The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I got this in a weekly email I get from [URL]http://www.gamesindustry.biz[/URL]. If only everyone similar thoughts to the author of this:
One common factor to every major conflict in human history is that they have always featured a flagrant abuse of science, with the latest advancements in our understanding of the world being turned not to improving the lives of those around us, but to gaining an upper hand in battle. You can undoubtedly think of many examples of this offhand; but what's interesting to note is that the tendency of people to abuse science to fit their own ends is something that exists in conflicts on a far smaller scale than wars or battles.
This week, for example, the ESA fired its latest shot across the bows of the anti-videogames lobby in the United States, with the release of a document listing a host of studies into the effects of videogames and violent media on young people, all of which concluded that the games did no harm and may even have beneficial effects. It's a stark contrast to the constant claims of people like anti-videogames campaigner Jack Thompson, who will tell you at the slightest provocation that there is a proven link between videogame violence and real-life violence.
Regardless of whether the ESA has presented its arguments more logically than Thompson, or whether it's our gut feeling that games and violence cannot be linked as directly as the anti-games lobby might like, the fact remains that this is a flagrant abuse of science. On both sides, it is an attempt to slap the label of "science" onto what is essentially a political dispute - a trend which has been notable in many such disputes in recent years, but remains nonetheless distasteful.
Lobby groups happily cherry-pick research which supports their position and ignore research which disagrees with them, or worse yet, will commission research from unscrupulous commercial companies that will tailor their results to say pretty much whatever their employers want them to say. This isn't how science works; science, as many people working in the games industry know full well, is a slow and methodical process of research, theorising and peer review, which aims to establish facts rather than simply agreeing with whatever is politically expedient.
A casual glance through the wealth of research which has been conducted on the matter of violent media and childhood aggression or other such personality traits reveals one thing with stark clarity - we don't know enough. The research conflicts in many areas, and no consensus emerges. While this means that there is no provable or direct link between violent games and violent behaviour, it would be utterly foolish to pretend that it follows that no such link exists.
The debate over violent games will rage on for some time, but ultimately, the industry desperately needs to refocus its arguments on the rights of parents to choose the media their children consume and on efforts to educate and inform parents about the content of games they are buying. Starting to argue this case on the grounds of science is a foolish and distasteful move for both parties to the debate, as the ground here is not so much shaky as simply non-existent. The research is non-conclusive and incomplete, the facts are totally unknown, and to make a suggestion otherwise is to cynically attempt to capitalise on the sad ignorance of many people about what "science" is really about.
- - - -
So, whaddya think?
One common factor to every major conflict in human history is that they have always featured a flagrant abuse of science, with the latest advancements in our understanding of the world being turned not to improving the lives of those around us, but to gaining an upper hand in battle. You can undoubtedly think of many examples of this offhand; but what's interesting to note is that the tendency of people to abuse science to fit their own ends is something that exists in conflicts on a far smaller scale than wars or battles.
This week, for example, the ESA fired its latest shot across the bows of the anti-videogames lobby in the United States, with the release of a document listing a host of studies into the effects of videogames and violent media on young people, all of which concluded that the games did no harm and may even have beneficial effects. It's a stark contrast to the constant claims of people like anti-videogames campaigner Jack Thompson, who will tell you at the slightest provocation that there is a proven link between videogame violence and real-life violence.
Regardless of whether the ESA has presented its arguments more logically than Thompson, or whether it's our gut feeling that games and violence cannot be linked as directly as the anti-games lobby might like, the fact remains that this is a flagrant abuse of science. On both sides, it is an attempt to slap the label of "science" onto what is essentially a political dispute - a trend which has been notable in many such disputes in recent years, but remains nonetheless distasteful.
Lobby groups happily cherry-pick research which supports their position and ignore research which disagrees with them, or worse yet, will commission research from unscrupulous commercial companies that will tailor their results to say pretty much whatever their employers want them to say. This isn't how science works; science, as many people working in the games industry know full well, is a slow and methodical process of research, theorising and peer review, which aims to establish facts rather than simply agreeing with whatever is politically expedient.
A casual glance through the wealth of research which has been conducted on the matter of violent media and childhood aggression or other such personality traits reveals one thing with stark clarity - we don't know enough. The research conflicts in many areas, and no consensus emerges. While this means that there is no provable or direct link between violent games and violent behaviour, it would be utterly foolish to pretend that it follows that no such link exists.
The debate over violent games will rage on for some time, but ultimately, the industry desperately needs to refocus its arguments on the rights of parents to choose the media their children consume and on efforts to educate and inform parents about the content of games they are buying. Starting to argue this case on the grounds of science is a foolish and distasteful move for both parties to the debate, as the ground here is not so much shaky as simply non-existent. The research is non-conclusive and incomplete, the facts are totally unknown, and to make a suggestion otherwise is to cynically attempt to capitalise on the sad ignorance of many people about what "science" is really about.
- - - -
So, whaddya think?
Page:
I got this in a weekly email I get from [URL]http://www.gamesindustry.biz[/URL]. If only everyone similar thoughts to the author of this:
One common factor to every major conflict in human history is that they have always featured a flagrant abuse of science, with the latest advancements in our understanding of the world being turned not to improving the lives of those around us, but to gaining an upper hand in battle. You can undoubtedly think of many examples of this offhand; but what's interesting to note is that the tendency of people to abuse science to fit their own ends is something that exists in conflicts on a far smaller scale than wars or battles.
This week, for example, the ESA fired its latest shot across the bows of the anti-videogames lobby in the United States, with the release of a document listing a host of studies into the effects of videogames and violent media on young people, all of which concluded that the games did no harm and may even have beneficial effects. It's a stark contrast to the constant claims of people like anti-videogames campaigner Jack Thompson, who will tell you at the slightest provocation that there is a proven link between videogame violence and real-life violence.
Regardless of whether the ESA has presented its arguments more logically than Thompson, or whether it's our gut feeling that games and violence cannot be linked as directly as the anti-games lobby might like, the fact remains that this is a flagrant abuse of science. On both sides, it is an attempt to slap the label of "science" onto what is essentially a political dispute - a trend which has been notable in many such disputes in recent years, but remains nonetheless distasteful.
Lobby groups happily cherry-pick research which supports their position and ignore research which disagrees with them, or worse yet, will commission research from unscrupulous commercial companies that will tailor their results to say pretty much whatever their employers want them to say. This isn't how science works; science, as many people working in the games industry know full well, is a slow and methodical process of research, theorising and peer review, which aims to establish facts rather than simply agreeing with whatever is politically expedient.
A casual glance through the wealth of research which has been conducted on the matter of violent media and childhood aggression or other such personality traits reveals one thing with stark clarity - we don't know enough. The research conflicts in many areas, and no consensus emerges. While this means that there is no provable or direct link between violent games and violent behaviour, it would be utterly foolish to pretend that it follows that no such link exists.
The debate over violent games will rage on for some time, but ultimately, the industry desperately needs to refocus its arguments on the rights of parents to choose the media their children consume and on efforts to educate and inform parents about the content of games they are buying. Starting to argue this case on the grounds of science is a foolish and distasteful move for both parties to the debate, as the ground here is not so much shaky as simply non-existent. The research is non-conclusive and incomplete, the facts are totally unknown, and to make a suggestion otherwise is to cynically attempt to capitalise on the sad ignorance of many people about what "science" is really about.
- - - -
So, whaddya think?
One common factor to every major conflict in human history is that they have always featured a flagrant abuse of science, with the latest advancements in our understanding of the world being turned not to improving the lives of those around us, but to gaining an upper hand in battle. You can undoubtedly think of many examples of this offhand; but what's interesting to note is that the tendency of people to abuse science to fit their own ends is something that exists in conflicts on a far smaller scale than wars or battles.
This week, for example, the ESA fired its latest shot across the bows of the anti-videogames lobby in the United States, with the release of a document listing a host of studies into the effects of videogames and violent media on young people, all of which concluded that the games did no harm and may even have beneficial effects. It's a stark contrast to the constant claims of people like anti-videogames campaigner Jack Thompson, who will tell you at the slightest provocation that there is a proven link between videogame violence and real-life violence.
Regardless of whether the ESA has presented its arguments more logically than Thompson, or whether it's our gut feeling that games and violence cannot be linked as directly as the anti-games lobby might like, the fact remains that this is a flagrant abuse of science. On both sides, it is an attempt to slap the label of "science" onto what is essentially a political dispute - a trend which has been notable in many such disputes in recent years, but remains nonetheless distasteful.
Lobby groups happily cherry-pick research which supports their position and ignore research which disagrees with them, or worse yet, will commission research from unscrupulous commercial companies that will tailor their results to say pretty much whatever their employers want them to say. This isn't how science works; science, as many people working in the games industry know full well, is a slow and methodical process of research, theorising and peer review, which aims to establish facts rather than simply agreeing with whatever is politically expedient.
A casual glance through the wealth of research which has been conducted on the matter of violent media and childhood aggression or other such personality traits reveals one thing with stark clarity - we don't know enough. The research conflicts in many areas, and no consensus emerges. While this means that there is no provable or direct link between violent games and violent behaviour, it would be utterly foolish to pretend that it follows that no such link exists.
The debate over violent games will rage on for some time, but ultimately, the industry desperately needs to refocus its arguments on the rights of parents to choose the media their children consume and on efforts to educate and inform parents about the content of games they are buying. Starting to argue this case on the grounds of science is a foolish and distasteful move for both parties to the debate, as the ground here is not so much shaky as simply non-existent. The research is non-conclusive and incomplete, the facts are totally unknown, and to make a suggestion otherwise is to cynically attempt to capitalise on the sad ignorance of many people about what "science" is really about.
- - - -
So, whaddya think?
Your Honour wrote:
> So, whaddya think?
Whups. Thompson is an idiot. Check out the running argument he's having with Penny Arcade.
> So, whaddya think?
Whups. Thompson is an idiot. Check out the running argument he's having with Penny Arcade.
I've seen bits of it. GI are pretty good and reporting it, and PA post most it on their site too.
The only relationship I've known between violent games and real-life violence is when some kid has been caught and said something like, "Well I can do it in GTA."
That's not proof of a link - that's just proof that the kid is a moron.
I'm 34 and have been playing games since I was 8. Others here are somewhere around my age, others are in their 20s. I also have several friends who have been gaming as long as I have.
Not one of those people has any violent tendencies - at least none that they would blame on their years of playing videogames.
They (the scaremongers) tried it with movies years ago, and the current ratings system was introduced. The 'outrage' went away.
They have the exact same ratings system on games, yet people ignore it. My cousin's missus goes on about irresponsible and 'unfit' parents, and yet she has a 13-year-old who she admits plays San Andreas.
Now I don't for a second think that game is going to turn her son into a car-stealing, gun-wielding maniac. But if by some chance he did turn out that way, she's the type who may well blame the game and its creators.
The problem, generally speaking, is today's society. Everyone is too eager to pass the buck to someone else when something goes wrong. It's far easier to blame companies like Rockstar, than it is to put your hands up and admit that you're a bad parent.
That's not proof of a link - that's just proof that the kid is a moron.
I'm 34 and have been playing games since I was 8. Others here are somewhere around my age, others are in their 20s. I also have several friends who have been gaming as long as I have.
Not one of those people has any violent tendencies - at least none that they would blame on their years of playing videogames.
They (the scaremongers) tried it with movies years ago, and the current ratings system was introduced. The 'outrage' went away.
They have the exact same ratings system on games, yet people ignore it. My cousin's missus goes on about irresponsible and 'unfit' parents, and yet she has a 13-year-old who she admits plays San Andreas.
Now I don't for a second think that game is going to turn her son into a car-stealing, gun-wielding maniac. But if by some chance he did turn out that way, she's the type who may well blame the game and its creators.
The problem, generally speaking, is today's society. Everyone is too eager to pass the buck to someone else when something goes wrong. It's far easier to blame companies like Rockstar, than it is to put your hands up and admit that you're a bad parent.
I saw this article in the news paper, that a child (about 12) was playing headhunter with his mate. He then tried a move from the game which was to open his friend's skull with a sledge hammer and put his brain in a glass bowl which he actually did.
The lesson? Don't be friends with bellends.
From a cybernetic/psychological point of view, I can see how there could well be a causative link on occasion, in some circumstances and depending on the game of course.
But at some point you have to allow people to live, you can't cotton-ball everyone.
Like with films, we need a sensible and (at least reasonably) well enforced age ratings system. We may be half way there at present.
I'd agree with the original article that we actually need some clear, reliable information to base such decisions on too.
Things may come to a bit of a head if we find there is a rare, occasional causative link, and society is forced to decide what is an acceptable price for this freedom.
Then again, we'll probably settle for deciding on an acceptable scapegoat or empty gesture of a countermeasure instead.
On a side note, passing the blame and refusing to accept responsibility:
Social status seems to be a highly important human 'need', it's acquisition and preservation a major drive.
These days marketing gimps seem to be using it with greater abandon than before. It's up there with greed and sex as major tools in manipulating the desires of people, and it manifests itself not only in commercials, but in any communication or product where there's a buck to be made.
The consequence of this, everyone being constantly reminded that they should be higher status, better, more successful, must be that people are more edgy about their own status, and thus more insecure, fearful of criticism, and less likely to accept responsibility for their mistakes.
If we don't accept responsibility for our mistakes, we can't improve, we can't prevent them happening again. Ironically, it makes us far bigger losers than if we'd just owned up to it and actually stopped our 7 year old from playing 'Ninja Rapist Murderers 2' until he was brainwashed.
(Quick poll, who doesn't love ninjas? Anyone? No.)
Of course, it all helps make us softer targets for those marketers to direct us to buy into their products in the hope of an inferred status quick fix.
But we'll all kill each other before it can get too much worse, just like on GTA 37 - Norwich City, so don't worry about it.
From a cybernetic/psychological point of view, I can see how there could well be a causative link on occasion, in some circumstances and depending on the game of course.
But at some point you have to allow people to live, you can't cotton-ball everyone.
Like with films, we need a sensible and (at least reasonably) well enforced age ratings system. We may be half way there at present.
I'd agree with the original article that we actually need some clear, reliable information to base such decisions on too.
Things may come to a bit of a head if we find there is a rare, occasional causative link, and society is forced to decide what is an acceptable price for this freedom.
Then again, we'll probably settle for deciding on an acceptable scapegoat or empty gesture of a countermeasure instead.
On a side note, passing the blame and refusing to accept responsibility:
Social status seems to be a highly important human 'need', it's acquisition and preservation a major drive.
These days marketing gimps seem to be using it with greater abandon than before. It's up there with greed and sex as major tools in manipulating the desires of people, and it manifests itself not only in commercials, but in any communication or product where there's a buck to be made.
The consequence of this, everyone being constantly reminded that they should be higher status, better, more successful, must be that people are more edgy about their own status, and thus more insecure, fearful of criticism, and less likely to accept responsibility for their mistakes.
If we don't accept responsibility for our mistakes, we can't improve, we can't prevent them happening again. Ironically, it makes us far bigger losers than if we'd just owned up to it and actually stopped our 7 year old from playing 'Ninja Rapist Murderers 2' until he was brainwashed.
(Quick poll, who doesn't love ninjas? Anyone? No.)
Of course, it all helps make us softer targets for those marketers to direct us to buy into their products in the hope of an inferred status quick fix.
But we'll all kill each other before it can get too much worse, just like on GTA 37 - Norwich City, so don't worry about it.
Won't somebody please think of the children!!!111
No, not you Michael.
On a serious point I don't feel this topic is worthy of discussion.
Having said that I will offer this:
Having no religions would probably reduce levels of violence much more than getting rid of a few games.
Games = Sports and other activities as far as channeling energies and relieving boredom goes.
I'm sure the mind-numbing '9 to 5' of work has driven more people to kill than games and sports combined.
No, not you Michael.
On a serious point I don't feel this topic is worthy of discussion.
Having said that I will offer this:
Having no religions would probably reduce levels of violence much more than getting rid of a few games.
Games = Sports and other activities as far as channeling energies and relieving boredom goes.
I'm sure the mind-numbing '9 to 5' of work has driven more people to kill than games and sports combined.
Hedfix wrote:
> Having no religions would probably reduce levels of violence much
> more than getting rid of a few games.
Well, there is something we can agree 100% on.
> Having no religions would probably reduce levels of violence much
> more than getting rid of a few games.
Well, there is something we can agree 100% on.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I'm 34 and have been playing games since I was 8. Others here are
> somewhere around my age, others are in their 20s. I also have
> several friends who have been gaming as long as I have.
Thirty one myself.
I've also been reading horror since I was about ten, and exposed to "adult" (in the none porn way) movies from my father. I remember getting Deathrace 2000 out on rental when it was an "X", at the height of the video nasty scare.
the simple difference is that I was taught to believe that movies / fiction books / games etc etc were make believe and given a strong morality of what’s wrong and what’s right.
I engage in extraordinarily violent acts on games. I don't do them in real life.
Quite simply, it's the latest fashionable scare after video, rock music, comics, Marylin Manson and the change the 50's and 60's brought about.
Be thankful for Thompson. He's crap (Pron in the Sims! Labias! Pubic Hair! "ermmm, no") but if he wasn't there, someone more efficient may well be taking his place.
> I'm 34 and have been playing games since I was 8. Others here are
> somewhere around my age, others are in their 20s. I also have
> several friends who have been gaming as long as I have.
Thirty one myself.
I've also been reading horror since I was about ten, and exposed to "adult" (in the none porn way) movies from my father. I remember getting Deathrace 2000 out on rental when it was an "X", at the height of the video nasty scare.
the simple difference is that I was taught to believe that movies / fiction books / games etc etc were make believe and given a strong morality of what’s wrong and what’s right.
I engage in extraordinarily violent acts on games. I don't do them in real life.
Quite simply, it's the latest fashionable scare after video, rock music, comics, Marylin Manson and the change the 50's and 60's brought about.
Be thankful for Thompson. He's crap (Pron in the Sims! Labias! Pubic Hair! "ermmm, no") but if he wasn't there, someone more efficient may well be taking his place.
WereWolf wrote:
> I saw this article in the news paper, that a child (about 12) was
> playing headhunter with his mate. He then tried a move from the game
> which was to open his friend's skull with a sledge hammer and put his
> brain in a glass bowl which he actually did.
I'd like a link to that please, becuase to be honest, it sounds like utter, and complete, billox.
> I saw this article in the news paper, that a child (about 12) was
> playing headhunter with his mate. He then tried a move from the game
> which was to open his friend's skull with a sledge hammer and put his
> brain in a glass bowl which he actually did.
I'd like a link to that please, becuase to be honest, it sounds like utter, and complete, billox.
Page: