Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Entertainment Games

How Violent Media And Game Censorship Interact 79

Posted by simoniker from the sharp-stick dept.
Socrates writes "GamerDad has an article up called 'The Media War', a feature discussing videogames in the context of violent media and the well-meaning groups who try to censor it. 'The war against violent media is not new. Learn the history of media controversy, and take a sobering look at what's in store for gamers down the road.' The piece includes quotes from Douglas Lowenstein of the ESA and IGDA spokesman Jason Della Rocca."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Violent Media And Game Censorship Interact More

How Violent Media And Game Censorship Interact

Comments Filter:

  • I suggest we.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by wraith0x29a ( 565168 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:08AM (#9992076)
    ..just frag the censors.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbskiNO@SPAMhksilver.net> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:20AM (#9992205) Homepage Journal
    Exactly WHY does the IDSA have squat to do with this?

    IDSA == Interactive Digital Software Association

    It's essentially a watchdog group paid by various software publishers to be a piracy watchdog group, amongst a few other things.

    Therefore, why on earth would they be censoring ANYTHING, if they draw a paycheck from those who would rather not be censored to begin with?

    IDSA is a huge racket to begin with.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nb caffeine ( 448698 )
      It is my understanding that the ISDA it out there to fight censorship, among other things. They have been touted as a fighter for the video game industry and the myths behind violent videogames that have become "facts" to people in congress. In the article there was a thing about chains like wal*mart having influence, since they are huge, and if a violent videogame doesnt get carried in wal*mart, then it wont sell. It seems that the issue is more of a self censorship thing, kind of like the movie industry (
    • They're just the ESA now. Same argument, different acronym. Nothing else has changed. :P

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)

      by PainKilleR-CE ( 597083 )
      The IDSA/ESA founded the ESRB, which controls the rating of games.

      Ratings, when actively enforced (or when retailers decide not to carry something with a given rating) can influence content through self-censorship, simply because developers will try to get a lower rating to gain more sales.

      Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view of the matter), many of the best-selling games in recent years have been M-rated games, so it's unlikely that we'll see much self-censorship (or publisher-enforced c
      • can influence content through self-censorship, simply because developers will try to get a lower rating to gain more sales.

        or will push for a higher rating, for those who, say, think that seeing a "G-Rated" movie isn't cool.

  • They are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Morph233 ( 744764 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:23AM (#9992236)
    I've been playing video games since I was 10 years old. Everything from Super Mario 1, to Doom 3, now being 24 and still playing I have no desire to go around and destroy things or kill people.

    Mind you that it would be nice to steal a bus and go for a joy ride(GTA3), but common senses tells me that if I did, off to jail i would go...

    unless i could go really fast and get away :)
    • "now being 24 and still playing I have no desire to go around and destroy things or kill people."

      I'm eight years ahead of you, and the only thing I do is listen to repetitive music in the dark and munch vitamin pills and fruit.

      Yes, I butchered the joke much in the same way I let Lemming after Lemming eat flaming death.

    • Re:They are wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Apreche ( 239272 )
      Yes, this is also the argument I use. Very logical.

      A) Smoking Tobacco CAUSES lung disease. Everyone who inhales smoke recieves an amount of damage to their lungs.

      B) Violent video games do NOT cause violence. Not everyone who plays violent video games hurts others.

      In fact, the number of people who do hurt others is an extremely large minority of those who play violent games and watch violent media.

      This is just another case of post hoc ergo procter hoc. I think I speak for everyone here when we say that

      • Yes, this is also the argument I use. Very logical.

        A) Smoking Tobacco CAUSES lung disease. Everyone who inhales smoke recieves an amount of damage to their lungs.

        Ummm, disease != damage. Not everyone who smokes gets lung/throat/mouth cancer, and not everyone who gets lung/throat/mouth smoked (or "dipped", in the case of mouth cancer).

        Go back and study a bit more Logic...
      • Actually, i hate to be overly argumentative, but your analogy here is not correct.

        A) First off, smoking tobacco does not actually cause cancer. The damage to your DNA can cause mutations. These mutations can cause cancer.

        You are correct in saying that everyone that smokes revieces an amount of damage to their lungs.

        In the same vein, people opposed to violent video games would say that everyone that playes them is exposed to violent video games and is exposed to enactive violence (even if just in video
        • No, your reasoning i believe is wrong.

          When someone smokes, it may cause damage to someone elses lungs which they do not want. In some situations, you can't avoid it (for example, in the winter when smokers are huddled around a door to enter a building). I don't want the damage to my lungs, but someone elses behavior is causing it, and i cannot prevent it. So we regulate where people may smoke.

          But for video games, i choose to expose myself to the violence, but my actions do not expose someone else who w
          • but the concern is that exposure to violence may make someone more likely to commit violent crimes. Correct? At least that is the argument as i understand it.

            I think we can safely assume that most people do not wish to be exposed to violent crimes (at least on the reciving end). That is to say that most people do not wish to be shot, mugged, raped, ect.

            So, if violent video games can be shown to be associated with elevated violent crimes, this means that there are people out there that are exposed to vi
            • but the concern is that exposure to violence may make someone more likely to commit violent crimes. Correct?

              yes, thats the concern, however there's no basis in reality for it. Simply look how many people play violent video games (millions i believe) vs. the number of people that commit violent crimes (a MUCH smaller number). None of the groups claiming the game CAUSE the violence ever address that fact.

              Even if a VERY small minority MAY be influenced by the games, that doesn't mean we need to do anythin
          • No, your reasoning i believe is wrong.

            Actually, from a strictly logical standpoint, he's correct. The original poster simply chose examples poorly.

            When someone smokes, it may cause damage to someone elses lungs which they do not want. In some situations, you can't avoid it (for example, in the winter when smokers are huddled around a door to enter a building). I don't want the damage to my lungs, but someone elses behavior is causing it, and i cannot prevent it. So we regulate where people may smoke.

            A
            • I don't agree with banning smoking completely. They have a right to, but I don't feel i should be subjected to something i don't want.

              As far as no one forcing waitresses to work in bars, this is true. However its probably also true they can make alot more money in a bar then at the local denny's. I don't see why someone trying to make money with a set of skills should be forced into a situation that causes them damage simply b/c they wish to maximize their earnings. All workplaces should be relatively
              • As far as no one forcing waitresses to work in bars, this is true. However its probably also true they can make alot more money in a bar then at the local denny's. I don't see why someone trying to make money with a set of skills should be forced into a situation that causes them damage simply b/c they wish to maximize their earnings. All workplaces should be relatively healthy to work in.

                That's why it makes sense to have seperated smoking and non-smoking areas, for the sake of people's health. At the sam

    • Re:They are wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by VendingMenace ( 613279 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:31PM (#9993683)
      But of course, a sample size of 1 does not make an arugment. Even counting the two replies and myself that brings us to 4 people that can vouch that violent videogames do not make them more violent. However, even 4 is not a good sample size.

      The point being is this, to borrow a poster's argument (kinda). There are people that smoke and do not ever get cancer. It is not because of these people that we regulate smoking. It is becuase there is some percentage of the poeple out there that smoke and seem to have a higher incedence of cancer.

      If we see that the use of violent video games increases the incedence of violent crimes then it behooves us to regulate violent games. Just as we regulate smoking, alcohol, drugs, guns, ect...

      The point being this...you can sit around all day and talk about how violent media does not affect YOU personally and it doesn't matter at all. What people are concerned about is how it affects the population at large. You must have a sample size that is significant before what you have to say can be considered significant itself. :)
      • After extensive study, I have come to a horrifying conclusion. 100% of people who commit violent crimes breathe! In addition, 100% of people who no longer breathe no longer commit violent crimes. Surely, this proves me must ban breathing. For the children.
        • either you are being funny (which i know you are) or you have a poor grasp of how statistics are intended to be used (which you might -- i don't know about this one). But of course the problem lies in the fact that 100% of able to commit violent crimes *must* be breathing. So breathing is a nessesary condition for violent crimes.

          This means that there is no CONTROL group to compare to. That is, there is no non-breathing group that is capable of commiting violent crimes.

          HOwever, in the case of video game
          • Yes, I was being funny. Its still right though- if you don't breathe, you die. The dead can't commit violent crimes. So killing everyone would stop violent crime (after the killing is over, of course).

            But you're still quite a bit off. To prove causality, you don't need a control group. You need an intervention. You need to take a random group of people and force them to play 40 hrs of violent video games a week, and see if that increased their tendancy to violence.

            Merely comparing to a control grou
            • Well, you could also go the route of postulating a mechanism by which violent media would cause violent behavior. Do retrospective studies to see if that seems to hold true. If it does, then you could measure how that factor correlates with consumption of different kinds of media.

              For example, the most common triggering event for violent situations is--a threat to ones "face," or perceived lack of respect. So, you could try and find out whether people who play lots of violent video games are more (or less)

              • Actually, you can prove cause- via an intervention. Read the link I gave you. Basicly if you set a value for a variable (amount of violent media played), and then you run the experiment, you break all causal links where B, a co-cause C, or outside factor D could cause A. So you tell only if A causes B. You still want to run on a large sample size both physicly and temporally times to prove that it wasn't coincidence, but it is provble.

                Furthermore, your suggestion has a major hole. It doesn't discrimin

  • Well (Score:5, Funny)

    by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:26AM (#9992263) Homepage
    If they take away my violent video games, I'll have no recourse but to kill people for amusment. I'll most likley start by buying a compound that I will make to look like a city and offering bums free food and shelter to act like they live in my town while I jack their cars and shoot them in the face.

    Later, I would move on to more interesting games, like hunting down a human and stabing him in the back while he guards some ancient artifact. Or perhaps shoot people with a sniper rifle while trying to stop a terrorist plot.

    It all comes down to this. I have to deal with idiot assholes all day. If I can't shoot virtual people when I get home, I'm going to have to shoot real ones.

    On a serious note, what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system? If children can be infuenced by 1 media type, couldn't they be infulenced by all? Does this mean that parents can also influence their children? If that is true, shouldn't all children be removed from their parents and awarded to a state approved center where they will only be allowed to view approved material and hear approved words?

    Hmmm, perhaps we should sterilze the majority of the population and only keep dedicated breeders, and raise our children in factories. Yea...I mean after all, it takes a village.

    • Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 )
      "If I can't shoot virtual people when I get home, I'm going to have to shoot real ones."

      Thank Christ for gun ownership. If you didn't have the gun, you'd have to go and talk at them or something.

      "what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system?"

      Substitute 'a gun' for 'movies' or 'public education system' and you might have a clue. American culture is about diverting attention away from a raging fetishism for a power symbol while quietly buryin
      • So you're saying it should be something like this:

        "What makes them think video games are more harmful than say a gun or even a gun?"

        I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. He wasn't glorifying gun violence. He was saying that video games lead to violence - gun violence or simply throwing a punch - no more than other forms of media, on average. Your rant on gun violence was sadly misplaced here.

        Did the parent poster say anything about defense? Or protectin one's home? No. He just used guns as an example
        • Your rant on gun violence was sadly misplaced here.

          Yeah, I know. I blame a bad day. Ever get those?

          He just used guns as an example, being the most obvious form of violence and killing.

          Glad you put 'and killing', as most tend to suggest that guns aren't violent, people are. ;)

          OTOH, the USA is seen externally on a par with the Middle Eastern nations that accessorise AK47s for weddings amongst nations that don't have legal gun ownership...the kicker is that you have a moral majority in the US that
      • Actually, I own a gun for one reason. To overthrow the goverment. That is my right as allowed by the constitution. There is no other reason for owning a gun.

        And yes, I was joking about wanting to kill people, I only want to slightly wound them.
        • I still want surface to air missile launchers legalized. After all, how am I going to stop a fighter plane or an airplane hijacked by terrorists by any other means?
        • "I only want to slightly wound them."

          I'm with you there, except I'd rather use a fork.

          Actually, I own a gun for one reason. To overthrow the goverment. That is my right as allowed by the constitution. There is no other reason for owning a gun.

          I believe it was 'arms' and it was to protect against 'tyranny'. Mention that you have it for overthrowing government in the wrong circles and the nice men from the treasury department might pop 'round for a word. On a lighter note, the US appears to be a ter

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:07PM (#9993401) Homepage
      On a serious note, what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system?

      Frankly, the nightly local news scares the bejeezus out of me, that's why I've stopped watching it and instead hit up CNN or Fox News. I suppose living near Washington, D.C. lends itself to having especially violent, depressing news coverage, but I think it's gotten worse in later times.

      What I could never understand about Lieberman, et al, bashing GTA was that, in the game, you were actually *punished* for doing bad things. Kill too many people for no reason, you get a star. Kill a cop, automatic 2 stars (which you can't get rid of by running around). Hold up a store at gunpoint, get up to three stars within 15 seconds. Fire off random rockets in the streets, get stars. Screwing hookers for health never quite registered with me, but most other 'crimes' in the game had the police on your tail. Was it just the fact you were able to do these things? Sounds like a case of free will, to me.

      --trb
      • True in GTA you got 'punished' for doing bad things, but lets face it; the 'punishment' in the game was a joke. Assuming you weren't totally inept at driving or stood out in the middle of the street with no cover or escape, the police were a joke (star 1/2, let them come at you, get in car, run over, get out, repeat), the FBI/SWAT (depending on which GTA) were nothing outstanding (basicly police with bigger guns and faster cars) since some of the missions you would do later in the game were MUCH harder, and

  • Let's just get it over with: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RaisinBread ( 315323 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:38AM (#9992385) Homepage
    <post type="karmaBurn">

    <argument /.readerFlavor="liberal">
    Why in the crap can't people control their children? Its not my freaking fault that you can't - and you don't have the right to keep my mature content away from me, no sir. If you can't handle being a parent, don't even bother to breed.
    </argument>

    <argument ./readerFlaver="conservative">
    I'm all for keeping crap out of my children's hands. If you can find a way to help me battle the ton of crap that is launched at my kids brains every day, I'm all for it. I'm getting tired of the things they can show on mainstream media these days. Society is going to the dogs.
    </argument> ...

    This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?

    </post>
    • I've got one solution that works for both sides. Do nothing different than what we do now.

      The liberal can still get all their mature content.

      The conservative wants to keep things out of their children's hands. All they have to do is remove all televisions, computers, and printed publications from their house. Maybe telephones too. There simply is no other way to absolutely guarantee your kids cannot get their hands on mature content. Oh, you also have to not let them leave the house without you. And they
      • Better lock them in their rooms and not let them out until they are 18.

        While this seems like an exaggeration, its not.

        While this may not be an exaggeration of what I would need to do to "keep absolutely everything that may be violent or sexual in nature out of your kids brain" ..... ... .. I don't see why anyone would want their kids to live in a cave. You are exaggerating the issue.

        There is no other way about it without tromping all over the rights of others.

        Well - I'll leave it up to you to expla
    • I always find it interesting that the arguments on this matter can get labeled "liberal" and "conservative" when the people that have introduced most of the legislation in this area have been on both sides of that particular set of labels. It only gets worse when people try to set them to political parties.

      The reality is that the government only moves on these types of issues when both sides, whether Republican and Democrat or Liberal and Conservative, manage to come to some degree of agreement. The scary
      • <snipped stuff about my by-whim labelling of schools of thought>

        As long as people believe they need the government to shield them (or, more likely, their kids) from sex, nudity, violence, and "bad" words, it isn't likely that we'll figure something out that works for both sides.

        I live in the United States of America where everyone has a voice. The government is actually written from scratch to help everyone get heard - movement for the majority while protecting the minority. S'not perfect, but it
        • I live in the United States of America where everyone has a voice. The government is actually written from scratch to help everyone get heard - movement for the majority while protecting the minority. S'not perfect, but it works. (I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but its what the foundation of the government here really should be about - take it for what it's worth)

          While I agree with most of that sentiment, even your own comments suggest that we all know better.

          Not necessarily. I lean more on the non-s

      • Re:Let's just get it over with: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I always find it interesting that the arguments on this matter can get labeled "liberal" and "conservative" when the people that have introduced most of the legislation in this area have been on both sides of that particular set of labels. It only gets worse when people try to set them to political parties.

        I think I probably agree, but it's worth checking that you're not making the common mistake of associating "liberal" with "left-wing" and "conservative" with "right-wing". There's actually something of
        • I think I probably agree, but it's worth checking that you're not making the common mistake of associating "liberal" with "left-wing" and "conservative" with "right-wing". There's actually something of a 2D system, like AD&D alignments - Democrats are Left-Wing Conservative, Greens are Left-Wing Liberal, Libertarians are Right-Wing Liberal, and Republicans are Right-Wing Evil^H^H^H^HConservative. Although, of course, the individuals involved might break the rules, so occasionally you find a Democrat who
      • When the most liberal states in this country have banned smoking in most public places, you have to start wondering what "liberal" and "conservative" really mean. I think, in the end, they just start to look like "want things to change" and "don't want things to change", and even that isn't quite right when you start adding modifiers like "religious".

        There's a reason for this. I have a right to be safe in ym person and posessions. Your smoking harms my health directly- this is a proven scientific fact.
        • >When the most liberal states in this country
          >have banned smoking in most public places, you
          >have to start wondering what "liberal"
          >and "conservative" really mean. I think, in the
          >end, they just start to look like "want things
          >to change" and "don't want things to change",
          >and even that isn't quite right when you start
          >adding modifiers like "religious".

          There's a reason for this. I have a right to be safe in ym person and posessions. Your smoking harms my health directly- this is a pr
          • 2) Your right to breath does not trump my right to smoke if you are in another building, a portion of the building seperated from the portion of the building I'm in, etc. California, before passing its ban on smoking in public buildings had already imposed very costly measures on restaurants that wanted smoking sections which gave you no trump card in this case.

            Sure it does. My right to health is absolutely inviolate. You do NOT have the right to endanger it with your smoke. The fact theat you're smoki
            • Sure it does. My right to health is absolutely inviolate.

              Perhaps to you, but it is certainly not a right protected, nor granted, by the law.

              You do NOT have the right to endanger it with your smoke.

              You're right, I have no more right to smoke than you do to health. Except, of course, that the government regulates the sale of cigarettes, which, so long as further restrictions are not in place (such as are in place for other vices), gives me some rights in this matter.

              The fact theat you're smoking in pu

  • Who needs the violence? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Really, the violence just bores me and gets in the way. I was playing the newest Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban game on PC with my daughter, and the constant need to fight monsters both teaches bad lessons, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game. It also distracts from the game in that it requires a constant lesson in morals, as opposed to just playing the game.

    The game would be just as good if not better if it just kept all of the exciting mystery rooms and challenges, such as ...

    (physic
    • "the constant need to fight monsters both teaches bad lessons, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game."

      What lessons are those? That mythical monsters need hitting?

      Your daughter is a lot smarter than you think, and you should check out the value system being promoted in advertising and media before coming down hard on games. After all, I'm willing to bet that you found the sight of a cat being viciously pummelled by a mouse amusing the first time around? I know I did.

      • Re:Who needs the violence? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I am not advocating or justifying censorship. But for ghoul's sake, add a button in the game for turning on or off the monsters. YMMV, so be it, do what you want with your kids, and play with Monsters "On" if you like.

        But as I was saying, they bore ME, and they bore and frighten my kids, and I'd like the option of playing with Monsters "Off." How hard would that be to code, really?
        • Buy games that don't have the monsters in them. There are many (, many) games out there, especially puzzle-types (the Myst series, for example), that don't feature fighting monsters as part of the game. If you buy games that don't have them, they will make more games that don't have them.

          As for the Half-Life comments specifically, well, the game was a first-person shooter, shooting monsters is almost the entire point of the genre. First-person perspectives have moved into other game types slowly, and games
        • "I am not advocating or justifying censorship."

          Oh, don't bother about that with me. Personally I think some things should be censored, or at least have large warning stickers suggesting that the contents of a given book are 'garbage'. I'm a lot less libertarian in my old age because my optimistic youth has given rise to the current state of affairs.

          " How hard would that be to code, really?"

          It's more about the game balance itself, although I'll agree that there is a market out there for non-'Direc
    • I prefer games that are both intellectually stimulating and the violent so I can exercise my brain and / or destress with some random violence depending on my mood. Examples of games that do both well are "Morrowind" and "X2-The Threat", both are pretty non-linear and let you play pretty much however you want to, either cerebrally or violently, much like real life.
    • Does the violence in games have a positive social effect ? Probably not. Does it have a negative social effect ? Probably not.

      But to say that the violence in games is unnecessary to gameplay is going a bit too far . Your argument that having fights is a cheap and lazy way of writing a computer game is inappropriate. It takes a fair bit of programming skill to have good enemy AI, which can vastly enrich the experience of a first person shooter. I found this especailly true in Halo, a game with the best enem

  • Parenting as changed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:52AM (#9992543) Journal

    More and more parents are not doing their job instead shoving the parenting responsibilty onto others. Two extreme examples. 1: Some immigrants from shall we say more traditional countries are complaining in holland that their kids are undisciplined. In their view it is the state via the police and schools that should teach discipline and they are suprised dutch teachers are not allowed to beat kids. (Note that it is not an immigrant issue, school beatings were only recently outlawed in england)

    Second example, a recent investigation by a bbc program into daycare nurseries. With an undercover worker they intended to show how bad the care was. Except that I as an old angry white male couln't see what the problem was half of the time. The kids being left alone or in the care of untrained staff that sure is bad. A kid somehow managing to burn its hand very very badly on a radiator (sounds unlikely since anything with a spinalcord would yerk the hands back long before it could burn so badly) that is bad too.

    A child being told of for being a pest sounds like teaching the kid a little bit of discipline. No you are not allowed to be a pest to everyone now go play alone until you can play together.

    Apparently this is not "right" anymore.

    But parenting is not just the parents. It is society as well. I don't mean the complex society, I mean the people in your neighbourhood. I grew up in an old part of town with a whole mix of people. As I grew up it became one of the bigger town in but when I grew up a few houses down was a working farm. So we had the very very old to the very very young. Kids weren't just raised by their parents they were raised as much by the older kids in the neighbourhood. Those unlucky to grow up 4-5 years behind a group of girls never learned to walk until ten being carried everywhere. I watched my sister and in turn was watched by an older girl. It was as normal to get a bandaid from a young girl as from your own mother.

    The idea that nowadays both parents work and they don't take care of their kid is wrong. My mother worked and in general most of the mothers did now I think about it. Certainly the farmers wife did. It was just that they made sure there always were enough people around to watch over things. I can't remember ever having been left alone for real. There always was someone responsible around.

    Much later I lived for a while in almere. Wich is a very new city and I noticed something. There was a very distinct age border with the kids playing. These kids did not grow up with older kids. No older kids to teach/show them what is and what isn't done.

    Where I currently live is a small group of kids in a mostly single household area and they are between 7-10 yrs old. During the summer days they do never leave the street they live in, no kids around to go play with. Their parents don't seem intrestted in taking them somewhere or even playing with them. Their is large park extremely close yet it is rarely used.

    Maybe I am just old but I think my childhood was a lot better. I learned not to bully because the kid you bully would have an older brother/sister/nephew/etc. But you also stood up for the younger ones in turn. It was a community.

    Every child will go through a hurting other people stage. They simply will not have learned yet that kicking someone hurts. The old way of teaching that is hurting the child back. Not a beating but a hard slap on the leg will soon teach it that kicking other people is bad. If for no other reason then that you will be hurt in turn. Not very nice but it works. Current more PC educators seem not to agree. Problem? There methods don't work.

    So I don't think video games are that much of a problem. They are merely an excuse. Sorta like don't kill people they just make it a lot easier.

    Kids being not raised by parents who have not been raised because all the parents want to be their kids friends or worse don't want to be parents. Take the recent so-called x-box murder. This has nothing to do with x

  • Must be a slow day. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alkaiser ( 114022 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:58AM (#9992619) Homepage
    Anyone who actually reads the article will discover...it's a reprint of something from November 2003. Whoopty-freaking doo.

  • Phht. (Score:5, Funny)

    by scowling ( 215030 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:09PM (#9992760) Homepage
    I have been a consumer of violent movies, music, books and games for thirty-odd years. They have had no effect whatsoever on me, and I'll kill any son of a bitch who tries to tell me otherwise.

  • Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wyldeone ( 785673 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:13PM (#9993465) Homepage Journal
    Gamespy just published the <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539197p1. html?fromint=1">second part of their d&d history series</a> which talks mainly about the controversy around d&d and some kid who tried to kill himself. Some people with their own agendas twisted it to their own purposes, trying to ban d&d. It just goes to show that some people are obsessed with this, and no matter the curcumstances they will try to stop things like this.

  • Controversy Tied to Sales Gains (Score:3, Interesting)

    by miller60 ( 554835 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @02:26PM (#9994271) Homepage
    Media controversies about game violence are said to be bad for the industry, but they often seem to be good for game sales. Manhunt sales surged [guardian.co.uk] following highly critical media attention when it was believed the game contributed to a nasty teen-on-teen murder in the UK. It turns out the media accounts were mostly wrong off-base (the cops said it was related to drugs and theft), but by then the game had been mentioned in news stories around the world. No game maker wants to see their work implicated in a violent tragedy. But game publishers know what presses the media's buttons, and I think some of them count on that to generate buzz about a game. GTA San Andreas is a good example, as the NY Times is already writing about it.
  • Violent Language in media DEFINATELY effects children. A child may not be likely to stab his friend after seing it in a videogame, but he is probably a lot more likely to yell "Die Bitch" after hearing it in Unreal Tournament.
  • All active entertainment (and most passive) involves conflict. Conflict can be of many different types (emotional, ideological, etc), but the easiest to depict is physical. Thus, violent games are the most common, simply because they're the easiest to create. There are games with other types of conflicts (Purple Moon games, though very crappy, are examples of emotional conflicts.), but violence is still the predominant form. I guess we'll just have to wait and hope for innovative designers who manage to mak

  • Absolute Hogwash! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Robmonster ( 158873 ) <slashdot.journal2.store@neverbox.com> on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @06:13AM (#9999391) Journal
    If games really influence people, then all the kids who grew up playing Pacman would today be standin agound in darkened rooms, listening to repetative electronic music and eating lots of pills.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close