in front of the fucking television night after night, things in this country might start turning for the better.
I wrote about this on my blog [erdener.org] when I saw the movie a few months ago. For any interested parties, here's a link to The Charlie Rose Show [bloomberg.com] where Michael Moore was interviewed.
I think James covered it... (Score:2)
Where do the wars and where do the conflicts among you come from? Is it not from your passions that make war within your members? You covet, but do not possess. You kill and envy, but cannot obtain; you fight and wage war. You do not possess because you do not ask. You ask but do not receive, because you asked wrongly, to spend on your passions.
James 4,1:3
Violence has been around since Biblical times, and I don't think video games have, nor will they ever have, anything to do with it.
Violence
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Story at 11!
Drop in Violence (Score:2)
Why those arguements won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Relevant Cartoon (Score:2)
The real causes of violence (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen violent behaviour in children from the ages of 7 up, and it is not influenced by watching others any more than children who doodle patterns in the sand are influenced by watching art.
From watching people, I would say violence is latent in most young men (and the occasional woman, but it's much rarer) especially between the ages of 16 and 25. You can definitely shift these limits - see child soldiers who kill at the age of 7 and up. But violence is almost never random and spontaneous, except in sick people. Violent behaviour is almost a predictable and (from the individual's point of view) a rational response to an environment where it's the best strategy for success.
In other words: place a normal young male in a social setting where violence is the best route to success (which simply means reproductive success through whatever short or long-term route), and you will see a violent young male emerge. Place the same male in a setting where intellectual and commercial ambition are better strategies, and you will see a young man who puts his energies into those directions.
There are extreme cases - people who are violent in most settings, and people who are not violent in most settings - but we're talking about mass influence here, right?
Video games are in no possible way a factor in deciding how to proceed in life. They are fantasy, and even a six-year old child can maintain totally coherent fantasy worlds that do not affect their real life.
So the debate about video games is on the wrong track entirely... we can solve problems of violence in youth only by changing economics of behaviour so that non-violence works better. It's quite possible that suppressing violent video games could even increase violent tendencies, since they provide an avenue for expression of violent nature, in the same way as porn provides an safe avenue for sexual fantasy.
Luckily the formula for reducing violent behaviour seems clear: a stable system of government where long-term good behaviour is rewarded and short-term bad behaviour is suboptimal.
Modern societies are incredibly pacifistic compared with historical ones. The USA may seem violent compared to Switzerland, but it's a haven of peace and calm compared to most places on earth.
We'll probably never know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Until we understand the impact of all of those other things, there is little hope that this issue will ever be conclusively resolved for Video games, Holodeck novellas or any other story-telling media we may come up with in the future.
hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Support Linux Clothing
micro-soft.ca [micro-soft.ca]
This is nothing new... (Score:3, Insightful)
BBC not credible source of information (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically they just spouted the SCO byline with no effort to avail themselves of any information concerning the origin and purpose of the virus.
Now why would you want to concern yourselves with anything else they write.
real science (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't play videogames much, as I'm always too distracted by the programming behind their simulations. But I got a PS2 to play DVDs, and picked up the new _Grand Theft Auto: Vice City_ as long as I had the console. After a few days of playing that tour de force of human failings, I was in a dive bar in NYC's Hell's Kitchen. I've frequented that bar for about 10 years, and have seen several fights. I've even been "invited" to join over a half dozen, but always "laughed" them off before. But that night, when challenged by a guy actually grabbing my drink out of my hand to impress the girl who favored me over him, I had the unusual feeling that I should take the drunk up on his offer, and beat him senseless out back.
It was actually a different feeling of my own identity. I would otherwise have rejected the image of myself actually settling things with this animal with my fists. Getting up and going out to fight, or even throwing a preemptive punch with a fist full of shotglass into his face, would have conflicted with my self image enough to stall in my subconsious, let alone emerge for serious consideration. But that night, I found myself visualizing those strategies, and more, and thinking "I can do that", "I should do that", "I will do that"; "that's me kicking that guy's ass". I remarked to my friend that I was going to go destroy this clown, when he quoted a prior, more sensible me, saying "clowns are to be laughed at". Reminded of my actual personality, I snapped out of the hypnotic testosterone downwards spiral, and just laughed at the clown until he disappeared, over by his buddies at the other end of the bar. The girl fled before this display of masculine idiocy.
I realized immediately that what was different about me was playing GTA dozens of times in the previous few days. I could feel the difference in my ego, that I now accepted some violent, antisocial behavior, that I had previously rejected. I stopped playing the game, and the feeling left. I have since had more opportunities to fight, and passed them all by, as usual.
I would like some real behavior research on the effects of different kinds of games on violence inhibitions. I want to separate the basic effects of antisocial dissociation and immersion in fantasy worlds, to the exclusion of socialized real world play, from the imitation of violence. The dissociation/agression relationship was demonstrated so clearly in 1990s research that it was finally accepted even by the AMA, in recommending that even childhood TV watching be rationed and mediated by parents, through supervision and even discussion. I want to know how much the further roleplaying of violence, especially in emulable characters, with narratives, and realistic immersive visualizations, enhances the development of violent tendencies. I'm a pretty peaceful guy, whose behavior was influenced well into my adult life. I want to see some quantified research into how this way of life influences kids, for good and for ill.
Video games, violence and golf (Score:3, Funny)
BBC Article Viciously Torches Strawman, Film at 11 (Score:2)
Although personally, I think a heavy diet of computer gaming makes people pasty, fat, slow, house-bound and unenterprising and thus unlikely to be able to commit spectacular atrocities. I'd love to see the the statistical comparison for crime rates between gamers vs. pro and college athletes, for example...
I don't think games are the CORE cause... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they are spending million$ on showing you a lifestyle or a fashion or a behavior that will lead you to buy their product, they must have some justification?
So is it inconceivable that a similar series of totally negative images and behaviors would have a negative effect on kids?
Easy way (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that some people can be easily influenced, that on itself is a problem, subjecting such kids to mushroom policy isn't going to help....
Jeroen
Mushroom policy: Keep them in the dark, Feed them shit and chop their heads off when they look up.
Re: Wrong (Score:2, Funny)
> I was once a fervent KILLER in 3D on-line multiplayer blood&splash games. And let me tell you - it DOES influence you. Negatively.
Yeah, now you're a Slashdot poster!
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:2)
Can't agree. Linux is very nice for surfing, managing Windows backup, pre[aring Windows installation, reading news,...
The one thing it does not work well for is actually running games. I hope that will change in the future because keeping Windows alive is a pain.
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll probably get blasted for stereotyping here, but many of the "hardcore" linux users and programmers i've observed don't seem to really see the point of/don't want to play video/computer games.
I think that's one reason why some people can't fathom somebody staying with Windows - Linux may rox0r in almost every other way possible, but when it comes to just being able to grab any old game off the shelf and play it, it's just not there yet. Some people just aren't willing to give that up, no matter how bad Windows' other faults may be.
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:2)
I think games are moving more and more towards allowing creativity. I think programming languages should move towards having an audio/vi
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:2)
Re:Sorta apology from BCC? (Score:2)
5(Works perfectly): 7. One of those being Diablo 2, which has been out for almost 5 years, and 2 of the other being Warcraft 3+expansion. And another being a Hoyle Card Game collection.
4(Playable with minor irritations): 278. Including such gems as "Blair Witch, Volume 2: The Legend of Coffin Rock", "Putt-Putt and Pep's Balloon-O-Rama", "Revenge of Marjorie the Chicken", or "Hello Kitty: Cutie World".
Sure, there
Re:What Did You Expect from the BBC ? (Score:2)
Very true, in my experience. The moment that brought it home to me was when I was listening to the BBC on the radio. First up was an interview with a VP of Napster (IIRC; some Napster bigwig anyway). The interviewer twisted the VP this way and that especially on DRM, never giving an inch.
Second interview was with an AIDS activist/researcher about the Vatican's stance that condoms aren't safe for birth control nor for AIDS prevention
Re:What Did You Expect from the BBC ? (Score:2, Informative)
In America, news organizations are private institutions that do not receive public funding.
Re:Am I the Devils Advocate or a Voice of Reason? (Score:2)
Sure, some people might get the urge to drop kick a cop once in while as a direct result of playing a game where that happens a lot, but anyone who actually goes and does it in REAl LIFE would, in all likelyhood, be out there doing that kind of thing anyway, regardless of whether they did it in a
Re:Logical piece and totally missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
A comparison to another nation is indeed a valid point in favor of videogames as a cause of violence. The videogames are a constant, as is the majority of the human mind. If a child in Tokyo plays violent video games and is not at all violent, while a child in Idaho plays those same violent video games and goes on a killing spree, then it would seem to me that the environment or personality of the child is a more likely cause than the game.
As to your views on players being 'evil' in games; calling someone sick for choosing dialogue option 2 instead of 1 and then changing the "is_Alive" bit from 1 to 0 for a database entry represented by a humanoid coloud of polygons seems rather self-righteous.
There were also very few 'innocents' in Knights of the old republic. The primary component of the Dark side is selfishness; killing others to lessen risk for yourself, or for a monetary reward, or for the thrill. Yes, these are all evil and twisted paths of thought, but they are my characters, not mine. Accusing me of personfying myself in an evil video game character is rather hypcritical when you admit to playing the game yourself. It would be rediculous to accuse you of being a crazy person that belive himself to be a Jedi out to save the galaxy.
And what of the scripters that designed those numerous choices of light versus dark? Are they enablers for giving you access to those evil "is_Alive" bits? Perhaps they are the most evil of all, ensaring unqitting players into the folds of the dark side. Right...
I am not an evil or sadistic person. Honestly I have trouble killing things larger than dimes, even painlessly. But I have no problem fragging you online, or setting my character loose on an unsuspecting crowd, because they are abstractions; graphical representations of game data. They do not live, they do not think, they do not care. When the game is reset they are reborn, when the game is turned off they cease to exist.
The only thing that shows how people act in real life is life itself. Interactions between real people, not their respective visual abstractions. When you play chess with an englishman and take his queen, you are not making threats against the Crown of Britain. You are playing a game. Is the piece captured, imprisoned, killed? No, it is set on the side of the board, because it is a game, and there are rules, and removing pieces from the board is part of the game.
If you don't want to, you can avoid taking pieces; you will lose, but then that is your perogative. You can play the game how you choose, and the only thing it says about how you act in real life is how you play chess. Because it is only a game; nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Logical piece and totally missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
As for playing evil in an RPG being sick...um..it's a game. You honestly believe humans