Violent Videogames(your opinion)

[evirus]

I was wondering what y'all think about violent videogames? Should we leave them be, regulate them like we do beer, ban the violent ones, or ban them all?

-----my view------

It seems like videogames have became the current "go to" pop-culture when it comes to placing blame. I don’t really see a difference between people blaming games today, and people blaming music and movies and the past.

I've grown up on some violent videogames, most notably games like Doom, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat etc. the only real problems I have now is that I have a learning disorder and near sighted. It seems to me that videogames themselves aren't the only problem when it comes to violent "incidences" take columbine for example, everyone lashed out at doom like games but little mention was given to the fact that these kids where medicated.

To me I say the parents should decide, intelligently weather or not their kid can handle the game that they ask to get, if they don’t know, put it back, look it up and buy it the next time your at the store if you feel it is ok.

I would also point out that the rating system is vary accurate in most cases, its not hard to translate, on the front there's the rating (E, everyone, to AO, adults only) and on the back it gives you the contents that justifies those ratings, for example they list violence, sexual content, nudity, language, and so on.

Ill close my ramblings with a comic strip that expresses my views on the "violent videogame problem" from www.penny-arcade.com posted 8/11/2003 titled "send this to your local paper"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Video games are a cop out, plain and simple.

If you spend time with your kids and teach them what is right and wrong, you won't have to worry about video games, movies, music, or what their friends are doing because they will have learned to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Which is obviously something that is lacking from anyone who thinks video games actually drive people to commit crimes.

[evirus]

2. good

good point, good point...

[sufrommich]

7. Great point n/t

[porphyrian]

9. Thank you!

I'm so fucking sick of parents externalizing their responsibility for raising their own fucking children, and for people trying to use the legal system to raise their children for them.

[sufrommich]

17. Another great point.

You're on a roll!:applause:

[Enraged_Ape]

58. The fault is not video games, but American economics

Back in the days when only one parent could work and support the whole family, and the other parent could stay home and watch the kids, read to them, play with them, and kick them out of the house to go play with their friends...it didn't seem we had these problems. Or at least we didn't hear about them as much.

Blaming video games, heavy metal music, violent movies, etc., is a convenient way to avoid talking about the basic fact that both parents in an American family HAVE to work these days, often at more than one job, and THAT is what is messing kids up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Both my parents worked and still found time to spend with me.

[Enraged_Ape]

62. Some kids need more time than others

The problem is, the parents of the kids that need the MOST time do not have the luxury of providing it.

[Tim4319]

86. My point exactly!

[endarkenment]

3. Buy the ones you like and....

DONT BUY THE ONES YOU DONT LIKE.

Oh I know, lets have the government tell us which ones we should like and which ones we musn't like.
:sarcasm:

[eShirl]

4. video games, TV shows, movies, books

if you start banning video games where will it end?

[goddess40]

I can't wait to show this to my 16 year-old son

he's going to have an answer for you! That is after he calms down. He is a gamer and he does play some of the violent games.
To me the worst part of any of the games is the slutty look of the women it adds nothing to any game and perpetuates the lower status of women.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Yeah, I would agree with that too.

Unfortunately, I think it needs to be removed from here first:




Let's face it - the vast majority of games are targeted towards men. These teen magazines and pop music stars though are targeted directly at developing girls, and that gives them the notion that they have to be slutty to get a man and that they should value their body image more than anything else. That's a FAR greater problem than anything video games have to offer in my opinion.

[goddess40]

42. You're right, but it needs to disappear from both areas

I was just saying that was the main thing I saw wrong with these games.
Our country still has a long way too go for women's rights. A great example is the show Commander and Chief. The first gentleman is subject to harassment because his masculinity is being questioned because his wife is President. I guess women's rights is a poor choice of words because men lose out too.

[porphyrian]

78. But, is banning forms of entertainment the way to go about it?

At what point do we stop blaming advertising and start blaming the individuals who choose to buy into it? Or, from another angle, at what point is an individual's beliefs and actions no longer their own responsibility?

[AllegroRondo]

5. Thats why they have a rating system

just like movies. To let consumers make a more informed decision about what they want to buy.

[Mizmoon]

6. I think people of all ages get "ideas" from violent depictions

in movies, TV, books, games, etc. Some people act on them. Why some do and most don't will probably never be known. However, we can't make them illegal because some sicko reads something about, say, abusing an animal, and decides to try it for himself.

But do not fool yourself - people actually see crazy stuff on shows like "Jackass" and decide to try it out. They really do.

[evirus]

8. darwin

its like darwinism, so you saw the show jackass and decided to jump over a car and send it in..... you loose

[porphyrian]

11. Those people do stupid shit anyway.

Just because some people take the inspiration for their stupidity from the entertainment world does not mean the entertainment world is responsible for their behavior. The person doing the act is responsible for their behavior. If the person doing the stupid behavior is a child, it is their parents' or guardians' responsiblity as well.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Ask your mom or your grandparents about the stupid things they did.

I guarantee you that kids don't need Jackass to do asinine things.

[Mizmoon]

28. True, but someone may see a stunt or read about a cruelty

they they never thought of and they decide to do it. I think that happens.

[Solon]

31. True, but that only proves they are stupid or mentally ill...

nothing more or less, there was a guy in Austria I think who, while drunk, jumped out of a 4th story window thinking he was Superman. Should we blame comic books or the Superman movies for that? The story was in the lounge, thank Matcom for that. :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Oh, I'm sure it does, to an extent.

I think the only difference here is orginality. Kids in the past had to be creative in doing asinine things. Kids nowadays are more likely to just emulate something they saw. But I don't doubt for a moment that if Jackass or anything else never existed that these kids would STILL be doing something asinine to hurt themselves or others.

[DS1]

12. I've yet to pop someone's head off with a railgun from over a mile

away. :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Really? I use my lightning gun to snipe people on a daily basis.

To each his own, I guess. :shrug:

[DS1]

16. And unfortunately the only practical use I've found for my BFG is

adding weight to the back of my car so it's less likely to spin in the snow :shrug:

[walldude]

88. Hell you guys are wussies

I go the neo-con route and just kill em' all with my BFG..

[evirus]

14. yah

i mean youve been playing those games for years.... what are you gay? (thats a whole nother rant entirely, i hate that expression)

[meganmonkey]

18. I won't play them, if I have kids they wouldn't play them (at least to the

extent that I could actually control it) and beyond that, it's none of my business.

A ratings system, similar to movies, does make sense to me, but it is about as enforceable as the movie system (and God knows I saw plenty of R-rated movies before I was 18)

Blaming violent video games for society's problems is like taking decongestant for a bad cold - it may feel better temporarily but it doesn't HEAL you or stop you from spreading it to others. (Analogy is weak, but it makes sense to me :P )

:shrug:

[Ready4Change]

19. Violent crimes in schools have DECREASED.

The total amount of violent crimes in schools has decreased. What has increased are the numbers of multiple victim attacks, such as Columbine. Still, they have not reversed the total decline in violence. Kids are safer with their peers than ever before.

So, going by that evidence, video games are GOOD! During their existence, kids have become increasingly safer.

Now, do I believe there is a link between video games and either increases or decreases in violence? No. I think the only link is parents and the media using these games as a scapegoat, rather than pointing the finger at parents who are only raising their kids via remote control.

That's my .02.

[progressivebydesign]

44. Can you please provide a link to that? n/t

[Ready4Change]

67. Several

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/11/11292004.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/iscs03pr.htm
http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=463
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html

Or you can just google some terms like "crime rate schools."

[Solon]

20. Chicken and egg problem plus generation gap...

If we look at it honestly, the Video Game generations are actually one of the LEAST violent, physically, of the previous century. The thing is difference in reporting, access to weapons, and parental responsibility. We have to face it, the human species is both violent and adrenaline junkies, plain and simple. Many of us like a good ghost story, death, sometimes blood, though some get sick off of that, and explosions, always explosions. So the question is, are video games an influence on our culture, or a reflection of it? These violent video games are distributed world-wide, with little differences between them(excepting Germany). Yet crime rates vary dramatically, especially among youth in all these countries.

At worst, I would say they are a reflection of human nature, another outlet for our agressions, fears, and accomplishments. No different than the Cowboys n' Indians games of my parents or Grimm's Fairy Tales, which are themselves either violent or sick. The thing is this, this most recent generation, and generations past, are NOT that different in the way things pan out, just the technology has advanced, so what?

The one thing that I hate is the so-called Generation Gap, the one where are "wise" elders talk about the misspent youth of today. Their complaints are the complaints of parents and grandparents going back a thousand generations or more. Hell, there are Ancient Roman and Greek documents talking about exactly that, so its nothing new. Back a generation, it was our parents dropping acid, generation before that it was Reefer Madness, generation before that Alcohol, generation before that opium, and so on and so forth. This is the same for drugs as it is for violence rates and sexual "perversions".

[sufrommich]

21. Just curious

Whats the difference in Germany?Do they ban certain games for violence?

[Solon]

23. Famous example is the original Wolfenstien...

edited out ALL Nazi and Hitler references, also they are notorious for insisting that blood not be red, not like it matters much nowadays, I think people patch the games in question back to the original anyways.

[PerpetualWinter]

71. German censorship laws are retardedly overboard as it is...

I personally know bands that every time they release an album have to pay a fine to the German government in order to not get charged with spreading hate. Occasionally now-a-days you see albums get banned in Germany, but thats really quelled since the early 90's when they were doing it at a retarded space.

[Kellanved]

81. there is no big difference.

A big part of the talk about the German situation is born out of a misconception; also the legislation was changed recently.


There are three levels for the rating of games (pretty much the same for movies):

level1:
The industry can rate games to be all ages, 12, 16 or 18+ . Only the 18 rating is legaly binding, such games can not easily be sold by mail order and may not be advertized - this is the reason for many companies to change the games in the hopes of getting a 16 rating.


level2:
A federal agency can rate games(movies, music, books,...) on request. They can rule a game/movie/... to be "dangerous for the youth". This does not constitute a ban, but advertizing, displaying or selling to minors is forbidden. After 25 years a product reverts to level1. Here's a list with all games on that level:
http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english.html
http://www.highgames.com/?set=indexlist&view=all&read=done

level3: State(!) courts can act on the input of prosecutors to ban games (movies...). This is indeed troubling; verdicts with a Federal scope are issued by local and regional courts, with little hope of appeal. Bans are only legal for games breaching the German constitution; i.e. swastikas etc. . (this status lasts for 10 years)

This page has lists with all games... on level 2+ :
http://www.bpjm.com/



Most talks about cut games comes from the fear of ending up being rated 18+ or reaching level2. There is an economic imperative to change the content, not a legal one.
Also companies, especially music labels, often ignore the ratings and thus end up with a hefty fine, causing more rumors.

[Arkana]

22. Oh, for fuck sake

I grew up playing Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat. I love GTA. I turned out fine because I can *gasp* distinguish video games from reality.

[evirus]

26. plus

yah, plus i garentee you that i can spin the content of a video game in realtime if they use me to demonstrate the violence of a game... GTA for example i could just drive around a bit all cautious like so they think "hay this game isnt violent at all" it all depends on who plays it and their mood you see?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. Killer Instinct ruled!

ULTRA COMBO!!! :D

[Arkana]

35. My favorite was Spinal's--

He used his shield to shoot about 6 Brazilian fireballs then went apeshit with his sword. Great combo. :D

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. Fulgore, Combo, and Jago for me

It was fun doing Orchid's 40 hit ultra too. :D

[Arkana]

37. Jago had the BEST combos

because his kicks were so powerful. He had a Monster Combo (10 hits) that I could pull off in my sleep.

Glacius was my other favorite because of his Melt move--where he could vanish and reappear behind his opponent.

[MrBenchley]

24. I think they ought to be restricted to adults...

And I think anybody who gets their jollies from a violent video game ought to be pretty ashamed of themselves. Especially since they seem so idiotic.

[Solon]

29. First, what is your definition of a violent video game?

Second, what is the difference between getting your "jollies" off as you put it from a video game than from an action movie, or a ghost or horror story?

[MrBenchley]

39. You mean you think there's some mystery?

"Second, what is the difference between getting your "jollies" off as you put it from a video game than from an action movie, or a ghost or horror story?"
If there's no difference, you really don't need one, do you? After all, there's no shortage of action movies or horror stories.

[evirus]

40. mario

would you consider super mario brothers as a violent game?

[MrBenchley]

47. What's it rated?

By the way, I don't think there's much lamer than video gamers learning to cheat on websites...

[Solon]

48. E for Everyone...

Last time I checked, for Super Mario Sunshine.

[MrBenchley]

51. Then I guess the question wasn't such a mystery, after all

[Solon]

45. Ambiguity actually, not mystery...

OK, let me be more specific, what would be a cutoff for restricting games to adults only for you? Would Mario stomping on a turtle count as violence suitable enough to be restricted? How about Starfox, where machines basically blow up other machines, spaceships, etc. What should be the litmus tests? Show blood, restricted, no blood, less restricted, etc.

[MrBenchley]

50. I'm happy to let the ratings system work...

which doesn't make these games any less of a puddle of pus.

"Would Mario stomping on a turtle count as violence "
Only to the sort of stunted psycho who gets amusement from that sort of thing. Still, pResident Twat went around blowing up frogs with firecrackers and look how well He turned out. (snicker)

"How about Starfox, where machines basically blow up other machines, spaceships, etc."
No people in those spaceships, I guess.

[Solon]

54. Actually in most of them no...

Oddly enough, while I think about it, part of the plot in the game was this one guy trying to take over a solar system and using robot spacecraft has his main force, so no, most of them didn't have people in them. The only time that I can facing the main antagonist, and he was a huge brain.

[evirus]

56. 64

in starfox 64 there are a ton of vehicles that you had to destroy which had people in them( for the most part the cartoon animal/human beings like starwolf for example) but the only time you notice is through radio transmissions which show the senders face in the corner as they talk

[Solon]

59. Forgot him and his crew...

Actually if I remember right, they survive the first time, only to come back for a second go at you. Of course you defeat them yet again that time too.

[MrBenchley]

57. Seems like a pretty hollow pursuit....

But hey, if pretending to be nobody fighting nobody gives you a tingle, have at it...

[Solon]

65. All pursuits for fun are ultimately hollow anyways...

it ultimately depends on what you are after in such pursuits. Is it simple fun? Accomplishment? Stress Relief? Whatever it is, it can be worth it just to do it, regardless of what it is, as long as no one else is hurt by it, who are any of us to condemn those who choose such pursuits?

[MrBenchley]

82. Not so....

"Whatever it is, it can be worth it just to do it, regardless of what it is, as long as no one else is hurt by it"
Or if only turtles are? How about dogs and cats? What could be wrong with torturing household pets for stress relief? (snicker)

"who are any of us to condemn those who choose such pursuits?"
Hahahahahaha....

[Solon]

84. I know your making fun, a little bit...

:)

However, I sometimes don't make myself clear, I usually would mean, when using words or phrases such as "someone", "no one" etc. as also including animals, more specifically animals with a backbone. To be honest, I see little difference between people who blow up frogs for fun(GW Bush) or torture cats and dogs(Jeffery Dahmer), or even kill people for fun(See the above for examples), morally they are equivalent. I've seen animals die, my cat died from complications due to FIV(AIDS) (back then a mystery disease, even for cats). So I don't really see how anyone can get enjoyment from the suffering of another, regardless of what species that other happens to be.

Hell, the worst things I ever did on the Fourth of July, were my experiments with explosives. Compared to Bush, they were mild and rather benign for instead of using frogs, I used hot wheels, old tonka trucks, and paper airplanes as targets of destruction and mayhem. I even had a bottle-rocket power paper airplane that went quite high into the air, before crashing down into flames. Of course, my parents supervised, I had to wear safety goggles, etc. I would put most video games on the same level as the types of games I played with this, though a little safer, with many less burns on the hands, blisters still hurt though. :)

[evirus]

52. thanks

thanks Solon looks like you picked up on what i was getting at exactly

[PerpetualWinter]

72. Or church...

[UncleSepp]

25. Best Dad I know lets his 4 year old play WoW

It's not that violent as video games go, but I think it's relevant. His kids are happy, healthy, smart, well-loved, and very much the center of his existence - and they all know it. The little one loves World of Warcraft, and goes into the player-vs-player zones. These same kids also do martial arts and rough-and-tumble play, and it's great for them. All these things are in context for them and are a part of balanced imagination and play time, and I think that's what's important.

Funny, I just remembered my mother refusing for a long time to buy a toy gun. She gave in after I started picking up sticks and using them for toy guns. My friends and I would play all kinds of war games, as kids do. The basic idea of violence is in kids' minds already. It's not coming from video games any more than it comes from toy guns. It's coming from living in a violent world. I fear the effects of real violence on kids more than I fear the effects of symbols and depictions of violence, and would rather work at supplanting the idea of violence as a solution to problems than at suppressing the echo of violence in a game.

[evirus]

27. darn

those kids where lucky....

im reminded about how a kid who him and his mother played WOW (world of warcraft) the kid got grounded from the game, he was up late at night playing, and posting on the message board... his mother saw his posts and grounded him for like another month, ON THE MESSAGE BOARD kid became the laughing stock of the board

[Marr]

66. I saw that!

Funniest post I've ever seen.

:)

[Mutley]

30. This is where parental responsibility comes in...

Just explain to your kids that what they see in violent video games/movies/music/whatever is not real, and explain to them what would happen if they tried that sort of thing in real life.

[parasim]

32. My two cents...

I've got two boys who both used to really enjoy violent videogames. I used to be worried about it because I felt then (as I do now) that violent videogames are a different animal than violent movies, music, etc. This, I believe, is because they are interactive and the experience is much more visceral for players. I mean, the military uses them (amoung other things, of course) to train soldiers to kill.

That said, I now am convinced that they only pose a problem if the player is already unstable. Both of my kids have now grown out of the videogame stage and rarely play them. Both of them are shaping up to be responsible young adults and show absolutely no signs of being overly aggressive.

In fact, I now actually think that violent videogames are possibly a good thing for boys to play to satisfy their craving for violence at a young age and get it out of their system. Watching them play GTA and the like freaked me out at times, I have to admit. They so relished blowing peoples heads off with bazookas and automatic weapons. However, in the real world, they are very compassionate, non-violent peace-loving people.

So, in summation, no, I do not think that they should be banned. If parents talk to their kids about the seriousness of violence and controlling aggression and watch them closely to see that violent tendencies don't carry over into the the real world (thereby indicating emotional problems, etc.) I don't them as a problem in the least.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. I believe in a ratings system, but I do not believe in any sort of banning

That goes for movies, books, music, video games, etc.

I have two teenaged sons and they do play some violent video games, and yet they know that they are just that, games. I am not thrilled with it, but they would find a way to play them anyway. This way they don't have to sneak behind my back, and I can discuss it with them.

Knocking on wood here, both kids are so far, very good.

[progressivebydesign]

41. Not all video games are the same, nor are the parents.

I noticed the comment about music of the past and video games now... as an easy target. Well.. perhaps there is some truth to that, but you really forget an important point: There is a point, which we have sadly reached, where it is not about some strong lyrics, but about sadistic, bloody violence as entertainment. This is not simply a case of relaxing ideas about entertainment. I think of that as murder and rape were always considered heinous crimes, then AND now, but other things, like spitting on a sidewalk or cursing out another driver, are considered nothing now when before they were outlawed. No one can make a blanket assessment of all video games in terms of violence. I think, as a parent, that the graphic, realistic, and extreme violence is something that ALL parents should keep from their kids... but some parents are lazy and indulgent and weak.

As for video games and kids. It's all about having an understanding for developing minds. I don't expect people here to understand child development (and yes, you are still a child physically and emotionally until at least 18 in terms of development), but there are reasons WHY you don't let your preteen entertain him/herself with graphic violence. THere is an age where kids develop empathy, it is an actual physical stage of brain development, and sadly, that is the age when parents start allowing extremely violent entertainment for boys. It's one thing when kids would play army, because it allowed them to make the story and resolve things on their own. Now, they sit.. and sit.. and sit.. and use a lever to kill people with absolutely zero imagination or moral judgements about what was happening. There are various stages of brain development wherein a kid learns different lessons and ways to deal with others... but there is little thought to that with some parents. They only want to look cool to their kids, or they want to be left alone and video games gives the parents hours of quiet time alone.

The people here on DU who usually have a screaming fit over the greatness of the games like GTA, are gamers themselves, so I don't expect any kind of balance from them. I just wonder why people think that graphic violence, and sexual violence, is somehow entertaining. Is that really entertaining killing other people? Is sitting around for hours on end in a play world really doing a lot for your real life and relationships? The staunch defenders don't realize that they've been brought along by increasing violent games to the point where they cannot reason or see how far they've gone. They will never understand it, just as a smoker doesn't understand second hand smoke.

[evirus]

49. yet

i have yet to see a sexually violent game be publicly released...

i grew up, im talking 5-17 years old. to the sound of doom like games comming from the basment, where my father's computer was. and him occasionaly swearing at the other players or laughing sadisticly. i hardly would consider my father lazy, indulgent, and weak!

in movies you have the violence forced on to you, in most games GTA included, you are given a choice of how violent you will be, an example, you have to get from point A to point B in your car, will you drive down the street or across the park littered with people...

[G_j]

43. not for censorship, though

I do find myself puzzled as to how splattering people in fantasy is not innately kind of sick. If someone could explain what is healthy about mowing down an animated character in a pool of blood..?

Each to their own, but I don't comprehend the idea of redeeming value in depictions of graphic violence. I'm not for censorship, though rating systems are important for consumers.

[evirus]

53. the use of them is

i myself from time to time see video games as a release.... say you come home from work realy ticked off, you would be bound to release that anger on something, why not release it on a bunch of 1's and 0's put together to look like a city, rather then your spouse or children, or possably your property.

[Solon]

55. Good point...

I used GTA to let off steam on a fictional road rather than a the real road. Its safer that way.

[bluedawg12]

46. Put the responsibility on the parents. The rating system

is a good guide what to buy the kids.

Since games are around $50. most kids need parental OK and money.



How about those sick films like Texas Chain Saw, or the one where captive peole have to amputate thier own limbs to break free?

Sick shit.

Now a nice Doom3, or Halo, or SOCOM3 on a fall day-nothing better.

[Loonman]

61. Jeffrey Dahmer never played videogames

I'm sure. Niether did Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

[MrBenchley]

83. Yeah, but thanks to video games, you can share Jeffrey's "fun"

""Mystery of the Druids" deals with some extremely gruesome subject matter in graphic detail: humans being skinned alive, cannibalism (was that dinner scene *really* necessary? And Halligan, why were you so enthused after learning you were eating human flesh?), murders and suicides."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006488S/002-4435650-9698441?v=glance

[Rocknrule]

63. At the end of South Park: BL&U

Kyle tells his mom, "Whenever I get in trouble, you go and blame everyone else. But I'm the one to blame. Deal with me."

A lot of these parents would do well to listen to this quote

[evirus]

64. your right

but it probably dosnt do the quote justice when its in a movie that proclaims itself to be bigger, longer & uncut, espically a south park movie with those words

[Greyhound]

68. The uber nannies have blamed movies and popular music ever

since they've existed. Video games are just the latest manifestation of many people's apparent need to control what other people do, see, read, feel, and believe.
It is anti-American and just plain sick.

[Beelzebud]

69. More Parenting, Less Censorship.

It's a simple issue.

I hate that some of our dem leaders (Hillary) constantly step their foot in the pile of censorship shit...

[milkyway]

70. My two teenage sons tell me they're no problem at all. nt

[Xithras]

73. Now that everyones vented their opinions, let's try a few facts:

Fact #1: Without fail, every single study that's been done on human aggression shows that people are more likely to react to threats with violence if they have been exposed to violence.

Fact #2: Without fail, every study on the subject has shown that children learn about the appropriateness of violence from the world around them, and that children who are exposed to violence regularly are far more likely to behave violently themselves.

Fact #3: Several studies by multiple groups have shown that men are more likely to approve or condone the abuse of women immediately after watching a television show where the abuse of women had occurred. Every study which has attempted to refute these findings has been funded by television interests.

Fact #4: It has now been conclusively proven that watching violent television shows and playing violent video games increases the body's production of testosterone and other neurotransmitters in a way that normally only occurs when we're in danger or are preparing to fight. These chemicals act as a "primer" to allow us to act aggressively.

Fact #5: People who live or work in situations where their bodies are regularly being primed for combat or flight typically have higher sustained testosterone and neurotransmitter levels. It's beleived that the body gets used to the situations and adapts by keeping a constant state of readiness. These people can then enter an aggressive state far more quickly than someone from a more docile environment.

Politics and rights aside, you won't find a single trained psychologist ANYWHERE who would claim that regular exposure to violence has no negative effect, and decades of studies have proven that our brains, at a basic level, do not differentiate between real and simulated violence.

You all can hash out how to balance these realities with rights and freedoms, but to claim that violent video games have no negative effects is patently false, and it's a belief that's only held by those who are in the game industry or who play video games and don't want to admit that their beloved games may have negative consequences.

I have to admit that it took me a while to come to grips with all of this. I was an avid FPS player for a long time, playing games from Doom 1 up until Quake2, and back then I used to laugh at the "idiots" who said that game playing was harmful. When I had to take some psychology courses and actually learned how the brain works, I changed my tune. I still play games like World Of Warcraft where the "violence" is very cartoony and bloodless, but I don't allow really violent games into my home anymore. Both of my older children are avid gamers, but neither of them plays games like GTA in my home.

[woo me with science]

75. one point

You write that, "Every study which has attempted to refute these findings has been funded by television interests."

That's fine, but you don't say what the results of these industry studies are, what evaluations of their methodologies have found, or if their results have been replicated. Just because a study is funded by a particular group does not automatically mean that its results are flawed. Naturally these are the groups that would have interest in doing such studies. One can just as easily argue that the original studies may have been initiated by folks with an agenda. If you have worked in university research departments, you know that agendas are often not lacking there, either. This issue gets very political all around.

Playing video games is a high base rate behavior among teens, and the studies do not account for the fact that large numbers of teens who play the games do NOT go out and violently attack others. Furthermore, some of the studies that have been done (which you appear to be alluding to above) have serious problems with examiner demand effects. It is very difficult to get a good picture of the actual role of video games in children's violence, given the multiple other factors that go into determining behavior.

[woo me with science]

76. also, check out this Salon article...

by an MIT professor who has amassed research supportive of video games in cognitive development. He describes how he went on Donahue attempting to make his case. Read his account of the (cough!) "fair and balanced" treatment he encountered. This issue is very politically charged on both sides, no matter how unbiased we might like to assume one side to be.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/20/jenkins_on_donahue/

[woo me with science]

77. excerpt from the article

"I knew what the activists opposed to gaming violence would say -- that computer games are too violent and are bad for young people. I was ready to tear them apart on the evidence. Despite all of the publicity about school shootings, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is currently at a 30-year low. When researchers interview people serving time for violent crimes, they find that they typically consume less media than the general population, not more. A 2001 surgeon general's report concluded that the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered around the quality of the child's home life and their mental stability, not their media exposure.

"The field of "media effects" research includes around 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive. Many have been criticized on methodological grounds, particularly because they attempt to strip complex cultural phenomena down to simple variables that can be tested in the laboratory. Most found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means they could simply be demonstrating that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment.

"Only about 30 of those studies deal with video games specifically. And if you actually read the reports, most responsible researchers are careful to qualify their findings and are reluctant to make sweeping policy recommendations. None of them buy a simple monkey-see, monkey-do hypothesis. But the activists strip aside any qualifications, simplifying their conclusions and mulching together all of those contradictory findings. What they want is the aura of scientific validation, since that provides cover to all of their liberal allies who wouldn't support the Moral Majority but love to sound off about cultural pollution."

[Xithras]

79. That's basicallythe route that the TV studies took

The studies done by the TV interests generally found no conclusive connections between video game violence andreal world violence, citing an unlimited number of external influences that also contribute to that violence.

The problem, of course, is that the original studies never actually accused TV of creating violence. What it does is prime the brain to be ready to react violently if the proper stimulus appears. It gets our fight or flight instinct active, but like other fight or flight activators, it won't actually trigger violence unless a focal point for it appears.

In another infamous study, researchers took several dozen men and asked them to answer a series of questions, one of which was: "Is it ever OK to beat and physically injure a woman?" It's been a while, but I recall that more than 90% of the men answered no. They then sat the men down and showed them a movie full of women who were cheating and duplicitous, who tried to kill their husbands, and who generally hated men. After the movie was over, they asked the men the same questions again. This time HALF of the men said YES, it IS SOMETIMES OK to beat and physically injure a woman. When questioned again two days later, their responses had returned to their pre-movie average.

Visual media does affect the way we perceive things, and colors our responses to situations. Whether we're talking television, movies, or video games is irrelevant.

The real problem with this discussion is that some people want to try and separate "video game violence" from other stimuli, when it's really all the same thing at a psychological level. A person who is consistently exposed to violence has a far higher likelyhood of behaving violently himself. This is not in dispute by ANYBODY, has been well known for over a century, and is backed up by dozens of studies done in every conceivable configuration.

Somehow, though, pro-media groups would like us to believe that violence on TV is "different" from actually seeing violence. We have unrefutable studies showing that the same chemicals are released in the brian in both circumstances, we have brain scans that have been done showing that the brain reacts electrically to simulated violence the same way it does to real violence, and yet we still have people trying to claim that it's somehow different. It's only different because of the money and politics involved.

Every day in this country tens of thousands of children watch their parents physically assault each other. That kind of exposure to violence makes it far likelier that these kids will have violent lives. Despite that, only a small fraction will actually go on to commit violent crimes...most will eventually become relatively normal members of society. What makes some snap while others don't? We don't know, but nobody would seriously argue that the original exposure to violence wasn't harmful. Is it the only thing that caused it? Probably not, but it "primed" them for it. Video games do the same thing.

[woo me with science]

80. I was with you until your last sentence.

The fact is that we don't know if video games do the same thing. See the excerpt I posted above. The main problem with your argument is that you are attempting to draw conclusions about causation based on methodologies that don't support that kind of conclusion.

Have you read the studies Jenkins cites--particularly the ones suggesting that home environment is much more likely to be associated with violent behavior than media use? It sure makes sense to me that a violent video game will have a different effect on a child than watching Daddy punch Mommy out. I strongly suspect that physiological studies would document a big difference, too--but of course the anti video game types would never fund studies like that, even if they were ethically feasible, which they are not.

You also have a problem, I think, in that your argument keeps shifting to talk about CONSISTENT exposure to violence (both here and above, where you said no psychologist would deny that regular exposure to violence is damaging). So how do we determine how often kids need to play these games before they are harmful? Do we intervene if they get played more than twice a week? twice a day? It is a very shaky argument if the damaging effect relies on CONSISTENT exposure. After all, consistent ingestion of sweets is really bad for you too. Does that mean we should regulate their accessibility?

All I am saying is that you seem to be making the same types of sweeping conclusions that folks on the other side make, including wanting to throw out any data that was generated by a group whose agenda you dislike. This is an exceedingly complex problem, and IMO those on either side who pretend that the answer is clear and decided are being a little disingenuous.

[LiberalPersona]

74. I believe

that video games are covered by our first amendment rights and therefore if any of them were banned it would be unconstitutional.

[Zhade]

85. Fun and protected speech, IMHO.

There's nothing like running up a skyscraper with a crosstown bus in your hands to toss it at a missile-launching helicopter bent on killing the Hulk.

That's just sheer fun!

Plus, it's not REALLY HAPPENING, and I seriously doubt little Timmy can handle the heft of a crosstown bus.

(Btw, Jack Thompson, if you're reading this: you're a fucking idiot.)

[Rocknrule]

90. "Those kids killed people because Sonic and Mario made them do it!"

Yes, Jack Thompson is an idiot. Here are some of his basic beliefs:

-Videogames are 100% responsible for every tragedy that has occured over the past 10 years
-Videogame violence is somehow more dangerous than movie violence, despite being less realistic
-Bulling and parental neglect had absolutely nothing to do with Columbine and other similar incidents. They all began and ended with videogames.
-Violence is never the answer, but the creaters of Doom and GTA should be stoned and executed for manslaughter (no kidding, he said this)
-The game industry is comparable with the Nazis and is actively trying to turn children into psychopathic killing machines
-If it wasn't for videogame violence, there would be world peace
-Videogames killed the dinosaurs, influenced Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, influenced the Romans to crucify Jesus, influenced Hitler to kill 6 million Jews, influenced Osama Bin Laden to fly planes into the WTC, and are in general the root of all evil

Simply put, if Sheila Brovlovski were a real person (and a man), she would be Jack Thompson

[FreedomAngel82]

87. As long as there are raitings than sure

I'm for them. Why not? I don't like them but someone down the road might. Parents are supposed to monitor their kids if they are young and not able to make their own decisions about what they like. If I had kids and I was buying their video game's and movies or music and it was violent in any way I'd say "no seriee". Age limit warnings are a good way to let the parents know. Plus, on website's now they have video game reviews and you can find out from those sites about the game's before you buy.

[trogdor]

89. Not enough tech.

That's my opinion. Until we have videogames that require HDTV and are based on fuzzy-logic for truly random bloodspatter, I remain unconvinced that we've gone beyond the level of Pythonesque violence-flavored animation.