Violence and Video Games

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

1. In the last decade, video games have become more and more realistic.

2. There have always been games with hurting/killing.

3. There are plenty of people out there who play video games and do not get violent.

4. There are plenty of people out there who don't play video games and are violent.

5. Video games have led to some people changing their habits and personalities.

Overall, do you personally think video games promote violence or is it just parents blaming outside factors for their own bad parenting?

P.S. Jack Thompson is a douche...

[Liz]

so yeah.

humm...

i don't think that violent video games cause violence directly. i think it's more like, violent people tend to prefer violent video games.

however, i do agree that it tends to somewhat increase aggression. i'm sure i read a study about it somewhere in my psychology class that showed an increase of aggression among children who played violent video games in comparison to children who didn't, but i'm too lazy to actually look for it now.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Champion Cynthia

[Kaire Koschuken]

People just like to find something to blame violence on rather than accept that it is your responsibility if you start shooting pedestrians.

Totally agree.

[Furby]

comic says everything. All hail the comic.

Anyway, I've got to say that, from what I've seen, it's people that don't play games that feel that way. Which they felt about rock music... and practically any new cultural or technological development that has happened ever.

Does it change us? Yeah. Does it cause violence? No. People cause violence.

[Superbus]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Just keep that statement in mind at all times. Video games do not make people violent. If *anything* they set off reactions in someone's head that exacerbates their natural tendencies. For instance, someone naturally inclined to shooting people in the head might be made more violent by controlling someone who shoots people in the head. It kinda works in the way porn makes people more inclined to fuck. Even then, that's going to be a vast, vast minority of people.

So what do we do about that? Do we censor everything that could set off the lower 1%? What's that going to do? Natural tendencies are just that: natural. They're not "awakened", as if they were Newtype powers. Censorship of videogames is just as foolish as censorship of drawings, of pornography, and of anything else "objectionable".

[-Cynthia-]

Psychological research has shown that violent video games increase aggression, but the effect size isn't very big.

Personally, I think an outright ban is too much, but more efforts could be in place to enforce ESRB ratings. Grand Theft Auto is really not appropriate for 8 year olds.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

More like the game Bully isn't really appropriate for Teen. But then again, that's just my opinion.

[Esau of Isaac]

Psychological research has shown that violent video games increase aggression, but the effect size isn't very big.

Personally, I think an outright ban is too much, but more efforts could be in place to enforce ESRB ratings. Grand Theft Auto is really not appropriate for 8 year olds.

In your opinion. I always liked when the rating system operated as a system of suggestions, which it seems to be slowly moving away from. The parent should know whether a kid can handle Grand Theft whatever. Personally, I'd say that as long as the kid understands it's fiction, and is capable of differentiating between what is appropriate and what is not (which games shouldn't make any significant impact on), that it's fine for a youngster to play most violent and/or gory games.

I don't see the current generation imploding because some eight-year-olds played Resident Evil nine years early, at the least.

[Aleph]

Violent video games

do not cause violence.

Overbearingly frustrating games do.

JUMP MARIO

I've had over a decade to prove this.

mario

jump

I think I know what I'm talking about.

Interesting post note, shooting things in Halo keeps me from needing to shoot things in person.

god dammit mario if you land in the lava one more time

[Raven]

To me, video games are just like movies, and should be treated as such. But because they want to find something to blame for anyone under 16 who has killed someone, they will blame the video game over the movie, since less people play games, particularly violent ones, than watch TV and movies - something that more or less everyone does.

I think it's about time that television and movies get blamed for teenagers going on shooting sprees. Also the parents should be to blame for allowing their psychologically fucked child to be exposed to things which can give them ideas on how to kill people - as well as the thought that it's "awesome" to do so. A parent should be able to tell if their kid has some sort of mental illness or is capable of doing such things, and so should do something about it.

I think.

[The Awesomest]

I wrote an essay about this in high school. I recall finding a graph that showed frequency of youth violence through the 90s and early 00s, with the release dates of the PSX and GTA III marked over it. It was in steady decline.

To me, video games are just like movies, and should be treated as such.

I disagree with this. The main difference between games and movies is that games are interactive - in one case, you're simply watching the killing; in the other, you're controlling the killing. I think this is where most of the fear comes from; people fear we've put the guns into the hands of the kids, and now they're shooting all their peers.

I mostly agree with everything else you said, though.

[Snowy_One]

No. I do not think video games cause violence. Rather, they do, but so do a lot of other things. Plus, I must ask what is ment by 'cause violence'. Do we mean someone who goes out on a rampage only because he played so many games as to want to kill people? Or do we mean someone getting mad and into a fight with someone else because the someone else deleted his save game data and they immediatly kiss and make up afterwards?

[-Cynthia-]

To me, video games are just like movies, and should be treated as such

I agree with this. R-rated movies are relatively hard to obtain without an adult's help, but the ESRB ratings aren't actually enforced (except for the rare Adults Only game but so few of these exist it hardly matters). If the ratings are actualy enforced this puts control of what the kid plays in the hands of the parents.

Snowy- I think the theory is more like the first one, playing video games makes you more prone to aggressive behavior not due to the game itself, but because violence is seen as a solution to problems.

Edited June 5, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'm generally opposed to censorship as a rule, so I don't support any big bannings or restricting of video games. Of course, we have some bizarre shit that goes on with our censorship, so yeah.

[Dark Sage]

I believe that if someone thinks that it's ok to shoot and kill people because they do that in video games, there's something wrong with them to begin with.

So no, I don't believe that video games cause violence, except in maybe a few cases.

[Kaire Koschuken]

I would also add that stores should not take morality into their own hands. It's just annoying. I'm 17 now, but when I was 16, I was just as ready to play M games. Stores like Gamestop shouldn't be carding people if there's no law against the sale of the games.

I reserved a copy of Mass Effect two with an eighteen year old friend present, but when I came to pick it up, the douche at the counter went out of his way to keep me from picking it up. [Also seems strange, considering that it is a STORE that is supposed to SELL things...] So I brought my dad in. Yay for wasting an hour or so and making me much less likely to buy from there....

Fuck Jack Thompson

Edited June 5, 2010 by Kaire Koschuken

[Esau of Isaac]

I would also add that stores should not take morality into their own hands. It's just annoying. I'm 17 now, but when I was 16, I was just as ready to play M games. Stores like Gamestop shouldn't be carding people if there's no law against the sale of the games.

I reserved a copy of Mass Effect two with an eighteen year old friend present, but when I came to pick it up, the douche at the counter went out of his way to keep me from picking it up. [Also seems strange, considering that it is a STORE that is supposed to SELL things...] So I brought my dad in. Yay for wasting an hour or so and making me much less likely to buy from there....

Fuck Jack Thompson

Depending on where you live, employees are indeed legally obligated to card you. I can't remember a time when I've gone in to buy some M-rated game these days without it occurring.

I disagree with this. The main difference between games and movies is that games are interactive - in one case, you're simply watching the killing; in the other, you're controlling the killing. I think this is where most of the fear comes from; people fear we've put the guns into the hands of the kids, and now they're shooting all their peers.

I mostly agree with everything else you said, though.

I've heard arguments that this is a much better thing, in that the activity leaves participants more rejective of more violent events, rather than having to completely accept all the events occurring while purely observing. Something about brain chemistry that sounded fishy in the first place.

Thought it worth mentioning.

[Parrhesia]

They don't. If a guy goes on a killing spree and claims they were trying to emulate Crackdown Guy, then THEY ARE A PSYCHOPATH. The game ain't to blame.

[Kaire Koschuken]

Depending on where you live, employees are indeed legally obligated to card you. I can't remember a time when I've gone in to buy some M-rated game these days without it occurring.

Actually, no. There is no law banning the sale of M rated games to anyone in the United States. It's a company policy. An infant can go out and buy GTA IV if they've got money. Now...employees are often bound to card you to keep their jobs...but never to stay out of prison.

There is one related law in Utah however, that makes it illegal for video game stores to advertise carding, but not implement it. Thanks a lot, JT.

But I don't live in mormonland Utah, so I'm fine.

[Esau of Isaac]

Actually, no. There is no law banning the sale of M rated games to anyone in the United States. It's a company policy. An infant can go out and buy GTA IV if they've got money. Now...employees are often bound to card you to keep their jobs...but never to stay out of prison.

There is one related law in Utah however, that makes it illegal for video game stores to advertise carding, but not implement it. Thanks a lot, JT.

But I don't live in mormonland Utah, so I'm fine.

If only I hadn't said M-rated. Then I could cite the BBFC.

[Life]

Controversy

The controversy surrounding the game stems from the graphic manner in which the player executes enemies. The game has three 'levels' of executions, and the executions get bloodier as the levels of execution progress. Level 1 executions are quick and the least bloody of the three, while Level 2 executions are considerably more gory, and Level 3 kills are over-the-top fatalities. The levels of fatalities are based on the lock-on's color (white, yellow, or red). For example, if using the plastic bag and the lock-on is green, then the fatality is minor. The player just strangles the enemy and nothing else. If the lock-on is yellow, the player strangles and continuously punches the enemy in the head. If the lock-on is red, then the player strangles, punches, and knees the enemy's head while the enemy groans in pain and suffers from lack of oxygen. The game's graphic presentation of the executions are accentuated in a style reminiscent of a snuff film, and the game encourages players to execute enemies as brutally as possible. In 2007, former Rockstar employee Jeff Williams wrote on his blog that the game wasn't unanimously revered among the developers either, saying that "there was almost a mutiny at the company over that game", and the game "just made us all feel icky. It was all about the violence, and it was realistic violence. We all knew there was no way we could explain away that game. There was no way to rationalize it. We were crossing a line."

The murder of Stefan Pakeerah

In the UK, the game was linked to the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, 14, by his friend Warren Leblanc, 17, on the 27 February 2004. Giselle Pakeerah, the victim's mother, claimed that Leblanc had been 'obsessed' with the game after he pleaded guilty in court. During the subsequent media exposure, the game was removed from sale by some vendors, such as the UK and international branches of GAME and Dixons, leading to "significantly increased" demand both from retailers and on Internet auction sites. The police denied any such link between the game and the murder, citing drug-related robbery as the motive. The presiding judge also placed sole responsibility with Leblanc in his summing up after sentencing him to life. It was later discovered that Leblanc did not actually own the game, but Pakeerah did.

Legal status

* New Zealand: The game was declared objectionable on December 11, 2003. Possession is an offense.

* Canada: Following a meeting in Toronto on December 22, 2003 between Bill Hastings, the Chief Censor of New Zealand, and officials from the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, Manhunt became the first computer game in Ontario to be classified as a film and was restricted to adults on February 3, 2004.

* Australia: It was refused classification (and effectively banned) on September 28, 2004 by the Classification Review Board after having earlier received a classification allowing it to be purchased by those aged 15 years or older.

* Germany: On July 19, 2004, the Amtsgericht Munich confiscated all versions of Manhunt for violation of § 131 StGB (representation of violence). The game, the court said, portrays the killing of humans as fun, and the more fun, the more violent the killing is. They also sensed a glorification of vigilantism, which they considered harmful per se.

However, apart from Ontario, Manhunt had little or no controversy elsewhere in North America. The British Columbia Film Classification Office reviewed the game after the controversy in Ontario and believed it to be appropriately rated Mature by the ESRB and comparable to an 18A film rather than an R rated one.

Do I honestly think that violent video games cause violence in return? When you have a game like Manhunt or Condemned, then maybe. But as for most games, it's overblown hype. Kids love watching Friday the 13th. Does that mean that they'll take a machete, put on an old hockey mask and murder half the street? I think the correct answer is no and it's the same with video games.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Life

[Crystal Shards]

Ratings are generally useless. Turning 17 doesn't make you mature enough to play a rated M game, just like it doesn't make you ready to see an NC-17 movie. I do think that it does condition people to be less sensitive, and that can be a problem, and studies show that they don't in fact act as catharsis, but I feel like you should know your kids' mental levels and what they can and can't handle. I could handle playing games with graphic qualities in 4th grade but I also realized that's not how you treat people. A lot of people my age at that time did not. I can think of one example off the top of my head: one student, when we were in fifth grade, decided he wanted to try out a wrestling move on me. Despite the size differences (he was rather short and I was stronger), he could have seriously hurt me. Obviously he didn't, but the fact remains: he obviously didn't understand that you don't attempt those moves on people. This is a mild example, but I think it's a more realistic ones than the horror stories you see in the news.

[Phoenix]

I'd like to compare video games to every other part of society(and parts of history) really quick ...

GTA vs Downtown Chicago (... 1986ish?(for better violence)

In GTA games the goal is usually to complete a bunch of missions for a bunch of different people who do little for you in return if they don't try to shoot you in the back of the head, etc. GTA tends to condition you to distrust people, and see them as a means to an end rather than fellow human beings.

I don't know anything about Chicago other than it's violent reputation. I'd imagine growing up on "the streets" will have a similar effect to GTA, minus the ridiculous amount of money you end up with by the end of the story missions.

Does GTA cause violence? No. Does Chicago cause violence? No. But the bad influences could use some toning down a bit.

Call of Duty vs Military Service

In CoD or any other modern warfare game, the violence is absolutely over the top and can be unrealistic at times, and that's ignoring all the bullets a player can take over the course of eighty-five do overs. I've personally played these kinds of games and they tend to do the following:

Increase aggressiveness (temporarily/fades upon gratification or satisfaction)

Desensitizes you (this might be permanent and I'm ashamed of some of the gruesome things I've laughed at)

Carnality increase (hard to explain ... more along the lines of simplistic thinking)

Actual military service is widely recognized to do the same thing, minus the carnality increase if you're not on the ground with a gun in your hand.

Does Call of Duty cause violence? No. Does the military cause violence? No Yes Probably. But glorifying all this carnage can't be good for our minds, young or old. I've actually become a lot more sadistic in my teenage years than I ever would have been had I not indulged in these kinds of games. My bro plans to join the military as well. Whether that's the video games influence or not, I can't say, but he's even more horrifying to watch while playing them than I thought I was.

Need For Speed vs Illegal Street Racing(won't screw with this too long)

Basically you race for money and outrun the cops while you do it.

Does Need For Speed cause racing violence. No, because I doubt if you're playing these games you can afford a $200,000 car with nitrus anyway. Does illegal street racing cause violence? No, but it happens just the same, because dumb drivers really want that pink slip, and they will kick your ass to get it.

Medieval Genre games vs Medieval Society

I can't compare Medieval stuff to anything but the era they're based on so back through history we go. The world was a simpler place back then. Less technology meant fewer outlets, and this is actually getting to the core of the whole issue. Society was brutal, and carnal, with most wars being fought over necessary resources or matters of pride and lust. With these games you can live the carnal life, and for some reason a lot of people find that addicting. Commanding armies is fun, and that's why Fire Emblem is so popular. In those societies trinkets and gadgets were for scholars and sorcerers. People needed food, water, sex, and status. Not iPhones, laptops, Myspace, and mainstream music.

Do medieval games cause violence? HELL NO!!! If anything, it atrophies the nerds' limbs so they aren't capable of violence. I'm looking at you D&D. Just kidding around a bit but not really. Did Medieval society cause violence? No, but it gave some decent incentive I think.

(trailing away from comparisons now) Nowadays the pretentiousness has gone way way up and we pretend to be more civil than we actually are. In fact, video games seem to be the primary gateway back into our true nature of simplistic violence. Let's face it, technological golden age society isn't for everyone. Sometimes you just want to carry a great sword over your back and kill evildoers for a living. Video games give people an outlet rather than a reason. Some just take it too far, and actually shoot someone. But that happens anyway. A man who plays GTA is a hundred times less likely to gun someone down in real life simply because he can do it in GTA, without going to jail, and even use a chainsaw instead of a gun if he wants. Does he have violent tendencies? Yep, but he's also got his game with the chainsaw and an infinite body count of annoying civilians with no purpose other than being bullet fodder.

Now I personally don't like violent video games, though like an ignorant jackass I play them anyway and expect to fix the sensitivity damage later on after starting a family or something, but I do like to give credit where credit is due, and violence cannot be pinned on video games, OR our society, it can only be pinned on human nature. Humans kill things for many reasons, and though our environment and entertainment outlets do increase the likelihood ever so slightly if at all, they are NOT the direct cause. Look through history. There weren't video games back then and people were perfectly fine killing each other, and over the smallest things no less. Pin violence on video games, and I'll pin global warming on you. Not all of us ... just you ... you and your gas guzzling smog crapping SUV. Parents blame violence on video games? Fine. I blame them for stupid parenting. I'm right, their wrong.

Urgh ... okay no more ranting >_<

[Phoenix Wright]

Banning violent video games would be a dumb move. If someone is violent only because they played the role of a violent character in a video game, they're aren't "right in the head," or they were naturally born overly violent and aggressive. No one should play Metal Gear Solid and after they turn their game off sneak around the corner and knock someone out cold. It's not even common sense for you to realize not to do that, it's social conditioning. As Superbus said, that person was always violent, it wasn't "awakened" because of video games, or any other type of entertainment.

To speak on California specifically, Leland Yee's bill is being taken all the way into California's Supreme Court, even after being overruled 3-0 in a California Court of Appeals. They found no evidence suggesting that "ultraviolent" video games harm children psychologically.

People believe too strongly that video games bring out the worst in people, when in fact for some, it is a "vent" for their anger. Just like swimming or playing other sports, or hitting a punching bag.

[Snowy_One]

One thing I must say though is that a lot of M-rated games tend to be either wargames or games that glorify in violence and sex and it would probably help video games case out a lot if they weren't. Recently I read a article on Cracked which pointed out that more often than not M means '17 year old male' than 'mature in terms of the content actually offered. We don't have a lot of M-rated games that are actually mature. Ironically, a lot of T-rated games are far more mature than M-rated games, but M-rated games have more nudity and violence than them.