Discussions
Violence in video games
Posted by bitburonet • 8/12/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: video games, violence
The blog that I run focuses on the video game industry, and several of the articles we've recently posted deal with the spat of violent crimes which are being attributed to Grand Theft Auto IV.
Then today The Daily Mail had a story (horrible story, really, rife with errors) quoting John Beyer, director of Mediawatch-UK, saying that the Wii effectively should not be allowed to have any violent games in their software library because it would "spoil" the console.
My question is this: do any of you actually believe that there is a direct link between violence on television or in video games and violent crimes committed in real life? Is it the video game's fault, or the parents' fault for buying their children Mature games?
User Comments
-
It is my personal opinion that violent media (music, video games, movies, TV) when watched by children can cause violent adolescents, teens, and adults.
Why?
Because children do not typically have the capability of separating out reality from fiction, when violent things happen on TV or in movies, particularly in video games, the end result is that the hero always wins, someone got saved, no one was hurt, or you died, and hit "play again" successfully starting over with no harm done.
Also - children, particularly young children learn by mimicking others. So it is only natural that if a child is consistently around violence, they will become violent - real or otherwise.
That said, I believe this to be true of children with constant access to violent media, very little parental supervision/interaction, and very little social interaction with peers and various peer groups.
SO... it isn't "just the video games" but rather a combination of things that yes - all stem back to the parents. But it should be made clear, that just because a parent does interact or supervise their child, violent media is still not appropriate for children who are not mature enough to comprehend both the violence, and the difference between reality and make believe. -
Of course people are influenced by media, if they weren't we wouldn't have a multi billion dollar advertising industry.
I think video games may be more influential to young people because they are interactive. -
@ Anok: Thank you for that well thought out response.
I agree with you 100%- what I don't like, however, is the knee-jerk reaction we keep seeing as a result. For example, the incident in Thailand last week where a teenager (now revealed to be 19 years old) claimed he was trying to recreate a scene from a video game when he murdered a taxi driver. What was the government's response? Ban the video game entirely.
Not only is 19 old enough to know better, but the "scene" he referred to doesn't exist within the game. No one thought to actually evaluate any of the evidence beyond what the Thai police stated in their press release. It's just "shit, video game violence, roar roar roar," right off the bat. And it isn't just sensationalist articles - check this out: www.destructoid.com/parents-more-worried-about-gta-than-alcohol-or-pornogra...-
I agree with you on that. I don't think that media sources should be allowed as justifications for violent behavior - they are scapegoats for those who are old enough to know better.
My husband has GTA IV, and it IS a violent game. And it is rather interactive, and quite detailed, too. It's like GTA meets the Sims. It's wild, and for a video game, it is rather realistic looking too. I can see how it could be a problem for children and even teens to play.
But adults? Nah, if they can't control their impulses and don't know right from wrong by that point in time, the root problem is something else. Something much, much deeper
-
I definitely agree that the response is short-sighted and does not get to the heart of the issue. At 19 years old you are an adult. You're not a child anymore.
Also, this young man obviously has a mental problem. The media should be focused on how society failed this person instead of worrying about a video game.
-
-
I also blog about video games. I don't think games cause most children to be violent. Blaming video games for violence is a habit of sensationalist media and lazy parenting. Why don't people complain about other violent media as well? (i.e. violent movies and comic books). The most violent of video games are rated accordingly so I have to ask, "Why aren't parents doing a better job of monitoring the media their children consume?"
It is my belief that violence in video games can have an effect on at-risk children (i.e. those that are emotionally unstable or disordered). In those cases violent video games can be one of MANY factors that could lead one to be violent.
But for parents that are concerned I must ask that they do their jobs and not buy games that are rated M for mature.
Also a great book to read on this subject is Grand Theft Childhood.-
But for parents that are concerned I must ask that they do their jobs and not buy games that are rated M for mature.
Which is essentially the point, though. If violent video games and other media had no effect on children, there would be no rating system, and thus, no need for parental intervention.
But there is, because it does. The problem most reasonable adults have with these games isn't that they exist - but rather that they are often marketed to children.
For the record, us parents do address other violent media as well
-
@Anok: Can you explain to me how these are marketed to children? And if so, how is that relevant? Parents need to step up and do their jobs. The games are rated. How can a children afford a 60 dollar video game?
As as I said before I think violent games can be one of MANY factors that could lead to violence. I think there should be more concern over domestic violence in the family and alcohol abuse. These have be scientifically proven to contribute to violence. The same cannot be said of video games. Please pick up a copy of Grand Theft Childhood for more on this. -
Not just video games, but movies, music, and TV shows in general.
Advertisements, for one thing, video games and consoles are HUGE in the adolescent groups, and how many violent (mature) video games are created, marketed, and sold compared to the PG type games for consoles such as Playstation, Xbox, etc? Proportionately speaking, the games being heavily marketed and make up the majority of games to be played are the violent ones - this isn't the time of Mario Brothers, Donkey Kong, and Frogger anymore.
And while I did address parental absence as being a major factor with regards to this debate - it does not negate the fact that consistent exposure to violent media causes problems in young children.
So, the debate isn't whether or not the video games affect children (because they do), but rather how to keep them out of the hands of children by giving them proper alternatives - better educating parents about how the games actually do affect their children (many parents do not believe they have any effect at all), and other social problems like latchkey children who are actually lacking in physical supervision.
One thing to do is to stop marketing the products as if consoles and video games were made for adults - because although adults do make up a percentage of that market, they were originally, and continue to be marketed towards children.
And you'd be surprised at how many kids can shell out $60 bucks for a video game, or $100 bucks for a cell phone, without their parent's knowledge. -
The big question
CAN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CAUSE MENTAL ILLNESS IF NOT USED INTELIGENTLY>
I say YES
-
-
I think the word every 1 is looking for is "Desensitization." People becoming numb to violence, which is normally attributed to, as has been listed, the media, hollywood, video games, etc.
And I'd say for the most part, they'd be right. But environment I think should also play a part in the deduction. Families that allow little Billy or whomever play these games without any discussion as to what they are seeing/interacting with, aide in the problem.
Of course, there are benefits I suppose they could be called. The military does use combat simulations for soldiers, combat pilots improve their hand-eye coordination via flight fighter sims. And if your living in one of the larger cities in the US, it's likely that your Police Dept. utilizes the shoot/don't shoot simulator. Of which newscasters out to castrate police departments fail at miserably.
So there's ups and downs. Yeah, it all has an effect in 1 way or another, but there are useful arenas as well.-
I don't even think it's numbness to violence, but rather acceptance and mimicry of it, with regards to children.
I agree that there is a huge benefit to simulators in training, though.
But that isn't nearly the same as playing GTA, or the new game out "Bully" -
True Anok, very true.
Some games are just downright evil in nature. -
I gotta tell ya, the new GTA out - it's pretty gosh darn violent. Enough to make me NOT want to be in the room when the hubby plays it, and I'm not the overly squeamish type.
Did you see that new game "Bully"? It is literally a school bully - you get to be the bully, and you win the game if you are a very good one, apparently. You have to trash the school, and beat up other kids and such.
Now who is that game geared to, I wonder?
-
-
I'm considering reloading "Diablo" on my PC. The satanic looking critters running around in that, don't seem nearly as evil as some of the newer games that have come out recently.
-
LOL I know, the "violent' games I used to play seem pansy-ish now!
-
-
Bah! Jack Thompson is a moron, and anyone who thinks playing a video game will cause a sane person to shoot up a school needs to visit Dr. Kevorkian for the sake of the average intelligence of the gene pool.
www.kobrascorner.com/misc/game-critics.php-
I disagree Voodoo - if we are talking about the psychological and social conditioning that consistent exposure to violence in any form has on a developing child.
In fact, science disagrees with you on that point, too.
On the other and, if you are talking about a teen ager playing a violent video game one in a while, and never when they were younger, I would agree with you. -
Note that I said sane person.
Video games aren't the cause, they're just one of many factors. The only video game that Cho (the kid who shot up Virginia Tech) owned was a Sonic the Hedgehog game. -
Well, he was actually mentally unstable. I don't think anyone has stated that all violence stems from video games.
However, when you start looking at statistics involving violent crimes and violent behavior in school systems - in grades as low as kindergarten - the levels have increased dramatically - even with all of the zero tolerance (bullstuff) in schools meant to prevent such behavior.
You have to ask what has changed in society to create more youth violence?
Well, accessibility and mass marketing of media that exposes children to violence and other adult entertainment has become a booming business. Large percentages of kids are spending more and more time at home, by themselves, playing games online and on consoles, watching movies and TV shows that do have adult content and increasingly younger ages.
Since we know that exposure to behaviors at young ages helps formulate and solidify basic character traits in children, it is safe to say that an increased exposure to increasingly violent media is a huge culprit.
Unfortunately, I don't think that for past generations, parents knew that they could have this kind of effect on their children, and they were permissive, not knowing all the facts. Now, of course, as studies are coming back saying that the desocialization plus violent and/or adult content do infact impact children, parents are becoming a bit more adamant about what their kids can and cannot play or watch.
Unfortunately, they are fighting an uphill battle, as many kids already have the access and ability to get the media they want, and with the peer groups already saturated with the addiction to such games and media - it will be along time before we can get back to square one.
Essentially the "everyone is doing it" mantra is actually working against parents in this time period because quite frankly, you have a lot of parents out there who work long hours and simply cannot provide the kind of supervision that was once standard in homes.
-
-
Computer games in no way resemble the games I played in my formative years. Computer games now resemble movies and it makes sense to categorise them in the same way as films are.
As a crazy irresponsible uncle I did an experiment on my 10 year old nephew. Sat him down in front of Half Life2 in a darkened room. After ten minutes he was in tears and slept with the light on for a couple of weeks.-
They are categorized, though. The US has the ESRB, the UK has the BBFC. I feel as though once the games are assessed, labeled with a rating and a very explicit warning, the proverbial "buck" then passes on to the parents.
-
A friend of mine lets her toddler aged child watch movies that are much too violent for his age (consistently)- and he does have problems because of it. Although he has become - as John put it - desensitized to the actual violence and scary parts, he has a very hard time differentiating between reality, and the plots and characters/creatures in the movies.
And, truth be told, the movies aren't that scary for someone like me, or a teenager, etc..but to a toddler, Jurassic park, and movies like that are terribly frightening.
He also has a bad habit of playing violent games, and violently mimics things like shooting and such. You can see the effect, that's for sure!
-
-
@Anok: If you are so concerned you should talk to the toddler's parents. To me this is yet another case of lazy parenting.
-
It's not lazy parenting, it is her active CHOICE as a parent to expose her child to this type of media.
She doesn't have a problem with it, she doesn't feel it has any effect on her child at all. It does, of course, and when that child gets older, and starts exhibiting strange behaviors she's going to wonder what the problem is...
Well duh! -
Again, people like you fail to look into the facts surrounding the issue. I urge you to pick up a copy of GrandTheft Childhood and review the studies that have been done. The research came out of Harvard. I can't find a well-run study that was able to conclude that some video game (by itself) caused someone to be violent.
On the other hand I've seen studies that show that domestic abuse in the home, and alcoholism can lead one to act out in violence. All you are doing is stating your opinion. This is all well and good but your opinion is not fact. The facts are that video games have not been proven to do the things you are talking about. -
Let me repeat myself - if exposure to violence in the home can cause violence, then that INCLUDES exposure by way of video games, TV, movies, etc..
Children are sponges, they learn what they are taught, they are taught by exposure. Consistent exposure to violence - particularly in younger ages where the line between reality and fantasy are blurred - causes violence.
If they had no effect on children then they would not be RATED, as there would be no problems.
This is basic child development, 101.
I will add this:
A child under the age of 18 cannot buy cigarettes, porn, or R rated movies - but they can buy Grand theft Auto and other violent games like Bully. Hmmmm what's wrong with this picture? -
I thought the games like Grand Theft Auto have some age limits. According to Wikipedia they are 18+ or 15+, probably depends on country.
Imagine that a 10 years old child steals alcohol or pornography from the shop. Who is to blame? The child, and the parents, because they failed to teach their child that (a) stealing is wrong, and (b) some things are not appropriate for children. Now imagine that a parent will buy alcohol or pornography for their 10 years old child as a birthday present. Against, this is obviously the parent's fault. And now... imagine that the 10 years old child downloads (steals) the Grand Theft Auto from internet, or convices parents to buy it. Who is to blame? The evil game producers, of course! This seems unfair.
-
-
Oh please, the most bloodiest wars were fought long before tv was around. Not buying it for a second.
I grew up playing some pretty bad games and don't even get me started on movies.-
Yes, but those bloody wars were NOT televised, consistently exposed to children, nor were they fictional at all for the children who were exposed to the real violence.
Fictional violence (where no one gets hurt) has a different effect on the psyche than real violence, where the mind and body are immediately affected negatively, and often cause trauma and great loss. (And, for what it's worth, exposure to real violence does cause psychological problems such as PTSD which can cause violence as well as assorted other consequences).
Children who are consistently exposed to fictional violence do not associate the real and grave consequences of actual violence, and generally can accept that violence is a game, and can be fun. Like in video games.
I grew up with Atari and Nintendo games - none of which had violent games like they have out today. Not even the playstation games were this violent when it first came out. Nor were they as realistic. -
Yeah, but if people don't complain about games then it's movies or music; Same old argument. back in the 50s they complained that Elvis was perverse, and in the 60s that Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones were satanic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
"Fictional violence (where no one gets hurt) has a different effect on the psyche than real violence, where the mind and body are immediately affected negatively, and often cause trauma and great loss."
(I assume you can prove this?)
And again, you're wrong. People still complained about Atari and Nintendo being violent. Atari had "The texas chainsaw massacre" which stores refused to sell due to violence, and nintendo was to blame for Friday the 13th. Realism doesn't matter in the slightest, when you look at the big picture.
You even contradicted yourself by saying "Fictional Violence" and then "Realistic" in the next part. Which is it? -
Yeah, but if people don't complain about games then it's movies or music; Same old argument. back in the 50s they complained that Elvis was perverse, and in the 60s that Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones were satanic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
When it comes to children, what we expose them to DOES have an effect on them, good and bad. Of course, there will always be something that someone will complain about - but we have to look at the legitimacy of the claim. Elvis's hips were frowned upon because it was sexual innuendo - vs actual porn...heavy metal music that sounded mean and dark VS music that actually glorifies gang violence and woman abuse and pimps and hoes. Video games that included a cartoon character jumping on an imaginary cartoon foe VS video games with realistic graphics that encourage realistic violence aimed at other realistic humans....
(I assume you can prove this?)
Can I prove that exposure to violence such as war, abuse, and other psychologically traumatizing events cause PTSD as well as other psychological problems? Uhm, it's pretty well established already
And again, you're wrong. People still complained about Atari and Nintendo being violent. Atari had "The texas chainsaw massacre" which stores refused to sell due to violence, and nintendo was to blame for Friday the 13th. Realism doesn't matter in the slightest, when you look at the big picture.
When did Atari sell Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Before or after Donkey Kong and Pitfall?
When was Nintendo held responsible for Friday the 13th? I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Those were movies - both very violent movies and NOT suitable for children.
You even contradicted yourself by saying "Fictional Violence" and then "Realistic" in the next part. Which is it?
Go back and re read what I said. Exposure to violence via any means has it's consequences - real violence lends itself to trauma based psychological problems (re: war, severe violence, abuse - all have real tangible negative effects on the human pysche that can lead to violent behavior) HOWEVER said violent behavior is typically due to the psychological problems that the original violence created.
In other words, the children exposed to it aren't acting violent because they think it is a game, but rather it's because of psychological trauma.
On the flip side, children exposed to fictional violence - such as movies, music, TV, video games, etc...are also affected by the exposure - but in a different way. They do not have the psychological scarring and trauma/disorders that real violence causes - what they have is a general acceptance that violence is OK, it's a game, and no one gets hurt.
Children have a hard time (and very young children have no concept) distinguishing between reality and fiction - meaning that if they see something on TV that is totally made up, but realistic enough they are likely to think it is real. For example, The little boy I mentioned above - he totally and completely thinks that the dinosaurs in Jurassic park are real, alive, and could eat him in the middle of the night. No matter how often his mom tells him it's only make believe, to him, it could happen.
So when you allow young children to partake in games that advocate realistic violence, particularly towards other people with NO consequences that have any effect on the child - they are likely to think that violence of this sort is harmless (it doesn't harm the people in the game, why would it harm real people?)- and all of a sudden, you have little kids beating the crap out of each other. It doesn't help tat kids naturally mimic what others do.
In fact, there was a rash of accidents that occurred by kids who constantly watched the pro wrestling and jackass series. Not realizing that what their favorite "heroes" did every day was dangerous, and well choreographed and back up by medical professionals just in case, they opted to imitate them, and ended up seriously hurting, and in a few cases killing, their friends or siblings.
That was DIRECT imitation of their favorite TV star, show, or video game. No implied violence whatsoever. That's when parents, doctors, and the like started raising the red flags, and started putting waring on the shows, and video games etc..Jackass and the WWF narrowly escaped some very serious lawsuits because of this.
To say that children are not effected by what we expose them to is as disingenuous as saying their physical health has nothing to do with what foods we feed them. Parents are the first line of defense, and I am a HUGE advocate of parental responsibility. However many of us are becoming increasingly frustrated with a serious lack of choice for those of us who do not wish our children be exposed to violent material. -
You still aren't showing any credibility though. You started this topic with the sentence of "It is my personal opinion that..". to "So it is only natural that if a child is consistently around violence, they will become violent - real or otherwise."
"Can I prove that exposure to violence such as war, abuse, and other psychologically traumatizing events cause PTSD as well as other psychological problems? Uhm, it's pretty well established already"
(Ok, by whom has it been established by? Please give your sources to these psychological studies and explain why they are accurate.)
"When did Atari sell Texas Chainsaw Massacre?"
www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0834/
(Read the article. Does it remind you of anything still said today? Remember that in order for any progress to be made, it's best to learn from the past. The graphics in the game don't matter in the slightest, just read what people said about it when it was released. They were just as angry back then as they are now.)
You again contradict yourself with this: "So it is only natural that if a child is consistently around violence, they will become violent - real or otherwise."
(With this statement, you mean that everyone exposed to violence will become violent. You give no exceptions)
In the next paragraph, you said this:
"Because children do not typically have the capability of separating out reality from fiction..."
(Key word here is Typically. This implies that there may be an exception. You have two different opinions.)
I really don't see the sense in talking about this any further due to the fact that you're crossing the line from opinion to 'Proven' with nothing to back it up. This is why the debate of "Do video games cause violence" will never reach a conclusion. -
It seems ridiculous that I need to post these links, seeing as the psychological community as a whole agree on the basic consequences of exposure to violence, all you need to do is Google PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). I've done some pretty extensive research on child psychology, child development, and how it coincides with how children learn, some of the later article might interest you:
www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/index.jsp
www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.sh...
www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/vio_child.asp
www.aaets.org/article8.htm
www.nccev.org/violence/index.html
www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/7/4/1/p127415_inde...
www.acadv.org/children.html
crime.about.com/od/childneglect/a/ajm050308.htm
kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html
www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html
Findings
Virtually since the dawn of television, parents, teachers, legislators, and mental health professionals have been concerned about the content of television programs and its impact, particularly on children. Of special concern has been the portrayal of violence, especially given psychologist Albert Bandura’s work on social learning and the tendency of children to imitate what they see (see www.psychologymatters.org/bandura2.html). As a result of 15 years of consistently disturbing findings about the violent content of children’s programs, the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior was formed in 1969 to assess the impact of violence on the attitudes, values and behavior of viewers. The resulting Surgeon General’s report and a follow-up report in 1982 by the National Institute of Mental Health identify these major effects of seeing violence on television:
* Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others
* Children may be more fearful of the world around them
* Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others
www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml
# Since the 1950s, more than 1,000 studies have been done on the effects of violence in television and movies. The majority of these studies conclude that: children who watch significant amounts of television and movie violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, attitudes and values (Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1999).
# Media violence affects children's behavior states the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (Congressional Public Health Summit, 2000).
# Children are affected at any age, but young children are most vulnerable to the effects of media violence (Bushman, 2001). Young children
* are more easily impressionable.
* have a harder time distinguishing between fantasy and reality.
* cannot easily discern motives for violence.
* learn by observing and imitating.
# Young children who see media violence have a greater chance of exhibiting violent and aggressive behavior later in life, than children who have not seen violent media (Congressional Public Health Summit, 2000).
# Violent video games can cause people to have more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; and decrease empathetic, helpful behaviors with peers (Anderson, 2004; Gentile, 2003).
www.public.asu.edu/~dbodman/candv/
www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html
Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that each of these help learning - active involvement improves learning, rewards increase learning, and repeating something over and over increases learning.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/
The team divided a group of 44 adolescents into two groups, and randomly assigned the kids to play one of the two games. Immediately after the play sessions, the children were given MRIs of their brains.
The scans showed a negative effect on the brains of the teens who played “Medal of Honor” for 30 minutes. That same effect was not present in the kids who played “Need for Speed.”
The only difference? Violent content.
www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/video.games.html
A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993).
Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993). -
You still didn't answer why you contradict yourself...Last reply I made that point. Guess you didn't catch it. Didn't even get a reply about the texas chainsaw massacre part either, just a bunch of links.
Blaming video games for violence is like blaming mcdonalds for people being fat. -
Yes, the Chain Saw Massacre game, as pointed out in your link was still for sale, but was so BAD it only sold a few copies, and was not ever released to the general public.
Ergo, it has little relevance to the conversation.
Furthermore, I have not contradicted myself, I made myself clear, then provided links and excerpts to show you that not only do I base what I am saying on research and development by experts, but that I did not form my opinion in a bubble.
It is clear that you did not actually bother to read the links I provided, at your request. Because they talk about the difference between real violence, and associated problems, and fictional violence and it's effects on children Both of which I have addressed several times - unless you think all the experts are contradicting themselves as well.
I know that people hate to hear that the things they expose their children to, and the choices they make for children actually DOES affect them and not just in mild ways, but sometimes in serious ways, the fact remains that it does. There is no getting around it.
For people who aren't parents, I don't know why they bother worrying about it. n o on is advocating that the games adults love should be banned - but rather most parents are asking for better regulation, less access, more options, and to better educate parents as to the effects of media and child development.
I have always wondered though, why adults who are not violent and don't condone violence would want to play such grossly violent games anyway? Makes you think.... -
"Yes, the Chain Saw Massacre game, as pointed out in your link was still for sale, but was so BAD it only sold a few copies, and was not ever released to the general public."
No, you twisted this around and rephrased how you saw fit. It wasn't available because stores refused to sell it due to violent content and fears of being boycotted. The only places that did, did it under the counter available by request. Original, boxed copies are now highly valuable and one of the rarest games of all time...Just like the history of GTA San Andreas.
You also failed to get the point I was trying to make, regarding texas chainsaw massacre. This is why it's pointless to debate with you. Still didn't respond to the contradiction (For the third time). -
Anok thanks for the resources
-
WHAT contradiction? I have not made any - I have fully and completely explained my position (which does not contradict itself) and then furthermore backed it up with RESEARCH that said the same thing I did!
And no, I didn't twist the words of the site you referenced.
TCM might've featured a sadistic little story, but nobody was going to be offended by what they saw on the screen. Few copies were sold, and the lucky carts that've survived till now are decisive rarities costing as much as 300 bucks for boxed editions.
That said, it was not marketed to, nor able to be discussed by the general public - and the few people who did buy it thought is sucked - ergo, the point is moot. Parents were not complaining about it, because they didn't even know it existed. Apples to oranges comparisons.
Listen, what is the problem with admitting that exposure to violence has an effect on children? Why are you and what'shername so adamantly opposed to what everyone else knows is factual?
What's the hang up?
-
-
I don't play video games, but I like what somebody said in (I think) the NYTimes when there was a controversy about drunk driving in one of the popular games, something along the lines of: people play video games specifically to do things they can't or wouldn't do in real life.
Admittedly, one could question that based on my friend's bass fishing video game, but I guess I'd just call that doing things one can't do while stuck in an office. -
I played a lot of Mortal Kombat in my younger years. Why haven't I torn out someone's spine yet?-
Yeah, I played a lot of Sonic The Hedgehog. For some reason, I didn't grow blue hair and run around town with a friend named Tails.
Oh wait, I actually did. Ok, bad argument. -
Probably because the mortal combat stuff is highly unrealistic, you were older (teenager) and didn't play it nonstop.
-
All right... I played Tecmo Bowl non-stop as a kid. Why aren't I the starting quarterback for the Chicago Bears?
-
Because in real life you can't play football?
Non violent video games tend not to cause violent effects on in kids, However, it might have increased your love for the game. -
So it's resolved that since Tecmo Bowl didn't teach me to be a quarterback, Halo or Grand Theft Auto won't teach someone how to use a firearm. There are too many steps in between playing Doom and shooting up a high school to say that video games are the problem.
-
Good logic
-
A) You don't have to be "taught" how to pull a trigger the same way you have to learn how to play an intricate sports game that requires athletic ability. Anyone can pick up a loaded weapon, and fire it. Not everyone can be a QB.
B) You don't have to teach a kid how to beat another kid over the head with a bat, with their fists, or get into a gang. What the video games do do, however, is encourage them to do it. Which is what everyone is talking about.
The games don't teach you how but rather teaches you that violence is acceptable, and for children, encourages it by the way they learn.
It's not good logic, it's an apples to oranges comparison. -
"A) You don't have to be "taught" how to pull a trigger the same way you have to learn how to play an intricate sports game that requires athletic ability. Anyone can pick up a loaded weapon, and fire it. Not everyone can be a QB."
Sure you can. Pick up a ball and throw it. Football is anything but an intricate sport. You catch a ball and run and tackle whoever has the ball. bfd..
"B) You don't have to teach a kid how to beat another kid over the head with a bat, with their fists, or get into a gang. What the video games do do, however, is encourage them to do it. Which is what everyone is talking about."
That's a big pill to push. If you're claiming that games encourage violence, that also means being entertained by a violent movie will do the same. Or by painting a picture with violent material, anyone looking at it and appreciating it will also be encouraged to act violently. Your argument has no merit, and you do admit that it isn't good logic. Not to mention neither you or anyone else can prove any of this. You're just making statements that all people think alike, nothing more. -
River that is EXACTLY what pyschologists are saying.
That violent media - such as violent movies, violent pornography, violent video games increase aggression and encourage (youth) to act violently, because in the fictional violence, the violence is REWARDED.
That is exactly what decades of studies have shown.
Not a "tough pill to swallow" well, maybe for some people who don't want to look at the truth, but for people who understand it, it's common sense by this point. (like you know, the scientific community)
-
-
It's all the shanannigans goin' on between Mario and Princess Peach that I truly object to... -
Hello Bitburonet,
Kudos to you for bringing up this vitally important topic. I'm sure you remember that recently the United Kingdom banned an ad on TV for a violent video game called "Stranglehold" and in MY opinion, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did their job perfectly well by deciding to not show this violent ad on their television airwaves.
Furthermore, the international video game industry should create more non-violent video games as well as continue to rate the current violent ones, as we presently have more than our share of gratuitous violence in the entertainment field being shown to our impressionable young people as it is, in this world.
Anok, I love what you're saying and as an activist against violence, agree with you wholeheartedly. -
It is our job as parents, not to raise children but to sculpt adults. Yes, children have a hard time with the lines between fiction and reality but if we shelter them from fiction we could stifle their creativity and imagination.
It becomes the role of the parent to determine the childs capabilities and limitations and expose them to new challenges as they evolve.
The bigger question for me is why is there such a market for games like Grand Theft Auto? -
I think it's a combination of things - mostly rooted in bad parenting, but also in the pervasive marketing. Having changed my diet radically in the last 6 months, I am hyper-aware to the zillions of fast food ads, the mouthwatering restaurant commercials, the constant force-feeding of FOOD centered marketing to people. I'm astounded that I didn't notice it as much before. It is incredibly powerful.
I have a 7 year old who is absolutely terrified of Finding Nemo and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (blast that Abominable Snowman), and I am hyper-sensitive to what's on tv too. Even commercials amaze me at the violence that's in them - previews for shows, other movies, etc. My kid can hardly handle anything that even hints at scary. So now that I'm trying to help protect him from seeing that kind of stuff, I'm very aware of how much is out there that we don't even notice anymore.
So in one way I'm lucky - reality based, creepy video games don't hold any appeal for him, but he does love video games. We play pac-man, galaga, dig dug, etc. a lot. I'm anxious to see, as he grows up, if he ever crosses over to the real and violent stuff. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, but you can darn well bet I'll be heavily involved given the nature of this particular child.
I am also amazed at the parents who allow their kids to go that route. When my son was in kinder (age 5), a Dad was taking his kid and any of the other little boys in the class who wanted to go to see Spiderman. I was so thankful my C had no interest, because it saved me from having to say no. There is no way I'd take any 5 year old to a movie like that. Now they're all seeing "Dark Knight." It's ridiculous.
So while I don't have a huge problem with trying to ban the game, I think it's a misguided effort. There are too many other things at play. But to say that because everyone who plays them doesn't become violent and therefore the game is okay is, in my opinion, a naive argument. Everyone is not the same. If one person has the emotional stability and probably a zillion other factors to handle that kind of exposure, great. But to assume that the games play no role whatsoever seems way too simple. -
@Anok: Earlier you said that violence has gone way up. I'm going to disagree with you and say that violence has actually gone way down. Again, I urge you to look at the facts. They speak for themselves. Violent crimes have gone DOWN. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
I think these stats are reliable as they are from the government. And they completely blow your claims out of the water. Have you gotten your copy of Grand Theft Childhood yet?-
Those are stats for violent crimes IN GENERAL not violence in SCHOOLS which is what I was talking about (The US still rates in the top three most violent first world countries, by the way, so even our "decrease" isn't a very good argument):
Youth vilence, and violence in schools however, has increased.
www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm
* Although high-profile school shootings have increased public concern for student safety, school-associated violent deaths account for less than 1% of homicides among school-aged children and youth (Anderson et al. 2001).
*In 2004, more than 750,000 young people ages 10 to 24 were treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained due to violence (CDC 2006).
* In a nationwide survey of high school students (CDC 2004):
o 33% reported being in a physical fight one or more times in the 12 months preceding the survey.
o 17% reported carrying a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or club) on one or more of the 30 days preceding the survey.
* An estimated 30% of 6th to 10th graders in the United States were involved in bullying as a bully, a target of bullying, or both (Nansel et al. 2001).
Kinda blows your argument out of the water. So does the opinions and REASEARCH I quoted above.
-
-
First, the statistics you cite do not refer to an increase. Those are static numbers. You have to look at the trends to see if violence decreased in schools over a period of time (common sense really). I understand that you feel strongly about this but please stick to the facts and analyze them appropriately. If you had looked at the trends between 1992 and 2005 you would have seen that violent crime in schools has gone DOWN.
School violence
* Between 1992 and 2005, crime in the Nation's schools for students ages 12-18 fell, a pattern consistent with the decline in the national crime rate.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#school
But this is beside the point. Parents need to do their jobs if they are so concerned about games rated M (17+) getting into kids' hands.
No reputable study has shown that video games lead to a direct increase in violent behavior. The crop of young people we have now are actually the MOST peaceful group we have seen in decades. Why are they being branded as highly violent by people such as yourself? What is your agenda?
Despite a rating system these games have gotten into the hands of younger children. The period cited (between 1992 and 2005) was the height of Mortal Combat and other violent titles. And yet crime has gone down. Can you explain why this is the case?-
The studies I referenced above do, in fact, state that there is a DIRECT correlation - by way of MRI's and lab tests - to playing a violent video game, and increased aggression.
Do your homework.
There is also a direct correlation between violence in schools, or a small decrease in it, and the zero tolerance, and extra security policies that have been enacted since serious violence in schools broke out in the 90's.
It's a bit tougher to get a gun or weapon into school when you have to go through security, first.
That said, there is still an increase of violence in younger ages, older ages, (compared to when video games consisted mainly of Mario Brothers. And mortal kombat is NOT violent compared to GTA and Bully and similar games.) and more studies than you can shake a stick at that provide direct correlations between exposure to violence in various media forms - and more importantly in video games in recent times - and aggressive behaviors. And all of the studies i referenced above are ALL reputable child psychology and behavioral sources.
I'm sorry if you don't like it. The Earth is also round, get over it
Parents need to do their jobs if they are so concerned about games rated M (17+) getting into kids' hands.
Much like my friend who allows her toddler to watch movies that are entirely inappropriate for his age The problem is that people like you fail to admit that video games and other forms of exposure to violence that glorifies and rewards violence has a direct effect on children and they continue to allow their children to rabidly consume these games.
Furthermore there is no age restriction with regards to purchasing these video games (Much like rated R movies, pornography, etc).
Do you have children? If not, why do you care about regulating access to violent video games to minors, educating parents about the effects of violent video games with regards to children, and the call for non violent alternatives by video game companies?
If so, would you allow your child to play GTA IV, Bully, SOCOM and other games that include killing, raping, pimping, prostitution, drug sales, beatings, gang wars, sniping, bombing, beating up dorks, etc? How old would your child have to be before you allowed it in your home? Why not earlier?
If you truly feel that they have no effect on children, why are there rating systems in place? Why isn't the material considered to be appropriate for children?
Why can't people wake up and smell - not just the research - but the common sense that what we expose our children to effects them. Good or bad.
I would like you to stop trying to sell some book (Grand theft childhood) and actually start looking at the real research being done by real child psychologists - and try interacting with real children to see exactly how they learn, how the y behave, and how exposure to different influences affects their behavior.
You might learn a thing or two.
Edited to add - you conveintently forgot to add the REST of teh statistics in with your quote, reaffimring what I said above:
# In every year from 1992 to 2005, students ages 12-18 were more likely to experience a serious violent crime away from school than at school.
# In 2005, about 28% of public and private school students ages 12-18 reported that they have been bullied at school within the past six months.
# Among high school students in grades 9-12, about 14% said they got into a fight on school property in 2005.
# In 2005, 10% of male students and 6% of female student reported experiencing a threat or injury with a weapon on school property.
Oh, and this:
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tjvfox.pdf
Recent reports of a declining rate of violent crime in cities across the country would seem to be at odds
with the growing problem of youth violence. The overall drop in crime hides the grim truth. There are
actually two crime trends in America--one for the young, one for the mature--which are moving in opposite
directions.
however, the
rate of murder committed by teenagers, ages 14-17 jumped a tragic 22 percent. -
This is silly. I already acknowledged that violent games can be one of MANY factors that can lead one to be violent. But to blame the games by themselves is foolish and it distracts us from the real issue. I've already shown you the stats that say youth violence is at an all time low. Violent crimes in general are also down. Whether you like it or not the current generation of kids now are the most peaceful group we've seen in decades. Get over it.
I think it's pretty simple. If you don't like the games don't play them. If you can't stop your kids from playing them...take a parenting class.
At the end of the day video games are a protected class of speech, similar to art, religion and political views. They aren't going away. So stop asking the government to do your job for you. You're wasting your breath. I'm done responding to you -
Actually your stats only showed violence that occurs on school grounds.
The science is not in your favor, and this is a thread about video games, and their effects - not the effects of other things.
You're right though, I am wasting my breathe here. On on ehand you acknowledge the influence violent video games have on kids, in the next breathe you say they have no effect.
Facts and psychology be damned, I suppose.
You never answered my questions.
Would you let your child play violent video games?
If not, why not?
Do you h ave some vested interest in the video game industry or something? Why support something that promotes extreme violence, which is marketed to children?
And no - violence is NOT a protected form of free speech.
Materials (spoken, written, media) that can incite violence on behalf of of those exposed to it can be regulated, restricted, or banned.
You know, like child pornography.
-
-
Digital addiction and its effect on a persons mental state no doubt wil be the disorder of the near future that psychologists will be treating.
It should be treated at the cause, which is proper use of technology.
Violent computer games are definitely an issue that if not dealt with will cause serious problems to SOME people.
Personally, why someone wants to slaughter digital objects that resemble people is beyond me. Also the racing games and any games with fast changing content will affect the nervous system.
As a parent and a member of the human race, I consider it careless for anyone to not recognise the issue we have on our hands.
I teach 100 to 150 people a year computers, the young guys are fascinating to watch, especially gthose that go to LAN parties, they are nothing short olf zombies.
Better education is required, and the people that are in support of computer game technology need to wake up and recognise what is going on.-
Personally, why someone wants to slaughter digital objects that resemble people is beyond me. Also the racing games and any games with fast changing content will affect the nervous system.
I often wonder about that too. I know that my husband likes the violent video games because it gets the violence off his chest. He LIKES violence.
But for the average person, I can't imagine why these games are popular, or why people would defend the right of children to play such violent games. We are in a time period right now where games like tag and dodge ball are being banned because the kids are getting too violent - WHY would we think it's OK to expose them to games that reward violence?
I am by no means a pacifist. I like my fair share of "violence" too - but these games go too far, even for me.
Who is playing them, and why? -
This is a bit like talking to a person that takes drugs,
Drugs are bad for people.
No they ae not, I'm ok.
Drugs are bad for people
what would you know.
Drugs are bad for people, look what's happening around you.
No, you don't know what you're talking about.
Try to talk sense to anyone that has some sort of game addiction is exactly the same.
There are no brakes being applied to technology, expand, more computers, more addictions, more sick games...
of what value are they to the individual? -
Yup, I'm with you!
Although I do believe that normal adults can play them without harm, in moderation. For me, the issue is child exposure.
-
-
I love CS and GTA 4 ... but ummm I'm not homicidal. -
Xbox 360.
Violence in video games, sometimes is needed, people need these games to release pressure, to make more fun but the prerequisite is to distinguish the reality and the games.-
Really?
"Needed".
Food is needed.
Oxygen is needed.
Violent video games are not needed. -
That is, existence is reasonable, mybe you are right. I don't mean to deny you but why so many people fall in love with the Violent video games?
-
-
I have no problem with the fact that the games exist, I just deny that they are needed in anyway whatsoever.
People enjoy them because they can be fun, they can be challenging and they clearly have an addictive quality.
I play the crap out of the Final Fantasy games (I know FF is not any where near as violent as many other games) I like the challenge. -
You wouldn't subject a young child to a game the likes of "Left 4 Dead" just as you wouldn't let them watch a Horror movie.
There are ratings systems in place to prevent young impressionable minds from the sort of impressionable impact you are talking about.
The simple fact of the matter is: If parents cannot follow simple guidelines it is their fault, not the games.-
I agree.
The parent is capable of controlling what games their children play.
-
-
@rfburnhertz people don't NEED games, yes I agree, but if we didn't have video games. Then the current people who play them would be entranced in something else. Probly couch potatoing the TV set. Which imho is worse. There's some 'games' which are useful, to the point where 'need' would be considered good. Simulations for war, or flight saves fuel, munitions, and resources without the risk of harming an indivual. I would stress the 'need' for these types of games over actual field training for a complete rookie.
Atleast for those who play video games (for example fast paced first person shooters) there's a direct correlation to improved that and increased hand eye coordination, reaction times, and eyesite. So there's some benefits to it as well.
As for the OP - No I don't think there's a correlation to violence in video games to violence. I think its just the media that likes to show this because they are tired of making fun of Bush. Violence existed before games, and will continue to exist after games. -
No, that's just retarded talk from Politicians and adults who should know better. -
I think if a child grows up surrounded by violence whether it's actual violence or otherwise, the child becomes used to it and thinks it's part of normal life. I would not blame one game for causing a child to become violent though. That child probably watches violent movies, sees violence at home and in town and maybe hangs out with people who are not exactly law-abiding citizens. It's in the child's culture. I do however think some movies, books or games do give people stupid ideas - but these people are severely impressionable. If it wasn't one thing, it would be another that inspired the child to do something stupid.-
The difference with video games however, is the interactive nature of them. You may read a book that has violence in it done by someone else - but with a video game you aim the gun, you pull the trigger.
-
-
I think when it comes to children, yes violence in media does have an influence.
In regards to the game in question ( Grand Theft Auto ) It's R18 for a reason. In other words its up to the parent to decide if the game is really all that suitable for their kid to be playing the game at all. ( For the record my two step kids aged 10 and 15 play it ). As for the media being blamed for adults committing adult crimes I think its a load of B/S any sane adult should know the difference between whats acceptable in the virtual world is not always acceptable in the real world. -
It's funny that thread was necroposted just now. I just read a scathing review of Pixars "Up and Away" movie. It was ripped to shreds because it was too "sugary sweet". Imagine that, a movie aimed at children is sugary sweet, and completely absent of violence, biting political commentary, or edgy social observations.
There is a mentality here that disturbs me, and that is the willful ignorance of the affect of violence on children (real or fictional) - and the strange push to make films, and games geared for children to be edgier, darker, more biting, more thrilling, less sweet and fun and innocent.
(For the record I've fully exhausted my opinion about this up towards the top - if anyone is interested, the links are still available for viewing with regards to studies conducted).
I don't get it, I honestly don't.-
Its just a reflection of the times. People want to see/watch more and more risque stuff as the population matures. I'm anxious to take my kid to see Up and away. And a review is just a review, 1 person's opinion, and he/she may like action flicks which makes the domesticated movies boring to them. Let them have their opinion, and don't bother reading further 'reviews' from that one source.
I realize the mentality you talk of, with more violence/action etc, but we still have a choice in the matter of what we let our kids watch/play with (until they have their own cars/bikes etc in the teen years). While I myself play violent games and enjoy them, I don't allow my kid to play them (or watch me play them).
What angers me the most is the people who are just hellbent on shutting the producers of these games/media down. Its not their fault that people want to see this stuff. Its a reflection of the times. Its the parent's responsibility to determine whether or not your kid can handle it.
I grew up with violent video games/movies at a young age, but people always thought I acted mature/responsible for my age. Probly why my parents allowed me to watch that stuff. I just need to figure out when my kid will be ready to do the same.
-
-
I was playing Super Mario Land 2 a couple of days ago and I ended up wanting to stomp turtles.
And goombas.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
