The State of Violent Gaming 488
Ownt.com writes "Today we talk with Running With Scissors' Vince Desi of the controversial, recently released gore fest, Postal 2. We talk with Vince about The State of Video Game Violence and his thoughts on the violent gaming, where it's been, where it's going and many other aspects surrounding whether or not games actually 'teach' the players to go... postal."
I'd petition for more violence (Score:3, Funny)
I'll let you know how it goes.
Warning: non work friendly pictures (Score:2, Informative)
Warning: Too many connections in /home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/forumz/ownt_f orumz.php on line 14
Re:Warning: non work friendly pictures (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Warning: non work friendly pictures (Score:3, Insightful)
His responses are usually like, "Fucking violence in video games doesn't do fuck shit to no fuckers..." Gee, thanks Vince. Well said, you speak like you make games; loud, boorish, and completely lacking substance. At least Jesus Freakin [jesusfreakin.com] has a few literary references. Oh, and they made their po
argh (Score:3, Funny)
Re:argh (Score:2)
It's not my fault man.
Don't blame me (please).
It's not my fault.
Contol your damn kids, and don't let them get their hands on my new video game ($49.95 at your local Best Buy). They should not be exposed to my game (that they are going to love you for it when you give it to them).
Please don't sue me. Thanks.
More fucking? (Score:5, Funny)
> honestly motivate people to do things in real life, then I would
> make a game about fucking, cause this world needs more sex than
> killing that's for shit sure.
I have no motivation problems in this area.
John.
Re:More fucking? (Score:5, Insightful)
> First let me say that if I thought we could make a game that would
> honestly motivate people to do things in real life, then I would
> make a game about fucking, cause this world needs more sex than
> killing that's for shit sure.
I have no motivation problems in this area.
The sad thing is that (in the USA at least) graphic violence is apparently more acceptable than graphic sexuality. This appears to be exactly backwards.
Re:More fucking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Religion will do that to people.
Re:More fucking? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because it's easier to use violence as a control.
You can better control the populace if you outlaw depictions of sex, because sex is normal and natural. The message sent is that sex is not normal and natural, but the population will continue to have sexual impulses (because we're hardwired to want to reproduce), which will cause them to repress these impulses.
You then make depictions of violence acceptable, which sends the message the violence is acceptable. The popluation needs an outlet for their repressed sexual impulses, will resort to violence (as that is acceptable.) - either through violent crime, or as the police force, who enforces your 'tough' laws by committing acts of violence against the criminals.
It's no accident that countries that have a more permissive attitude towards nudity and pornography have a lower crime rate.
Re:More fucking? (Score:3, Interesting)
But unrestrained sex is disasterous. Sex isn't a toy, but making it so can be a very costly proposition.
Re:More fucking? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ask me, the fact that using certain words in your language is more of a taboo than watching animated violence or graphic sexuality is even more sad. Though, personally, I like all three.
Re:More fucking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More fucking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, neither should be socially acceptable - especially in mediums so easily accessed by children. Violence and Sexuality expose children to concepts that they don't know how to deal with and end up just emulating them... which points to the real problem: Parenting.
If parents were more involved, perhaps even playing games with their children two (or more) things would happen:
1) Parents would become aware of how violent (or sexual) games/movies can be
2) More importantly, they would witness how it affects their children. Not every child reacts the same but every child could benefit from discussing the fact that in real life smashing someone's head in a car door over and over would probably kill them, and it isn't how we are supposed to behave.
Unfortunately there are far too many parents that don't care (maybe are just too busy? but again, that is an issue of priority and caring) about ratings or even what their kids are doing. The sad thing is that the vocal group will eventually get legislation passed because those who would stop it are precisely those who don't care about their own children, let alone the country they live in.
Call me a cynic.
Re:More fucking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't like the idea of heavily censoring what children are exposed to (in the various forms of media). How do you learn to deal with something without being exposed to it? By teaching kids that there is something "naughty" about sex/nudity/etc (by showing them it is something they shouldn't see), you only attach feelings of guilt to it and peak their interest. I am speaking from experience here. I was once an extremely right-wing, staunch, Southern Baptist. I also had a 300bps modem when I was 11. I found all kinds of interesting things on BBS's, etc. And I felt guilty about it. What good did that do me? Wouldn't it have been better to have been exposed to it with some parental guidance (ala sex ed. type situation) so that it wouldn't have had such a "mystique" about it? Why are we so up tight about sex?
Re:More fucking? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope.
Sex is a private, personal, individual thing without any conflict at all. Story-wise, it's an extremly graphic kiss, and on-screen sex borders on pornography. (Simple supportive arugment: mainstream movies have been cut & pasted together to porn-like streams of only their "love" scenes.)
Violence, on the other hand, is the most basic form of conflict. Graphic dipictions of violence are actually better than black-bared violence--people who know what the gruesome result will be are less likely to comit acts of unnecessary violence than people who have no solid grasp on the consequences.
To put it another way: when distilling stories down to the spoken word, a discriptivly violent tale is a war story or a cautionary tale; a discriptuvly sexual tale is just a dirty story.
(The inverse is true for static art, like a painting--it's a heck of a lot better to have a masterwork nude than a masterwork corpse--but video games, movies, and television aren't static.)
Re:More fucking? (Score:3, Insightful)
You just say that sex is dirty, and that's why it's worse.
Re:More fucking? (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, I'm in the US, so maybe I'm a little biased, but I'd MUCH rather explain to my 8 year old why the bad man on TV shot someone than why the bad girl on TV has a penis in her mouth.
Makes perfect sense to me.
LK
Re:More fucking? (Score:2)
Teach People? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, wouldn't you think that the game creators would get thier brains tweaked a little bit, considering that they have to actaully CREATE the violence?
Re:Teach People? (Score:2)
*ponders implications of this statement with respec
Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
BULLSHIT. If that was actually true we'd have a helluva lot more Columbines and snipers, but thank God we don't. I'll tell you whats really disturbing that a lot of good people are being fed that shit and actually eat it up. I have 1 thing to say RESPONSIBILITY, what the fuck ever happended to saying you're wrong, I made a mistake, I did it
People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work). Parents in some areas can now pay for their children's community service hours so that they don't have to work them...
Kids do dumb stuff and used to get in deep shit for it. Now we can't get kids in trouble because that hurts them later in life. NO SHIT? You mean fucking up when you are young might have ramifications later in life? What's the detterent to doing stupid stuff?
Guns don't cause violence and neither do video games.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2, Insightful)
I totally agree with you there. A time-out is really a time-out for the parent. All you do is tell the kid that you can't handle it anymore and you need a break.
gj.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
Umpf... dude : u have kids ? If I want to make it easy on myself, I don't go calling time-outs. I slap'em a bit here, I slap'em a bit there and they'll shutup. Timeouts are by far more stressing to the parent than to the kids.
The difference between a timeout and a spanking session is that, after the spanking session, kids won't do whatever-they-were-punished-for again when you're around. Instead they'll do it behind your back. With a timeout session, I tal
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
How about both a physical punishment and a discussion? Children learn quickly that a time-out is of no consequence (as well as the discussion). The physical punishment is not desired and will lead to a better memory.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
(My wife is defending her doctoral thesis next monday about psychological conditioning, so I try to talk out of her book here) You're confusing 2 things : punishment versus a negative prime. What you want is for your kid to associate the timeout with something negative. While a physical stimu
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
TIME OUTS DO NOT WORK.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
In a reflex I still regret, I grabbed him (he saw me coming, so it was not an unexpcected grab from behind) and gave him a single, solid clap on his bottom while i said in a loud voice : you know you're not supposed ot touch these !
The results frightened me completely : he freaked out, cryed his heart out and peed is pants (which he hadn't done since he was 2) There was a total, insane panic in his eyes and he yelled for his mom like as if i was cutting his balls of...
but that was not the scariest part. That was when it took days for him to be sweet again to me. I had (and now have again) a very very good bond with my kids. I can talk to them about everything even some stuff that they don't tell their mom (and vice versa
During those days, he did nothing wrong, didn't touch those plants, didn't break anything, didn't do anything naughty, finished his plate... pefect... He was like an angel. But an angel that was prety damd scared of me and wouldn't let me hug him.
Dude : it has cost me blood, sweat and tears to bring our relation back to normal, and I have NEVER ever hit our kids again.
Now when he does something fancy, I take him apart and talk it through. Okay, he looks at me with a "oh comeon dad I got the message, stop preaching man". But quite often, a few hours or even days later, he comes over to me and admits "yeah, I was pretty stupid back then." and we can both laugh about it.
I don't expect him to say "sheesh, thanks for pointing out to me how stupid I am and how smart you are, dad" but then again, I guess you never said that to your dad either after he put his belt back on ? Hitting is the easy way. Talking to your kids every day, even when you're tired and they're a royal pain in the ass is the most rewarding way.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:3, Interesting)
My grandparents...the "Greatest Generation"...they knew how to take care of children. You just let them run loose and discover things for themselves, but whne you catch them fuck up, you let them know it (with a broken broom handle).
My parents, on the other hand, treated me like I was the fucking Prince of the Universe. You have no idea how this fucked up my head. I was a wuss and crybaby. I thought I was above ev
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2, Informative)
I know lots of parents that sent their children to time out, and it worked. Mind you they imposed other restrictions on their children as well. Time out was used for mild punishment, and restrictions on use of technology, or 'play time' were used for harsher punishments. But for them, time out wasn't useless. So I agree with your comment on the use of detterents.
Insofar as whether video games cause violence -they do,
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
The "guilt trip" mode of punishment only turns children into soft adults who whimper at the thought of real responsibility. Parents need to chew out their kids more (not like Wal-Mart trash...reasoned arguments can be okay, too). If the point is to teach children proper behavior, then why not talk to them for ten minutes rather than do ten minutes of time-out?
Fact: modern parents are lazy and too distracted by digital cable over
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't stop Congress from shredding the Constitution further with insane laws to sate their retarded constituents.
Gun laws, drug laws, parent surviellance, no freedom in school...these are the things that breed violence and crime among frustrated and stifled kids. Give them some slack!
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2, Insightful)
Regularly using time-outs and actually enforcing them *is* a punishment, and liberally taking away privileges as punishment works.
Some of the problems I've seen with implementing this are:
* Warning a child of an impending time-out by counting upwards. A countdown implies going from something down to zero, not the other direction. Children understand i
Re: punishment and problems implementing it (Score:4, Insightful)
A few of my friends have children that are generally pretty calm and mild-mannered. Punishing by spanking isn't really necessary, and probably just hurts the parent more than it does the child. (EG. After a spanking, you have to endure the kid screaming and sobbing, and possibly even putting on a show of ignoring you completely for the next 30 minutes or so.) If a "go sit in the corner for 5 minutes" or "Stop that, or you're going to lose privilege Y!" is effective, great!
On the other hand, yes, some kids won't respond to anything less than spanking. Sometimes, it's because they're at an age where they want to test their limits. If parents won't take things to the level of spanking, the child keeps piling on worse and worse behavior, trying to provoke some sort of response. (Eventually, they just decide they can do anything they want without consequences more serious than threats that don't get backed-up with actions.)
One big problem, nowdays, is with people too concerned with what "the other parent" is doing, and not enough with their own lives. Do I think twice before punishing my daughter in public? Unfortunately, yes! I shouldn't have to - but ignorant people out there will file complaints, report you to store security, or any number of boneheaded things.
Just last week, I barely escape a big incident over nothing at the local WalMart store. I went in with my (18 month old) daughter to buy her some clothes and get some food items. When the cashier rung me up, my kid started fussing (wet diaper), so I was distracted. She bagged everything for me, but when I went to grab the bag I thought she put the clothes in - she stopped me, saying "That one's not yours!"
She was already ringing out a guy behind me who was also buying some clothes - so I figured it must have been my mistake, and I left. When I got to the car, I saw the clothes weren't in my bags at all - even though I just paid for them. I wasn't going to try to run back in with my fussing daughter (and she was more calm sitting in her car seat anyway) so I left her in the car and ran back in.
It wasn't more than a minute, but when I got back to my car, security was already there, starting to write up some kind of report, and a lady was talking to the guy about the "kid abandonned in the car"! Come on, people! I can understand trying to be helpful and all - but don't jump to conclusions about something you know nothing about. At least spend a few minutes making sure the parent isn't right around the corner before filing complaints.....
Re: punishment and problems implementing it (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife used to stop at the post office and leave our kid in the car seat. It was a small, one room post office and the car seat is a real PITA. When I found out she was doing that, I went ballistic.
First, nothing is more important than your kids. Not mail, not a bag of clothes, not that next hit of crack.
Second, you never know what's going to happen. If you are sepperated, then you run the risk of something happening to one party and the other
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
Nor do they teach their kids to respect other human beings, because we are all made in the image of God.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything works for some kids.
Nothing works for all kids.
The most important thing is to know your child, and what he responds to. Trying to tell other people what works for a child you've never even met is silly.
Re:Responsibility for your actions? Non-sense. (Score:2)
Guns are inanimate. People cause violence.
I was hopeing (Score:3, Funny)
Hey! (Score:2)
HEY! I'm FROM Ohio! Don't make me come over there and kick your ass!
Why, yes, I was just playing Vice City...
I for one... (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one enjoy playing violent games, in particular Grand Theft Auto Vice City... but if I had kids old enough to use a console, even as teenagers, I'd be very reluctant to let them play such a game. Am i a hypocrite?
Jolyon
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
YouKnowYou'veBeenPlayingTooMuchGTAWhen... (Score:2)
Re:I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. You are also human. You are no more hypocrite than a former stoner/hippie parent cringing at the idea of their kids trying weed or some free love.
I used to sneak into "over 18" movies, shoplift and bribe clerks for booze. I got my first all night binge by the time I was around 15 (complete with rum induced vomiting). I had a darn good time and don't regret most of it. I also know that I would certainly not condone my kids doing either of those activities. Hell, I'll probably go out of my way to prevent it.
Re:I for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
With 3 toddlers of my own, I wonder what life will be like in 10-15 years. My plan so far is to use Chef's line from South Park: "Children - there's a time and a place for everythi
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
To which the parent responded:
I disagree. I see no harm in an adult with a fairly firmly-set value system playing games in the Doom/Quake*/GTA*/Postal genre. I see nothing hypocritical at all about that same adult denying access to such games to a 10 year old, or even a 16/17 year old youth.
I won't argue the point that SOME teens (very damned few, in my experience) are more mature than some adults. The fact of the matter is that it is a parent's right/responsibility to guide their kids into development of a sound moral framework to use as a guide in making life's decisions.
The problem is that too many parents cave in today when their 10 year old says "You do it, so it's not FAIR for you to not let ME do it." Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Don't like it? Get married as soon as your state of residence allows and go pay your own way in life. If you want the same rights an adult has, shoulder the same responsibilities we do.
GOOD parenting is both the most difficult AND the most rewarding job you will face in life.
Re:I for one... (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right (and I'm dead wrong). I just re-read the post I replied to, and perhaps I should have worded differently or simply not accused Jolyon of hypocrisy.
My intention in my post was to state that perhaps I (we) are hypocrites for denying our kids the misdemeanors we commited in our youth.
Of course, *now* we realize that our parents were right in getting angry/punishing
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
No you're not a hypocrite. This is because kids are not yet mature enough to handle the violence of these games but you are. And as your kids' parent you have a right to judge what is appropriate and what isn't.
If at some point they enjoy the same types of violent games at the same age
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
Nope (Score:2)
In this world, there are things for adults and things for children. Sometimes, the things for adults should not be consumed by children.
Pretty simple, huh? Its amazing to me how many people miss it.
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
Neither would I let him see or hear pornography.
Once he turns 18 though, well, he'll be making his own choices then.
Running With Scissors (Score:2, Insightful)
These are the games the Donahues of the world want to bitch about, but they're so forgettable that Doom or GTA take the brunt of the complaints.
Not that they shouldnt be allowed to make whatever game they damn well feel like.
Re:Running With Scissors (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh, since when is a video game a "form of expression?" What exactly are the authors of GTA:VC trying to "say"?
They're not "expressing" anything. They're just trying to make money. They're producing a commodity to appeal to a marketshare whom they think will be profitable to them. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't pretend like its some noble form of meaningful expression.
Re:Running With Scissors (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said its a "noble form of meaningful expression", I said its an expression. Every bit as "meaningful" as the comic books slashdotters collect.
Re:Running With Scissors (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they're trying to say that violence really does solve problems. You might not like what they're saying, but I think they have a right to say it.
Expression vs. profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Much of what we now recognize as great art was produced by people who were just trying to make a living. A videogame may or may not be a form of "meaningful" expression, but the fact that it is produced for profit is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
Re:Running With Scissors (Score:2)
As you said, there is little substance to the Postal series. It's third-rate at best. It's raison d'etre is purely violenc
Why I like violent video games (Score:2, Interesting)
violent media (Score:3, Insightful)
-t
parents responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
also to teach them the difference between fantasy and reality? the games have ratings so parents can make a responsible choice. Most kids know that a game isn't real or should be copied, those that can't figure that out or haven't been taught should play violent games. After all, most stores won't sell games rated "M" to kids. But of course that requires the parent to acctually tell little Johnny NO and back i
What do people propose? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about asking the right questions... (Score:4, Interesting)
Note; this holds true for most first-person shoot-em-up, right back to Castle Wolfenstein and Doom.
Is it violent? Yes.
Is it speculative? Certainly.
Does it use blood and gore as a selling point? Off course.
But does it leads to more violent bahaviour? Now that is hard to prove... and unless it can be absolutly disproved, there will always be people who claims it does and will try to tell the gaming insdustry what they can and cannot do.
We'll always have parents and 'worried people' screaming up on how bad the latest games are. But instead of blaming the gamingindustry - who are basicly turning out more of whats popular - for perverting the youth, shouldn't they instead be taking time to be with their offspring, and possible keep some sort of controll at home over what games the children plays? For some reason, I'm reminded of a certain movie from a few years back, where concerned mothers started a war with Canada because their kids had learned a few naughty words...
Parental responibility. Is that to much to ask for?
Re:It's all about asking the right questions... (Score:2, Insightful)
We've all known that kid who was just a little bit off, easily susceptible to anything. You know the kid, who, when you were all playing ninja at recess, took it just a bit too far and ended up hurting someone.
Thing is, that was the same kid who was liable to start taking swings at people when he lost at Candyland.
Those kids who shot the cars and then blamed GTA3, or the Columbine kids, are extreme examples of t
A fun way to find good video games (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, I don't know about that... (Score:3, Informative)
And what came in at No 2? "Pirates of The Caribbean".
Ooo, scary
cLive ;-)
Proof... (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone noticed that, after playing Grand Theft Auto or Vice City for several weeks, you start to look at parked cars a little differently?
Jason.
The psychology of violence (Score:3, Insightful)
For the parents - especially of the killers - it's an attempt to find blame somewhere. I feel sorry for them: since Freud's time, parents have been told "you are responsible for the way your kids turn out", when in fact many studies show that parents are amazingly irrelevant to their children's character. One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.
There is violence in our genes, but it generally needs a certain kind of culture to bring it out. The place to look for the causes of such killings are the youth cultures these kids hung-out in. There is no evidence at all that violent games or movies influence children, but it seems clear that violent children prefer to express themselves through violent games, virtual or real.
Court cases like this resolve absolutely nothing, because they divert the discussion in meaningless directions. Let's ban all violent games and movies... OK, will that change anything? Take a look at (random selection from a large pool) Uganda, where the kids watch no movies at all, yet 10,000 young (5-12) killers roam the north.
It is very difficult to change a violent culture, but it is possible.
The first thing is to understand the way violence is propagated. Like all youth cultures, it goes from youth to youth, bypassing all adult control. You have to work at this level, thus.
The second thing is to understand how individuals get drawn into violent behaviour that reinforces itself and finally becomes habitual. Can a young man turn to authority for fair protection? If not, he is more likely to use his own force for self-protection. Can a young man who uses drugs turn to authority for help? If not, he is likely to resort to retribution and violence. Can a young man escape from a violent or oppressive environment? If not, he will eventually give up on himself and "go postal", taking his own life but first taking the lives of as many of his peers as he can, in an attempt to regain some face.
I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem.
Banning violent video games goes further in the wrong direction. Now we make criminals out of those youngsters who want such games. Excellent.
Re:The psychology of violence (Score:3, Insightful)
This is wrong. I can see a direct relationship between my parents and my personality. The same is true of other people I know. People who are jerks have parents who are deadbeats in some respect, whether it is affluenza or downright abuse. Early divorces can be especially traumatic, where even if the kids appear stable on the outside, they can often hint at hidden feelings about it. And on and on and on.
Like all youth cultures, it goes
I know it's been said before... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could go into the big news headlines of kids killing their sisters with WWE moves, kids with guns, etc., but I'll go with this one:
My buddy has a 3 year old. During the time his wife was away, my buddy would play GTA: Vice City, and his son would watch. The son thought it was cool when daddy "beat the shit" of of other guys with the bats. Well, Mom came home to see her son, and saw her son going to town on his favourite teddy bear with a kid-sized hockey stick. He said to his mom that it was because daddy did this "on tv". (And yes, the son would say daddy "beat the shit" out of somebody on tv.)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
I believe it's called parenting.
Ok... (Score:2)
This is just an example of negligent child rearing and it's been happening long before video games.
What about the state of violent politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm more concerned about the state of violent politics, the underpinning of big business by law makers at the expense of the individual citizen, and the subversion of law and justice in the name of profit.
Games are
Which two would that be? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The cardboard box isn't a good weapon, neither is the CD.
2) Sure, I'm deadly with the rail gun in quake 3, but that doesn't mean I can fire a sniper rifle. Hell, I wouldn't even know how to load one.
3) If anything, a violent videogame would divert a killer kid's energy away from real people. And it's certainly doesn't provide a 'will to kill' to a normal kid.
Re:Which two would that be? (Score:2)
Sure they are! Box: heat it until you get a ball of liquid plasma. Throw at the nearest enemy. CD: no heating required, just sharpen the edges and sling it at the nearest enemy. If you're a pro, you can leave parts of the edge dull so you won't cut your finger.
Hell, I wouldn't even know how to load one.
Even simpler: press 'R'.
And it's certainly doesn't provide a 'will to kill' to a normal kid.
Uh, there are quite a few games I've play
teaching players violence (Score:2)
Not having read the article... (Score:2)
Did anyone like Postal, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember seeing the first Postal. It was practically the only game I've ever found so revolting that I felt sorry for the people who actually thought it was fun. And this is after I had been playing all the Doom and Doom-derivitive games for years. Just going around and shooting people without a just cause is absolutely fucking stupid. At least Doom was fighting against an invasion from Hell or something. In Postal, it wasn't even self-defense.
Games cause Violence! (Score:2)
Oh. Video games? Well, I did rise to power and kill millions thanks to RTCW. Sorry 'bout that.
Signed,
Hitler
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
If that doesn't speak to parents, I don't know what will.
Teens prefer Postal 2 to Post Office Simulator 2 (Score:2, Funny)
No Free Speech for Videogames? (Score:5, Informative)
Society of Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, it is also hypocritical of a society to preach the virtues of peace, condemn violent art and video games, while simultaneously waging a bloody, arbitrary war on nameless strangers a world away.
What's more disturbing for little Timmy to see? "Terminator 2" or CNN? Why is fake violence so heavily restricted and regulated, but actual people bleeding and dying is completely OK? Would you scold your neighbor if you found out your kid was visiting while the father was watching CNN? What if he was watching porn?
You see, that's a major problem with North American culture, and it really surprises me that so few people recognize it.
Simplistic salami slicing (Score:2)
How about just accepting that it's not just one thing that brought about Columbine and continues to bring about workplace shootings. It's a complex issue that requires more than defensive, reflexive denials of responsibility by partisans motivated by self-int
Is some violence acceptable ? (Score:2)
If video games made me violent... (Score:2)
Running with Scissors???? (Score:3, Funny)
Running with Scissors [amazon.com]
Ummmm Parents? (Score:2, Insightful)
We've taken a stand - less gore, more fun (Score:2)
The bottom line is that we'll no longer feature game demos on our cover CD if they contain realistic scenes of humans killing humans. This implies that pretty much all war games are out, and many 1st person shooters.
Exceptions are things like Sci-Fi / Fantasy violence, that still passes (Serious Sam
A violent game does not a killer make, but... (Score:2)
I think that for some sick segments of society, games like POSTAL fulfill a want/need to indulge in violence that could reinforce a predisposition to do it in the real world. For most well-balanced people, it's easy to turn off the game and realize the difference. For some people, though, the game is an indulgence of a violent fantasy.
I know Slashdot is a libertarian stomping ground, but at what stage does a community think about what the use is for certain t
Cause and Effect (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm so sick of scapegoating. Nothing but a nation (or planet) of less immature children on a proverbial schoolyard.
Stop. Just, stop.
Quality of Postal (Score:4, Interesting)
Postal 2 is only interesting due to its violent nature. The general consensus [gametab.com] is that the game is offensive but the design underneath the offenses is not solid enough to be worth a purchase.
The same thing every time (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know how this bar is set; maybe it's whether the activity is nostalgic or patriotic, or if it's just different enough to scare the generation in charge. Did anyone ever question running around with plastic guns playing 'Cowboys and Indians'*? 'Cops and Robbers'? War? Did plastic Army Men ever have problems? Paintball seems acceptable for teens, and it involves ACTUALLY SHOOTING AT REAL PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS THAT REALLY CAN HURT THEM. (I've had enough paint bruises to know.)
Personally, I think it's more that video games are used instead of family interaction. Whether it's games, books, drugs, TV, or staring at a wall, if there isn't any home interaction then good social skills will come harder. If they aren't nurtured through school activities, then it just gets worse and worse. I've generally found that a naturally outgoing person will find ways to grow socially, it's the naturally introverted that suffer most without a strong family upbringing. (Note - by 'strong' I mean 'open, talkative, compassionate, etc.'. There's no magic formula for that.)
Blaming the current fad instead of poor family life will probably never change. The reasons for it would probably be an interesting socialogical study, but most likely no one who could fund such a study would want a true, balanced answer that 'kids are just kids, and home environment matters most'.
(Offtopic footnote)* - besides the obvious moral problems of whether it was right to subjugate the indigeonous people, I'm simply refering to the fact it idolized violence in general. I'd guess it isn't played very much anymore, though that could also be put to the fact there are fewer westerns nowadays.
Do violent games affect kids? (Score:3, Interesting)
My usual response would be, "Hell no!" But a couple of days ago I started thinking about it again. Thinking about people who lived in North America in, say, the 18th century, when quite a lot of things that are no longer acceptable (e.g. slavery) were acceptable, and quite a lot of things that are now acceptable (women wearing miniskirts) would not have been.
Someone who was born in 1798 and lived until 1844, for example, might quite possibly have been of the opinion that it was perfectly acceptable to own another human being as property. Would we, nowadays, blame that person, say he was an evil, immoral bastard? We'd most likely say that he was a product of his times. Granted there were people who, by our modern standards were more "forward-thinking" than that, but certainly not an overwhelming majority, like today.
So why did our hypothetical pro-slavery guy believe what he did? He was subject to it as he grew up; it was part of the culture he lived in. Say he lived in the deep South, e.g. Georgia, in a culture whose livelihood much depended on slave labor. We could hardly blame him.
Imagine another hypothetical person, growing up in a hypothetical place and time, where the use of violence as a problem-solver was as prevalent as the Southern use of slave labor was in the early 19th century. Again, would we blame someone who lived in that time for resorting to violence to solve problems? Probably not. He'd be considered a product of his times.
But now we come to the early 21st century, and we have a burning question: do violent media affect the likelihood that young people will be violent? On one side, we have people (like me) who say that, no, of course not, just look at me and my friends. When we were young, we all played horrifically violent video games that involve murder, genocide, and things being bloodily hacked to pieces; but none of us are violent. We don't go out and kill people. People who believe this, let's call them the Unaffected.
The other side says, ah, but look at all these cases of young people who have played lots of games like this, and subsequently gone out and killed people. Or scientific studies that have concluded that exposure to violent media (not just games, but movies and TV as well) impel teenagers to be more violent. People on this side, let's call them the Influenced.
So who's right? I'm beginning to think that neither side is on the money. I realize that this isn't scientific, but it's become intuitive to me that anything we experience can influence who we are. The key word there is can. Not everything we experience influences us to the same degree, or even, necessarily, to any measurable degree. It seems intuitive that certain people are more easily influenced into committing violence than others; or rather, that some people, when seeing violence, think that it might be a good idea to mimic that violence.
The continuing explanation from the Unaffected is that proper parental guidance will (generally) teach children that the violence they see in TV and movies and video games is not real, and using such violence to solve problems is not an acceptable way of going about things. The Unaffected believe that whatever current epidemic of media-induced violence there may be, is due to a lack of proper parenting.
Meanwhile, the more hard-line of the Influenced claim that children can be corrupted by exposure to such violent media, regardless of how good their parenting is.
This last bit is unambiguously false. At the very least, some non-zero number of children can be exposed to vast amounts of violence and be none the worse for wear. I'm certainly living proof. I saw countless violent movies and played countless hours of violent video games as a child -- but my parents, especially my father, were always sure to reinforce the idea that violence
It's a matter of reverse logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Any non golfer (such as myself) will be bored to death watching golf on tv.
My point: Golfers watch golf because they are golfers. The columbine kids played violent games because the kids were violent people.
Playing the game did not make them violent. If thier parents had done a better job and took notice of thier kids gun collections, the SWASHTIKAS on thier walls and the animal abuse they commited maybe those nice boys would have been playing mario golf instead of doom.
Or at least maybe they wouldn't have killed thier classmates.
Now I'm not saying that anyone who plays a violent video game is violent. What I am saying is that this is the reason THESE particular kids played this game.
I played doom because it looked cool, was fairly scary, and presented a good challenge. I think this fairly sums up the criteria for most gamers. The gore? it just looks cool. In real life, gore is a lot less cool. Just like in real life a car chase is a lot less fun.
These sick little fscks at columbine played the game because it allowed them to kill. To them, this video game was an extension of thier real life wishes.
Remember a clockwork orange while when reading the bible, rather than identifying with christ the protagonist identified with the romans?
This is what I am talking about. The same thing meaning two entirely different things to different people.
The trick is determining for who the game is mere fun, and for who the game is an extension of real life desires.
violence in gaming (Score:3, Insightful)
Also I think it might be time for Microsoft to implement some parental controls in its OS. An OS that calls itself "home edition" should have some features that are usefull for families. A simple to use parental control system would be a nice feature for them to hype. One that can be configured to block IM's and chat, limit access to programs and an equivelent of a v-chip for games so that the actual software of games could notify the OS of its rating and parents could determine what rating they want their kids to be able to play.
Of course all of this could easilly be bypassed by a smart kid, but once again, that isn't the point. It's PR. Microsoft could promote the fact that they give parents control giving the appearance that they care about what children do so that they too can say, "look we are trying to protect children!"
Game Testers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:rating system (Score:2, Interesting)
People like to be emotional, and education for the media-destined points this out. That's one reason it's hard to find unbiased media...it simply doesn't make people feel emotional, so not enough people view it for it to become mainstream.
porn videos? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:games cause violence (Score:2)
Re:Since the first videogames... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeh, have you seen Pong [amd.co.at]?