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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Columbine Student on VG Violence 411

Sophia wrote in to mention some discussion of Video Game Violence on 1up.com this week. Brooks Brown had the experience of attending Columbine High School around the time of the now infamous shooting incident. Via his blog, Brown goes into a detailed discussion of Why Violence in Gaming is a Good Thing. From the article: "GTA isn't about fucking hookers or killing cops. It's a story of a guy who got screwed trying to get back on top. It is, by nature, a story game. Postal 2 may let you kill anyone you want in bloody and disgusting ways - but that's not what it is about either. It is, by nature, a tech demo in the abilities of programmers and AI. it is WE - the gamers - who change what the game is about and determine what happens. It is the person playing who determines what the game contains." Jane Pinckard has a quick reaction to his post. More commentary on this subject is available via John Davison's Blog, who met Brown at a taping of a news program which was ostensibly to be about gaming in general. Instead he was ambushed about violence in games and ended up walking out.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Columbine Student on VG Violence

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:33PM (#12974982)
    In the days after the Littleton, Colorado massacre, the country went on a panicked hunt the oddballs in High School, a profoundly ignorant and unthinking response to a tragedy that left geeks, nerds, non-conformists and the alienated in an even worse situation than before. Stories all over the country embarked on witchunts that amounted to little more than Geek Profiling. All weekend, after Friday's column here, these voiceless kids -- invisible in media and on TV talk shows and powerless in their own schools -- have been e-mailing me with stories of what has happened to them in the past few days. Here are some of those stories in their own words, with gratitude and admiration for their courage in sending them. The big story out of Littleton isn't about violence on the Internet, or whether or not video games are turning out kids into killers. It's about the fact that for some of the best, brightest and most interesting kids, high school is a nightmare of exclusion, cruelty, warped values and anger.

    The big story never seemed to quite make it to the front pages or the TV talk shows. It wasn't whether the Net is a place for hate-mongers and bomb-makers, or whether video games are turning your kids into killers. It was the spotlight the Littleton, Colorado killings has put on the fact that for so many individualistic, intelligent, and vulnerable kids, high school is a Hellmouth of exclusion, cruelty, loneliness, inverted values and rage.

    From Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Todd Solondz's "Welcome To The Dollhouse," and a string of comically-bitter teen movies from Hollywood, pop culture has been trying to get this message out for years. For many kids - often the best and brightest -- school is a nightmare.

    People who are different are reviled as geeks, nerds, dorks. The lucky ones are excluded, the unfortunates are harassed, humiliated, sometimes assaulted literally as well as socially. Odd values - unthinking school spirit, proms, jocks - are exalted, while the best values - free thinking, non-conformity, curiousity - are ridiculed. Maybe the one positive legacy the Trenchcoat Mafia left was to ensure that this message got heard, by a society that seems desperate not to hear it.

    Minutes after the "Kids That Kill" column was posted on Slashdot Friday, and all through the weekend, I got a steady stream of e-mail from middle and high school kids all over the country -- especially from self-described oddballs. They were in trouble, or saw themselves that way to one degree or another in the hysteria sweeping the country after the shootings in Colorado.

    Many of these kids saw themselves as targets of a new hunt for oddballs -- suspects in a bizarre, systematic search for the strange and the alienated. Suddenly, in this tyranny of the normal, to be different wasn't just to feel unhappy, it was to be dangerous.

    Schools all over the country openly embraced Geek Profiling. One group calling itself the National School Safety Center issued a checklist of "dangerous signs" to watch for in kids: it included mood swings, a fondness for violent TV or video games, cursing, depression, anti-social behavior and attitudes. (I don't know about you, but I bat a thousand).

    The panic was fueled by a ceaseless bombardment of powerful, televised images of mourning and grief in Colorado, images that stir the emotions and demand some sort of response, even when it isn't clear what the problem is.

    The reliably blockheaded media response didn't help either. "Sixty Minutes" devoted a whole hour to a broadcast on screen violence and its impact on the young, heavily promoted by this tease: "Are video games turning your kids into killers?" The already embattled loners were besieged.

    "This is not a rational world. Can anybody help?" asked Jamie, head of an intense Dungeons and Dragons club in Minnesota, whose private school guidance counselor gave him a choice: give up the game or face counseling, possibly suspension. Suzanne Angelica (her online handle) was told to go home and leave her b
    • Wow, I didn't realize there would be this many people feeling the same way I did.
    • by DarcSeed ( 636445 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:37PM (#12975239)
      Everything about that article rings true for me... high school was a nightmare for me too. I hated it. Now that I'm finally past it (and have been for the last 5 years) my mind is starting to forget the pain, but you don't really forget it. Just because you're different, no matter what that difference is, you are bad to them. And even if it weren't a hellhole trying to be in school, I wouldn't have wanted some of those people as my friends because they are so shallow and cruel. I really feel for those people quoted above... thankfully I never was singled out for dangerous behavior (I had a principal who valued brainiacs), but I realize I could have been.. and that is scary. High school is one seriously fucked up place. When is this country going to realize that!!?? It pisses me off so much that this kind of thing is blatantly still allowed in schools!
    • From Andrew in Alaska: "To be honest, I sympathized much more with the shooters than the shootees. I am them. They are me. This is not to say I will end the lives of my classmates in a hail of bullets, but that their former situation bears a striking resemblance to my own. For the most part, the media are clueless. They're never experienced social rejection, or chosen non-conformity'Also, I would like to postulate that the kind of measures taken by school administration have a direct effect on school violen
    • So true... I was lucky enough to go to a private high school (by my own choosing) where the teachers got to know all of their students. There was still the geek, goth and hippie crowds (all of which I considered myself a part of), and we/they were still picked upon by the jocks and preps, but we didn't care. There were enough of us that we essentially formed our own support groups. We also had the sympathy of the teachers, who over the years saw that the vast majority of intelligence lay in us. Indeed,
      • I was lucky enough to go to a private high school (by my own choosing) where the teachers got to know all of their students.

        I went to a couple different boarding schools (moved) from 5th-Sophomore year. Strangely enough there tends to be less exclusion than at public schools. Sure there's always the kid or two that gets picked on but they're still your friend and they know that, they just happen to be the Cartman of the group.

    • I understand the empathy for the victim-villians of the piece, but I wonder just how many of the geeks who identified with the Columbine shooters would be willing to treat the 9/11 perps with the same consideration. I heard a lot of introspection about bullying and alienation in high schools after the Columbine massacre: if anyone dares put any historical or political context around 9/11, they are shouted down.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        if anyone dares put any historical or political context around 9/11, they are shouted down.

        It is just sad you are true. Anyone that looks into the recent (as in 30 years) history of the US will understand at least some of the antipathy against the US. Just the fact the US has a history of wanting to influence other country's politics will have set some major antisympathy...

        The really sad thing IMO is that Osama got what he wanted: the US full of fear - NO, it was not about those people, it was about the

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03, 2005 @08:36PM (#12976606)
          why hasn't he been captured yet? His kidneys are disfunct - how can he keep evading the US troups?

          Simple; the people in charge of the US don't *want* him to be captured. (Witness pulling out of Afghanistan when we knew he was still there.)

          The reason for this is simple: control. Right now, the US is one of the most paranoid places in the world, and this paranoia is being fed by the White House, because it gives them power.

          Want to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws? Say the "T" word, and watch your opponents' political power crumble.

          Want to run a police state? Have Federal agents armed with machine guns "patrol" major cities, and tell the sheeple that it's necessary to keep them safe.

          If Bin Laden had been captured, people might ask "why do we need all of this?" Bush/Cheney need a bogeyman to keep the sheeple properly afraid, so that the real terrorists (the ones in the White House) can maintain their power hold.
    • I remeber, at college, a group watching Romy and Michele's High School Reunion [imdb.com]. About halfway through, one guy says "Was I the only one that enjoyed school?". Everyone turns, and looks confused them, there is complete silence, then everyone goes back to watching the film.
    • by dshaw858 ( 828072 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @05:43PM (#12975622) Homepage Journal
      "Dear Mr. Katz. I am 10. My parents took my computer away today, because of what they saw on television. They told me they just couldn't be around enough to make sure that I'm doing the right things on the Internet. My Mom and Dad told me they didn't want to be standing at my funeral some day because of things I was doing that they didn't know about. I am at my best friend's house, and am pretty bummed, because things are boring now. I hope I'll get it back."

      I'm not exaggerating or being sarcastic when I say that that statement brought tears to my eyes. I'm sixteen years old, and I know so very many parents who react like this. It really makes me think of the age-old statement of how people fear what they don't understand. Columbine was a tragedy, and just because us geeks don't play all-American sports (at least not all of us), and we don't (all) cheer at said games, it doesn't mean that we're not affected by killers.

      It's sad what the media sometimes portrays geeks and nerds as.

      - dshaw
    • by Saiyajin18 ( 892913 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @05:44PM (#12975629)

      If they tested the kids that shoot up their schools, they would probably find they are sociopathic or mentally ill in some other way. Perhaps violence in media inspired them to commit their crimes while young, but it was probably bound to happen at some point in their lives.

      And now for my story. I apologize in advance if it's tedious, but as someone who almost chose to commit these same acts, I feel it's applicable.

      I believe I may have mild sociopathic tendencies, which were aggravated by parents that, though decent, didn't pay much attention to anything I did, and by the "popular" students, who picked on me incessantly through my junior high years. I first fantasized about humiliating them. The longer it went on, the more it escalated. I planned to kill myself to escape the daily misery. A single thought kept me from trying: "They'll win." Then I fantasized about killing them, by many gruesome means.

      Mind you, while all this was happening, I wasn't a gamer, and my prior gaming experiences consisted of "Pitfall" and "Breakout" for the Atari 2600. I can't say for certain whether violent gaming (which was available, I just didn't have any new gaming systems) would have changed any of that. Knowing my personality at the time, it would have been more a release valve than anything.

      I had access to guns and knives. I had the rage, and probably the tendency to commit what would have been the first such incident (and by a female, no less!). What stopped me from carrying out these deeds I plotted? It wasn't my parents. It wasn't lack of exposure to violence, since I'd seen my fair share of violent movies. It was that same thought that kept me from taking my own life. "They'll win." I would have been villified, they would have been cherished. Those cruel bastards certainly didn't deserve glowing memorial praise. So I did my best to ignore them. Luckily, I moved to a distant town right before high school.

      We can't point the finger at any one cause of these crimes. In my case, a combination of factors contributed to a possible outburst, but there was just enough elements lacking that I kept my common sense and was able to overcome the impulse to act. Maybe I wasn't ill enough, maybe my parents were just good enough, maybe the torment didn't go far enough, or maybe I was just too afraid. I know for certain that the emotional torture I'd been put through all those years ago has permanently affected my mental state.

      I lay most of the blame for what I almost did on two parties: myself, for taking so much stock in what others thought of me, and all the ignorant adults and peers that saw the problem, but chose to ignore it for whatever reason.

      A postscript: shortly after I moved from that town, I saw in a local news broadcast that one of my harassers had been killed in a car accident. I smiled. Does that make me a bad person?

      • Personally, I think all teenagers, regardless of homes, economic situation, etc, will test positive for some psychological ailment, simply because the way that we've set up our neuroscience programs to detect such things; in adults.

        A teenager's mind is controlled on little more than assumptions and hormones, the mix of which is pretty much give or take given the kid. Now we might say that a well adjusted kid will be in one direction or another, but I come from a place where I've seen a very large spectru
    • Hey I was one of those kids and brought to the New York Times attention because of Slashdot! NYT Article [evilcon.net]

      6th paragraph down. That was us. What do you know? None of us shot anyone and ended up doing anything violent. Most of us graduated college fine. One of them ended up a computer science major with a degree from Yale and a rabid Slashdot reader, so maybe they should put a warning out for kids like us... Do we still have LAN parties and play shooters? Of course!

      • Thanks Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Comatose51 ( 687974 )
        Actually, I think I need to thank Slashdot. It gave us a voice when we didn't have one. A stupid local journalist decided to write an article on us because his daugther, who went to our school, told him about us. Did he ever interviewed us? NOPE. He just made it all up from hearsay. Then one of us posted the experience on Slashdot and got the NYT Times and Katz' attention. The article was a vindication for us. We really had nowhere to go. Some of us were applying to colleges at the time and didn't
    • by rm69990 ( 885744 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @07:33PM (#12976302)

      Hey all. What we need to do is instead of just sitting on Slashdot discussing the problem, make the counsellors and principals and parents realize that this problem exists and make them pull their heads out of their asses. What I have done is taken the very first comment on this page (the one I am replying to right now), which was EXTREMELY insightful btw, and have made a nice PDF out of it. I am making an anonymous hotmail account and emailing this to my guidance councellor.

      I suggest everyone else do the same.

      I myself am sort of a mixture of some sort. I am friends with all of the "cool kids". I smoke pot with them. I get so drunk I can barely see straight.

      I also run Linux on my desktop at home and read Slashdot. So I know how things are on both sides of the fence.

      At school, the bigger kids used to pick on me. Then I would pick on the even weaker. I did this until shortly after I read a commentary similar to these ones about Columbine.

      Ever since that day, I'm the person who is always telling my own friends to fuck off and leave the nerdy kid ive never met before alone. Most of the people who pick on other kids do it to fit in (at least I did), so that they aren't put in the "geek's" shoes. They want to fit in with the other bullies.

      The thing that fucking pisses me off, is that the Teachers have the power to stop this, and they just don't care. They know little Johnny gets beat up every day at Lunch, yet they would rather run off for a smoke break instead of letting him work on homework in the classroom during Lunch, or even just watching him from afar. Some other kids beat the living shit out of another "geek" and get suspended for a few days. That little geek brings a pocket knife to school to try and be cool and fit in with the popular people, and he gets expelled and a letter sent home for it.

      Columbine, while being a complete and utter tragedy, was also a glowing oppurtunity. If only stories like this, and comments like the first one for this story, were posted on the front page of the newspaper, instead of fucking stupid articles like "Are Violent Video Games Going to Make Your Kid Kill?", maybe all of the bullies, teachers and principals would realize that those students died not only because of the two "crazy kids" but because of people like themselves. That the principals at Columbine, the teachers, the counsellors, the parents of the killers, are owed just as much blame as the killers themselves. That this mass murder was the fault of Society and not the fault of the "nerds". It could have made all of the difference in the world, even if it only saved one kid from being bullied. But instead of taking advantage of this oppurtunity, America (and Canada where I live, as well as numerous other countries) instead went on an all-out witch-hunt, while being so incredibly naive...and, well, downright fucking stupid....that they just made the problem worse.

      So I say everyone print off the first comment for this article and make sure as many people as possible see it.

    • I'll preface by explaining who I am. I am thrity years old. Happily married five years. I am the CEO of a successful IT company. I have power, respect, and friends.

      But this comment stripped away fifteen years from me. Again I feel like the undersized freshman entering into a very different world.

      I get it. I was it. I am it.

      At my school I was met with a combination of revile and contempt. This emanated from both the population of the school and some of the teachers.

      Why? Because I had commited the cardina
  • by biryokumaru ( 822262 ) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:36PM (#12974991)
    Please! No more post modernism!

    *weeps*

  • by suresk ( 816773 ) * <spencer&uresk,net> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:38PM (#12975000) Homepage
    Uhh, I'm pretty sure it was pretty much a 'kill everything that moves, and even if it doesn't move, kill it anyway just to be sure' kind of game. It was innovative in the ways you could kill people though. Very creative.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.....

    The real danger is with racing games. Try racing an Audi S4 around in Project Gotham all day, then hopping into a real S4 to go to the grocery store. Dangerous stuff.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The real danger is with racing games. Try racing an Audi S4 around in Project Gotham all day, then hopping into a real S4 to go to the grocery store. Dangerous stuff.

      Think of how I felt after I played Katamari Damacy...
    • The real danger is with racing games. Try racing an Audi S4 around in Project Gotham all day, then hopping into a real S4 to go to the grocery store. Dangerous stuff.

      That I agree with. I played Midtown Madness (can't remember which) for a few hours straight, then went straight out driving. It was such an effort to restrain myself at traffic lights, queues etc. That was the most I've ever been effected by a game I think.

      (Of course, I'm a rational guy, it was actually somewhat reassuring to have realised q
      • by yotto ( 590067 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:56PM (#12975091) Homepage
        Not to "me too!" a comment, but Just yesterday I was driving by a parking lot and in the far corner your standard "crotch rocket" motorcycle was sitting all on its own. I couldn't help but think it was placed there specifically because it would trigger a mini-game.

        Luckily, I live in reality and was amused by that thought, not inexoribly drawn into it like a moth to a flame.
    • by FriedTurkey ( 761642 ) * on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:11PM (#12975154)
      I know driving around in cool cars in videogames and then getting into my piece of shit car makes me so angry I want to shoot people too.
    • Try racing an Audi S4 around in Project Gotham all day, then hopping into a real S4 to go to the grocery store. Dangerous stuff.

      If you own an Audi, join the Audi Club North America [audiclubna.org] and come to one of the driver education events (actually, the DE events are open to any make/model, except trucks, including SUVs). I'd claim it was a plug, except it's not- I'm a volunteer, the club is a non-profit organization, and the chapter that I volunteer with donates a fair amount of money at the end of the year to ch

    • Blaming violent games for the violence in American society has very limited merit. Violent games are simply one stimulus among an array of pro-aggression stimuli that floods the American child as he grows into adulthood.

      In Japan, many kids play violent video games and see softporn pictures on the television. You will commonly see bared breats during the prime time on the television. Yet, the rate of violent crime, including violence (i.e. rape) against women, is much lower than that rate in the USA.

  • by DanielMarkham ( 765899 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:38PM (#12975001) Homepage
    If I'm not mistaken, all forms of drugs were legal up until around the turn of the century. People used to be able to medicate themselves as they chose. But after society perceived that drugs were causing harm to the youth, there was a big push for leglislation.
    If the political push continues against violence in video games (and I think it will), it will be interesting to see if this "war on game violence" plays out the same way. That would mean either some kind of certification to use games or perhaps some biometric age device hooked up to game players. I don't believe games harm anyone, btw, but in politics perception is everything.

    Can I Type What I Want In This Sig? [whattofix.com]
    • by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:45PM (#12975030)
      The dangers that many drugs posed were not just to youth. Around the time that drugs first started being outlawed, drug use was much higher among adults than youth. For example, opiates were used extensively recreationally (not medicinally), often causing serious addiction problems and dangerous side effects.

      It's now (well, since roughly the 60s) that illegal drug use is so pervasive among youth. The legislation that's a reaction to that is not that drugs have been made illegal, but our efforts toward persecuting those who deal in or use drugs have been increased (the War on Drugs, it's called now).
      • by PakProtector ( 115173 ) <[cevkiv] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:53PM (#12975083) Journal

        If I recall correctly, Opiates were first banned because there was fear and panic that 'drug crazed negroes' would rape white women. This was in San Fran, or one of those more westernly of the United States Cities.

        This was also what stirred the first (recorded) police increase of calibre size, as it was thought that anything below a .38 would not be enough to kill someone on Opium.

        Also, the reason Drug Use is pervasive amongst youth is because it is forbidden. You make something verbotten, and its appeal instantly skyrockets among teenagers, mainly because teenagers have a built in mechanism whereby the seek to break as many rules as they possibly can, due to the fact they need to explore and find the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour, and more importantly, what they can get away with.

        Probably important to becoming a well-rounded adult.

        • Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Informative)

          by B1ackDragon ( 543470 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:09PM (#12975144)
          Please, very informative, though a little off. It was a fear of Chinese that lead to banning of smoked opium. The 'Drug crazed negroes' would lead to the banning of cocaine. Also:

          1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races," notably Mexican immigrants.

          Here's a nice section of a wikipedia article: War On Drugs, 20th Century [wikipedia.org]
          • Thank you very much. That was actually one of the Wiki Pages I was thinking about when I was posting. Unfortunately, the Caffiene is not strong with me at the moment.

        • I've not heard that drug-crazed negroes were the cause of early anti-drug legislation. It did start first in the Western states, which makes Chinese immigrants and their opiate dens a more likely cause than blacks. However, very shortly after banning businesses selling cocaine (private use was still allowed), California set up public facilities for treating opium addicts, suggesting that the non-violent user was a major concern.

          China has had laws against the use and sale of opium longer than America has, d
    • There is a lot of government control that's been foisted upon us in the name of protecting the children. It seems that we wouldn't endure such legislation normally, but once we start thinking about how we don't want our kids to grow up as violent individuals we stop thinking and start letting others tell us what to do. Parents seem to have lost any sense of personal responsibility they should have for the way their children turn out, and things like the war on drugs is just the rest of society trying to tre
    • I'd love for governments to try this one. Are they going to require liscencing and permits for compilers next? How about 3D libraries? Make large gate count FPGAs registered munitions? Haha.. er.. I guess with Intel's new DRM bios that might not be so funny.

      Anyway: Prohibition of alcohol gave us 150 proof home distilled gin.. Prohibition of cocaine powder and coca leaves gave us crack cocaine.. prohibition of opium gave is Heroin and Oxycontin; prohibition of marijuana gave us hydroponic weed and hashish.
    • If I'm not mistaken, all forms of drugs were legal up until around the turn of the century

      Its amusing that we still think of ourselves as living in the 20th century.

      In the late nineteeth century, the Sears, Roebuck catalog had page after page of patent drugs, cure-alls for every disease, contents unadvertised, but likely to be a potent mix of opium and alcohol.

      Opium in U.S.P. strength was 28 cents for a four-once bottle, $3 a dozen, in 1897. Hypodermic syringes, sold in portable cases like that used b

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:40PM (#12975003)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:53PM (#12975081)
      Nearly all violent video game players don't commit violent crimes.

      What you really want is to compare the percentage of people who commit violent crimes out of two groups: those who play violent video games and those who don't. This sort of thing has been done with, say, television before, but it's nearly impossible to construct proper groups, so data is not useful.

      Really the problem, in my opinion, is that parents don't like they way their children behave and need a scapegoat. This isn't terribly surprising. The same thing happened in the 60s and 70s, but then the scapegoat was drugs. (I guess it's still one of the scapegoats now.)
    • So then killing cops in games could be considered a future crime, like in Minority Report? I mean, really, you could use some statistics from those games to find the most dangerous people - those whose violence (and worse types of violence) seems to be always increasing, as opposed to those who just try it out and then "evolve" to less violent ways to play the game. (In cases where there really is a non-violent way to achieve the goal that is presented.) I'm not saying society should definitely do this,
      • "killing cops in games could be considered a future crime, like in Minority Report"

        +5 Insightful! I think we are headed that way. I don't want this to degenerate into a gun rights flamefest, but what the heck -- this is a Columbine article and it's bound to happen sooner rather than later: I think the reason that places like DC, Illinois, and NYC prevent law-abiding citizens from owning handguns is because those citizens 'might' shoot somebody, someday. Sounds to me like future crime is already legislated
      • by bonehead ( 6382 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @05:32PM (#12975568)
        Such an approach, however, completely ignores one very important psychological aspect: Violent video games allow a person to blow off steam in a harmless, vicarious way.

        It could be argued that the more violent the behavior exhibitted during a video game, the less likely that person is to exhibit violent behavior in the real world. The more a person is able to submerse themselves in the game's environment, and accept it as a temporary "reality", the less likely they'll be to have much of an urge to perform similar acts out on the streets.

        All people, to one degree or another, build up certain levels of anger, hostility, and rage over time. It's important to have an outlet for these emotions that doesn't actually involve hurting other people.

        I don't remember the author, but there was one who stated something along the lines of "writing is the only thing that keeps me from going on a killing spree". I would suspect that many other authors, and lyricists, hold similar sentiments.

    • I like to think it's a lot higher than 90%.

      E.g., World Of Warcraft currently has some 2 million subscribers. If a whole 10% of them were that influenceable, you'd have some 200,000 people running around with swords trying to slash their class mates.

      In reality, we have, what? Maybe 10-20 people who were anywhere near (debatably) influenced by games, out of maybe that many millions of gamers. We're not even talking one percent, we're talking maybe 1 in a million.

      And were games the real reason there? Or is
    • by bani ( 467531 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @05:09PM (#12975431)
      A lot of violent criminals are also attracted to the bible, or are members of fundamentalist christian groups.

      In fact I would bet far more murders are committed claiming "god made me do it" than "GTA3 made me do it".

      But banning video games is fashionable, hip, cool, and trendy -- banning the bible is not.
  • by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation@NOsPam.gmail.com> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:41PM (#12975007)
    Well, it's basically a game where you can drive around an ambulance and take people to the hospital, drive around a fire truck and put out fires, drive around a police car and catch criminals or drive a taxi and take people places. Of course, there's much more you can do, but I'm not into all that violent stuff.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah but you can only do any of that once you've beaten the crap out of some poor civil service worker who was just trying to do their job.

      But seriously. GTA is about violence. Face it. We like killing things. Guns are fun! Acting out our fantasies in any way is usually fun. The point is maintaining the division between fantasy and reality which people these days are pretty crap at. For example, the male fantasy of women is percieved by women to be the ideal. Hence they end up with this stupid distorted fa
    • I'm not really sure why the parent was modded funny, it should be interesting.
      I was never much into the GTA games, but last year I was given GTA:San Andreas as a gift. I have to admit that the game can be fun without indulging in gratuitious violence. As the parent mentioned, there are taxi, police, fire, and EMT missions to take on, there are delivery missions, collectibles, mini-games, races, stunts, etc. It's a very large game world with a lot of stuff to do, and gratuitious violence is only one part
  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:43PM (#12975019) Journal
    If video games caused violence, we'd have terrible world wide child violence and regular school shootings by now. We don't. I belive this is all about children with psychological issues that, of course, may be influenced by video games, but so would they be by movies, TV and news by this theory.

    I believe a video game simulation is nothing compared to how convincing real events illustrating the true nature of gruesome human behavior, and we're basically fed with this daily through television. People call watching it educating.
  • Really? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GTA isn't about fucking hookers or killing cops.

    Then I think there's something wrong in my version...
  • by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:45PM (#12975032)
    How people are actual killers and nut jobs? I mean this in all seriousness. It is probably a split percentage point. How many people can watch a movie with gore and walk home without thinking twice? Probably 99.x percent of the people on this planet.

    The problem with his blog entry is that he talking about the vast majority and not the absolute minority. And while I don't think that video games on their own create killing machines, they are an influence. That is the problem, the summation of all factors is what causes the problems!

    Here is the kicker, in his last statement he says the killers were "f'd up". Well, duh, yeah! However, they blended in since our society does not think twice about violence and that is a problem.
    • Probably 99.x percent of the people on this planet.

      The problem is that (100-99.x) is non-zero.

      A small percentage of people are nutty as fruitcakes, and there are a lot of people. 0.5% of 200,000,000 citizens is a million nutters in America alone. If only 1% of the nutters are dangerous, then thats 10,000 gun-crazed loonies on the loose.

      Clearly, if GTA was not allowing them to release their tensions in harmless ways, we would have loads more shootings, stabbings, etc! Praise be to God for violent Vide Ga

    • How many people can watch a movie with gore and walk home without thinking twice? Probably 99.x percent of the people on this planet.

      Yeah, no wonder, look at what boring stuff he played in [imdb.com]!
  • by Shky ( 703024 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (yraeloykhs)> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:46PM (#12975040) Homepage Journal
    This is all well and good, but I think it misses a crucial point - this. [penny-arcade.com]

    Right...?
  • by cloudofstrife ( 887438 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:47PM (#12975044)
    I've always thought that if a kid can't tell the difference between a video game and the real world, and thinks it's okay to shoot people like in a video game, his parents need to step in very quickly and get him help and stop him from playing those games. I've been playing computer games from a young age, and I've never had the urge to actually take out a gun and shoot someone.
  • Pac-Man (Score:2, Funny)

    by JCY2K ( 852841 )
    Video games don't influence children; otherwise the 80s would have been full of teens sitting in the dark listening to techno and popping pills...
  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <marktNO@SPAMnerdflat.com> on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:47PM (#12975046) Journal
    People find ways of rationalizing whatever the heck they want to do, regardless of how good or bad it may actually be.
  • by Generalisimo Zang ( 805701 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:48PM (#12975048)
    His observations on how it's not the game itself, but what you bring to the game, is right on the money.

    As an example, how many people have played Civilization III?

    So... what's it about?

    Is it about a brave tribe of people who are struggling to establish a civilization under your benevolent leadership, and advance their learning and culture while they peacefully expand, only to be constantly attacked by less enlightened and/or more warlike cultures?

    Or is it about a tribe of people who have fallen under your evil domination, who you will then guide forward through the ages in an orgy of conquest, until you stand astride the Earth as its sole Overlord?

    Or is it just a bunch of pixels being moved around by the in-game AI, and you're a video gamer with a few hours to kill, amusing yourself by trying to defeat the AI opponents in the game?

    It can be any one of those things, depending upon the imagination of the player.
    • As an example, how many people have played Civilization III

      Games like Civ III are too abstracted to be of any use to the discussion here.

      I think it remains fair to question to question the consequences of games like GTA that continually up the ante, drawing the player into ever more brutal and "realistically" staged modes of play.

      At some point, will we be seeing children introduced into these games, as couriers, hostages, innocent bystanders, perhaps even as playable characters, not NPCs? If killings

      • I worked at a company doing QA work for a while. Long hours (like 80 hour weeks). Low pay. 30 people crammed into workspaces that more ideally fit 10 or 15 people max.

        After a while, crammed in with the same people in close proximity for 6 days out of 7 for weeks on end, the rough edges of everyone's personality starts to grate on your nerves.

        Then we started setting up LAN games of Ghost Recon: Desert Seige during the lunch hours. It was great.

        For an hour a day, I wasn't a sardined-in cog in a corporate m
  • Choice quote (Score:2, Insightful)

    by evanh ( 627108 )
    "If we don't take action, we end up at the mercy of unscrupulous media outlets in control of the message. They do exactly what the games they deplore do: make viewers watch by titilating them with sensationalistic violence. The difference is, games are entertainment; the news is not supposed to be."
  • by holiggan ( 522846 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:00PM (#12975101)
    Well, he sure spells it out: the fault is mainly the PARENTS. And I agree.

    If you leave your kid all day around games/movies/music/newspaper/TV, and you don't spend the time educating him, telling him about right or wrong, loving him, that sort of "old fashioned" stuff, well, maybe he will grow up with a skewed view of life.

    The thing is that parents (even bad ones) are voters, so it's hard from the policital point of view to say "hey, you're bad parents! you're to blame!". It's much "safer" to blame "those darn videogames and rock music!" because videogames and songs don't vote!

    Anyway, maybe we as a society should start paying a bit more atention to parenting. After all, to put it in Scott Adam's words, we need a license to drive/fish/whatever but to be a parent we only need a couple of organs. And maybe between all the people that have those organs there are some who can't take care of themselves, let alone a child...

  • by tansey ( 238786 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:05PM (#12975123) Journal
    I mean we all remember those famous Technical Demos:

    - Mortal Kombat characters executing fatalities to demonstrate advancments in sprite scripting technology.

    - Serious Sam's technical display of hugely explorable levels and efficient creation (and removal) of hundreds of agents simultaneously.

    - The Playboy series of games which push the boundaries of graphics and strive for photorealism.

    - Duke Nukem feeding strippers money and getting them to take their clothes off displayed revolutionary bounce-physics.

  • GTA:SA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:08PM (#12975141) Journal
    Isn't most of GTA:Sa(quite far into it) about a guy trying to go straight and stop drug dealers?

    Shocking really.. who would of thought you that? I've only ever used a prostitute once just to see WTF it was that happened, then I couldn't careless.
  • GTA-BS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:11PM (#12975156) Homepage Journal
    "GTA isn't about fucking hookers or killing cops. It's a story of a guy who got screwed trying to get back on top."

    So it's about a guy who got screwed and is trying to get back on top... On top of what again? The criminal world? By enacting all sorts of violent mischief? Who just happens to fuck hookers and kill cops along the way?

    Now don't get me wrong, I love videogames, but the line this guy is trying to rationalize is so thin as not to even exist. It's as if the author is trying to explain away the fact that the game is putting you in direct control of a quasi-gansta whose missions are to almost exclusively commit acts of violence against rivals and society at large. I mean, let's not sugar coat this here. You can't divorse the two concepts, as well as the fact that it becomes more than "just a story" when you have user interaction. You're programming your brain with tactics, responces and behaviors in order to operate in that environment. I'll be the first to say most pleas of Videogame violence is way too overrated, but I'll also be up there in saying that it's not as harmless as some of the developers would have you believe. For most well adjusted people, it probably IS harmeless. But for a developing child? You have to be fucking kidding me. There's a reason sesame street exists and it's to program kids. Or, conversly, you can program them with GTA. Both purposely or inadvertantly will do the same thing, and to try and totally absolve yourself of the potential impact you're making on anybody playing is rationalist idiocy.

    And yes, the parents have the biggest role in that development. But I wish these devs would call their games for what they are instead of trying to hide behind this conjured BS.
    • Re:GTA-BS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @08:44PM (#12976644) Homepage
      Ultimately what we have to remember is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that videogames contribute to violent behavior. Not one little bit.

      There is, however, a great deal of evidence that indicates that parents play a huge role in whether or not their children grow up to be good citizens or nasty little fucks. Reams of evidence, in fact. A veritable mountain of evidence.

      If you want to have a real effect on whether or not kids are going to turn into worthless pieces of shit, it isn't videogames that should be regulated - but who gets to be a parent in the first place.

      Max
  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:13PM (#12975161) Homepage Journal

    It's the fact that mankind has an inborn propensity for violence. The problem isn't violent video games, but that we haven't addressed the fundamentally violent nature of mankind.

    Lenin and Hitler killed millions before the first video game had been invented; our violent nature is as old as recorded history.

    Instead of blaming a scapegoat (video games), parents would be better off recognizing this fundamental trait (propensity for violence) of human nature and teaching their children to overcome it. After all, keeping the kids away from violent video games won't keep the bullies from bullying, nor will it keep them from getting angry... The ability to take revenge isn't limited to those who have played violent video games.

  • Yep (Score:2, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 )
    I think hes right on - video games are fast becoming world sims, and story aside, its you who controls the character. GTA has such great re-playability because you can just walk around doing whatever you like, i think the future of GTA is to just get rid of the story line all together and concentrate on making it a good world simulator, this is a place where you can do things you couldn't or wouldn't want to do in real life, you can drive around fast and shoot people with no consequences, when the game gets
  • This guy's point is that you can choose how to play the game - it doesn't have to be as violent as it can be. But, I think that people who have violent tendencies will be attracted to such games, and will learn such techniques much faster and more completely than they can in the real world. As technology advances it's impossible to avoid having better simulations, but the implications for society are still scary even if you rule out the idea that violent games make good people into bad people. The bad pe
  • YAZBS (Yet another Zonk blogging story)
  • by blibbler ( 15793 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @04:45PM (#12975279)
    His main point seems to be that modern games give people the freedom to do whatever they want, and it is the gamers that choose to cause violence. This is of course, bullshit.
    Of the three games he focuses on, I have only played GTA, but while that games does allow you to do many things, the majority of the things it lets you do are violent. Where is the option to bring peace between the clans through negotiation? Where is the option to join the police, and help deal with the clan warfare through proper authorities? Going further, where is the option to help out the poor and homeless at the soup kitchen? Where is the option to move out to the suburbs, and get a real job, have some kids? Where is the option to travel to other countries, learn new languages, trek across the Andes?

    While its true that fucking a hooker, then killing her to get the money back is not part of the main game of GTA3, and was only discovered by some sicko, there is no option to give her some of the hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars that you end up with up with to sponsor her through college.

    I like GTA, and I don't think that violent video-games necessarily cause people to be violent, however it is very naïve to say that games like GTA are completely neutral, and it is games that make them violent
    • If you wanted to give her money, you could just have sex with her and then not kill her (imagine that!) You could do this multiple times to give her lots of money. Hell, you could even just drive around with her in the car while your money depletes, then get out when you've given her enough money. That way, you wouldn't even be encouraging prostitution.

      I'm not sure how much of the GTA series is limited by hardware. Maybe a few years down the road hardware will improve, and someone at Rockstar will take t
  • just because he was at that highschool has nothing to do with if he knows violence in video games matters. I would have to say I think he is totally right but I have no study or real science to back that claim up. I wish we could get rid of the whole political bullshit and just have a fscking real study. One that isn't skewed by what the person wants it to prove... It should be so simple. Well science is never that simple but stats are good over a really wide number of kids. I think this is all a prod
  • I was reading this guy's blog post and cringing - his grammar is TERRIBLE! First off, if you want to post on your blog in all lower case, that doesn't really impact either the meaning or flow of your post. However, if you plan on using capitalization, for G-d sake, do it right - capitalize I and start your sentences off with capitals. Furthermore, this guy repeatedly wrote in run-on sentences, used improper colloquials (Since when do you see another "size" of someone? I usually see another "side" of my f
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @05:26PM (#12975536) Homepage Journal
    Maybe after living in the real world for a few more years, Brown will realize that life isn't "about" anything. That a storyline doesn't redeem gratuitous violence. Now, I don't know any more than he does whether videogaming influences kids to be more violent. Though the few days I played GTA were followed by a couple of incidents here in NYC when I came closer than I have in decades to taking up the common offers to get into a serious fight, with a jerk in a bar. But since such a risk is such a threat to profitable videogame companies' profits and owners, I'm starting to wonder why they don't fund scientific studies by reputable researchers to come up with some numbers.

    If they'd started such a study 10 years ago, we'd already have a decade of developmental psychology to study, with actual data on subsequent violence (or its lack) by the people being studied. Such a study is, of course, incumbent on those who'd make a claim that violent games "cause" violent acts, or violent people. But the industry would do itself a favor by clearing the air with such a study. Of course, if they perhaps have such a study already, though unpublished, that shows that there is a cause/effect, they'd be in serious trouble. Although suppressing such studies in the tobacco business just put off the inevitable, with much higher cost to those liable, as well as those unwittingly damaged.

    Just hearing from a person who grew up in the Columbine environment, which fostered such a violent event, doesn't convince me. He might be more sensitive to violence, having seen it played out, but he isn't any more expert in child psychology itself. In fact, his closeness to the event could just as easily influence him to engage in denial, that he's that similar to the killers, or capable of it himself, with their common background. Especially when he believes that children's choices are entirely their own responsibility.
  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @05:43PM (#12975615)
    350,000 jobs created in march of 2004 The New York Times reports Bonds down on employment news.

    Elections Go well in afghanistan country is enjoying the best economic growth it has ever had, reporting Opium traffic on rise and taliban still holding out.

    20/20 Stages Explosions in cars auto companys are filleted by lawyers.

    I don't really want to go into the media's coverage of aids and environmental except to point out that because of them (by and large) our policy on these issues might better have been framed by hysterical children.

    I can go on this is just things off the top of my head. My point is that the media is by far doing greater violence to the body politic than video games. There is no real standard of liability for reporters and if you look at shield laws in most states if they use anonymous sources they can just make up whatever they want. A prime example is the sacramento bee where a reporter had been doing queen for a day sob stories about people for 20 years. The problem most of the people didn't actually exist.

    Just things to think about when you see the News Media gathering to bang the drum on an issue.
  • by MonkeyOfRage ( 779297 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @08:31PM (#12976585)
    Ever since Space Invaders, I can't stop running from house to house firing straight up into the air.
  • Geez (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @11:09PM (#12977215) Homepage Journal
    Those stories from those kids are terrifying.

    I was a geek in high school. I'm sure many here were. Y'know what? Any isolation I felt - and yes, there was quite a bit in the first few years - was largely my own fault. I had people try really hard to be nice, to include me, etc and I just didn't know how to respond. I mostly got confused, or thought they were trying to tease / mock me. In my defense, that's because that used to be a problem, but I think mostly because of my lack of social skills rather than any geekyness. I was one of those people who wakes up one day and says "huh. People. Who would'a thought."

    One I learned some utterly minimal social skills, things improved a lot. This frequently meant walking home talking about coding / maths with a couple of friends, though that's not all I did. Anyway ... the point is, I never, *EVER* saw any trouble or hostility from the "mainstream" once I reached high school. The worst I got was a bit of teasing every now and then, and even that was pretty tame and only during the first two years. We have a term here - "Year 9s are animals." It's kinda expected. After that, any distance from them was mostly because I just didn't "get" their interests - which at the time mostly seemed to involve getting so drunk they threw up. Yay. Not.

    Having come from that, and reading stories like this, is terrifying. I've never heard of anything even remotely like this here (Western Australia). It makes me even more frightened that before about the increasing American media influence and cultural influence* here - because it makes me even more inclined to believe the place, collectively, is insane, though obviously most of it's citizens are just fine.

    Pass the cluebat.

    * Yes, I know I'm responding to an American article on a website largely full of Americans. I wouldn't call either of these the mainstream American, though.
  • And there were many. I was in a Colorado Public School system during the then rampant and still ongoing Columbine McCarthyism. I can still remember the day it happened. I remember chatting with the school resource officer trying to find out what exactly was happening. The greatest horror of the day was not the event itself, but the complete lack of intel as far as what was happening. Rumours of the school being leveled by a bomb, dozens of bullet-ridden bodies lying in the parking lot. Theories of organized efforts to shoot-up several schools at the same time, with Columbine being used to trigger lock-down and make for cornered targets.

    I was even a proponent of instituting calm. Made specific efforts to hush the fear of the same happening at our school, making sure that everyone knew that the situation is isolated; no helicopters would be flying into our school after taking off from Columbine. Asking the teachers and counselors if I should aid in the ensuing lock-down.

    I didn't go to school the next day. Coincidentally, the most changed that day. April 21st carried more repercussions for the alternatively clothed students of the US than any other. All across the country, Principals came on the PA system urging students to report any students who exert qualities they may think to be "violent or psychotic." Without investigation or inquiry, the reports of hundreds of thousands of students were acted upon. In one day, the Colorado School systems saw more suspensions and expulsions than the decade previous in total. This fact was not realized for QUITE some time due to lack of referrals or reports, it was by hall passes and hourly absence roles that suspensions and expulsions were tallied in the federal investigation made in late May. I dodged the first wave of cleansings by merely missing a day of school.

    The months that ensued didn't heal any wounds. The years past since the event aren't letting them heal either. In naught but a week, the media had managed to engineer quite an affective scape-goat out of the "Trench Coat Mafia." They actually managed to make a scapegoat out of practically every counter-culture icon at the time. "Insane Clown Posse," "Doom," "Marilyn Manson," "Anarchist's Cookbook," "Internet Chatrooms (which at the time were counterculture). The political "Hot wording" of the event to gain votes had managed to do the same to every new counterculture icon for quite some time. "Grand Theft Auto," "Mortal Kombat," "Dungeons and Dragons," "Pagans," "Wiccans." In one fell swoop all the kids congress critters thought were little freaks in highschool are now conveniently oppressed to the convenience of their children's "Safety."

    And unbeknownst to anyone was the legal rampage that was the bills coming to vote. Measures that betray almost every fiber of meaning in the words "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were being passed by the dozen. Public Schools were given almost complete and total control over the children that were enrolled there. You see, it used to be that the parents were brought in for a meeting when children were suspended. It used to be that the parents were urged to get counseling for their children, and that counselors names were given. Today, children are assigned counseling and expelled or suspended if they don't agree to it. It used to be there was a group decision between both vice principal, counselor and usually the principle himself when suspension was involved. Now suspensions are handed out by a single person.

    Through middle school, specifically 7th grade after Columbine all the way through 8th grade; I had managed to get suspended 11 times. Were it not for the hard work of one very passionate counselor I would have been expelled after the first occasion. There are many good teachers and counselors that kept me afloat for quite some time, but to no avail. They had all the heart they needed to make a difference, they just couldn't put a dent in the negative influence that was society in general. Here you are, not able to af

Brain off-line, please wait.

Working...