The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Pathetic. Really, really, pathetic. Dr Kim Howells MP last week blamed the rise in gun crime on “boasting macho idiot rappers”, this week its movies, TV and video games. I thought our country’s current American style epidemic of avoiding the blame only extended as far as those silly Direct Line (and the like) adverts offering thousands of pounds when you’re injured by your own stupidity. However, it seems high profile MPs are also keen to insist that society’s problems have nothing to do with them, the arbiters of the law which forms the basis of a civilised society, but some other factor beyond their control.
Okay, the So Solid Crew was a poor starting point. Blaming the rise in gun crime not on the under funded police, not on useless customs controls and not on lean sentences, no, it’s obviously those comical “hard men” rappers. I find it a little offensive that as a 21 year-old voter I can be entrusted with the responsibility of sitting on a jury or selecting the next government, but I’m still so malleable and weak-willed that I may shoot someone because of some UK Garage track. Anyway, that’s not the issue on a gaming forum…
What is relevant here are Dr Howells’ new comments that video games and movies desensitise us to violence to such an extent that we may think shooting someone is an acceptable means of settling a dispute. Not the government’s fault, oh no. Picking the easy target of violent video games is much easer as to the majority of voters they are still an alien past-time.
The movie industry is forced to restrict the access to their more violent titles through a legislated ratings scheme. They have no choice in this matter and as I see it no one can complain about this system. If a child manages to watch an unsuitable title that’s the parents fault, not the movie makers. However, the government has dilly-dallied over imposing such a scheme on video gaming meaning that the publishers and retailers have formed their own, non-binding, system.
Surely this is an example of games developers showing responsibility. Sure, a minority still use violence and brutality in a manner that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but at least they attempt to make sure the audience is suitable. Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games”, so what’s his point? The gaming industry provides its own ratings system and gives information on this at every single point-of-purchase. They also provided a detailed guide to the game’s content or the rear of the box, highlighting any violence or other unsuitable material. If he chooses to ignore this and let his kids play titles that have been deemed unsuitable for their age group that’s his problem.
Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has failed to find any link between playing violent games and the likelihood of committing actual violence. What, am I thinking… that would require the Minister to apply logic to the situation and lose his scapegoat.
Okay, the So Solid Crew was a poor starting point. Blaming the rise in gun crime not on the under funded police, not on useless customs controls and not on lean sentences, no, it’s obviously those comical “hard men” rappers. I find it a little offensive that as a 21 year-old voter I can be entrusted with the responsibility of sitting on a jury or selecting the next government, but I’m still so malleable and weak-willed that I may shoot someone because of some UK Garage track. Anyway, that’s not the issue on a gaming forum…
What is relevant here are Dr Howells’ new comments that video games and movies desensitise us to violence to such an extent that we may think shooting someone is an acceptable means of settling a dispute. Not the government’s fault, oh no. Picking the easy target of violent video games is much easer as to the majority of voters they are still an alien past-time.
The movie industry is forced to restrict the access to their more violent titles through a legislated ratings scheme. They have no choice in this matter and as I see it no one can complain about this system. If a child manages to watch an unsuitable title that’s the parents fault, not the movie makers. However, the government has dilly-dallied over imposing such a scheme on video gaming meaning that the publishers and retailers have formed their own, non-binding, system.
Surely this is an example of games developers showing responsibility. Sure, a minority still use violence and brutality in a manner that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but at least they attempt to make sure the audience is suitable. Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games”, so what’s his point? The gaming industry provides its own ratings system and gives information on this at every single point-of-purchase. They also provided a detailed guide to the game’s content or the rear of the box, highlighting any violence or other unsuitable material. If he chooses to ignore this and let his kids play titles that have been deemed unsuitable for their age group that’s his problem.
Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has failed to find any link between playing violent games and the likelihood of committing actual violence. What, am I thinking… that would require the Minister to apply logic to the situation and lose his scapegoat.
Page:
University Of My House, April 3rd, 2002
We sat the children in opposite sides of the house, one playing Super Mario World, the other with Mortal Kombat.
We then let them imagine something a bring to life what they wanted, using our amazing technology which brings your thoguhts to life. The boy playing Mortal Kombat began to freeze things, then hit then, smashing them to pieces. Violent, we thought, then, we looked in the other room to find a hole in a wall and the child rampaging around on a dinosaur eating turtles in the zoo and apples on trees.
Our Verdict: Games do NOT promote violence in children, only freeze powers and giant dinosaurs.
We sat the children in opposite sides of the house, one playing Super Mario World, the other with Mortal Kombat.
We then let them imagine something a bring to life what they wanted, using our amazing technology which brings your thoguhts to life. The boy playing Mortal Kombat began to freeze things, then hit then, smashing them to pieces. Violent, we thought, then, we looked in the other room to find a hole in a wall and the child rampaging around on a dinosaur eating turtles in the zoo and apples on trees.
Our Verdict: Games do NOT promote violence in children, only freeze powers and giant dinosaurs.
If you watch a movie like Resavoir dogs and feel to urge to kill someone, surely the same person would watch Mary Poppins and leap from a roof holding an umbrella.
Politicians suck.
Politicians suck.
Heh heh,
Parliament Battle,
Beat the tories to the ground when playing as Tony Blair, make sure none of their ideas go through, YOU'RE THE PRIME MINISTER, it's your parliament, watch out for FLying Eggs and raging John Prescott's though...
ELSPA rating 11+
Parliament Battle,
Beat the tories to the ground when playing as Tony Blair, make sure none of their ideas go through, YOU'RE THE PRIME MINISTER, it's your parliament, watch out for FLying Eggs and raging John Prescott's though...
ELSPA rating 11+
They get all competetive in parliment... what about banning that!
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> In other words, yes, after some people played video games their
> tendency to commit violent acts over a short period increased, but the
> same results would occur if you had them playing football, or chess,
> or anything where they are encouraged to be competitive.
Exactamundo :)
I look forward to Dr Kim Howell MP producing a White Paper to go through Parliament calling for the complete ban of Chess, Saturday morning cartoons, job interviews and Coronation Street.
> In other words, yes, after some people played video games their
> tendency to commit violent acts over a short period increased, but the
> same results would occur if you had them playing football, or chess,
> or anything where they are encouraged to be competitive.
Exactamundo :)
I look forward to Dr Kim Howell MP producing a White Paper to go through Parliament calling for the complete ban of Chess, Saturday morning cartoons, job interviews and Coronation Street.
The thing about all the research in this area is that they all come with assumptions that make their findings useless. The excitement involved in any competitive activity is recognised as a cause of increased aggression levels in susceptible people.
In other words, yes, after some people played video games their tendency to commit violent acts over a short period increased, but the same results would occur if you had them playing football, or chess, or anything where they are encouraged to be competitive.
In other words, yes, after some people played video games their tendency to commit violent acts over a short period increased, but the same results would occur if you had them playing football, or chess, or anything where they are encouraged to be competitive.
These politicians can't accept some people have different characteristics and personalities than them and they have to blame differences on something.
Edit:
-----
The text between these markers is posted directly from the research article, hence why it comes complete with the original layout.
-----
Where's that 'edit my post' button?
-----
The text between these markers is posted directly from the research article, hence why it comes complete with the original layout.
-----
Where's that 'edit my post' button?
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has
> failed to find any link between playing violent games and the
> likelihood of committing actual violence.
Erm, I'd have to disagree. Some tests have shown that those with a propensity towards violence have an even greater propensity towards violence after playing violent videogames.
The following tests reporting effects of videogaming were compiled by Ellen Wolock Ed.D for a CSR article:
-----
Negative Effects
- College students at Iowa State University who reported spending greater
time with videogames (both violent and non-violent) during junior high and
high school engaged in more self-reported aggressive behavior as adults.
(Anderson & Dill, Journal of the American Psychological Association, 2000)
- Second-grade boys displayed more aggressive behavior right after playing a violent videogame than boys who played a ³nonaggressive² game. (Irwin &
Gross, Journal of Family Violence, 1995, Volume 10)
- Male college students who played a more violent version of Mortal Kombat
scored higher on hostility measures and had higher blood pressure than those who played a less violent version (Ballard & Wiest, Society for Research in Child Development, Spring, 1995)
- Children who played Mortal Kombat responded more negatively to six
provocative story questions than those who played a non-violent videogame.
(Kirsh, ERIC, 1998)
- The level of aggression of 153 middle and high school students (as
measured by teachers) was positively correlated with the amount of students self-reported videogame play. (Fling, Smith, Rodriguez, Thornton, Atkins & Nixon, Southwest Texas State University, 1992)
Neutral/Positive Effects
- University students show similar performance on hostility and personality
measures after playing with games containing different levels of violence
(Strathclyde University, 1995)
- Recent survey figures (for the Interactive Digital Software Association)
suggest that videogames encourage socialization with family and friends.
More specifically, out of 1500 individuals and families surveyed, 42%
reported that they enjoy playing games because they can be shared with
friends and family (2002). (Note: this study did not separate out violent
from non-violent videogames, but looked at gameplay as a whole.)
- A literature review of 59 studies conducted by the Washington State Dept
of Health concludes that current research evidence is not supportive of a
major concern that violent games lead to real life violence. (Bensley and
Van Eenwyk, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol 29, 2001)
- Time spent playing with videogames was not correlated with aggression for
middle school kids (144 females, 134 males), although boys with a preference for aggressive games were perceived as more aggressive by peers. (Wiegman & van Shie, Social Psychology, 1998)
- No differences in measures of aggressive thought were found for 52 3rd and 4th graders who played Mortal Kombat versus a basketball sim. (Kirsh,
Childhood- a Global Journal of Child Research, 5, Volume 2, 1998)
-----
However, before anyone, PARTICULARLY the Daily Mail, decide to cut choice wordbites out of the above research just to further their case against videogames, Ellen Wolock also discussed the inconsistencies of the above research, e.g. how long did the noted increases in aggression last? How was the aggression measured? Define 'violence' etc. The overall conclusion was that the issue has not been studied adequately.
The best overall point raised was in a side note about human nature. It explained that humans are fascinated by violence, hence why kids enjoy Judge Dredd, Zorro, Batman, Power Rangers, Pokemon, and why we enjoy films like Gladiator, The Matrix and programmes like ER, and why we enjoy watching violent sports like Rugby, Boxing, American Football, Wrestling etc. There was even a murder in Coronation Street last night just to spice things up for the viewers.
But perhaps, like videogames, these activities 'channel' our aggression rather than help to unleash it.
More research, and in particular more longitudinal research, is required, using pre-defined definitions of what violence is and using pre-defined and across the board scales for measuring aggression before any conclusions can be drawn.
> Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has
> failed to find any link between playing violent games and the
> likelihood of committing actual violence.
Erm, I'd have to disagree. Some tests have shown that those with a propensity towards violence have an even greater propensity towards violence after playing violent videogames.
The following tests reporting effects of videogaming were compiled by Ellen Wolock Ed.D for a CSR article:
-----
Negative Effects
- College students at Iowa State University who reported spending greater
time with videogames (both violent and non-violent) during junior high and
high school engaged in more self-reported aggressive behavior as adults.
(Anderson & Dill, Journal of the American Psychological Association, 2000)
- Second-grade boys displayed more aggressive behavior right after playing a violent videogame than boys who played a ³nonaggressive² game. (Irwin &
Gross, Journal of Family Violence, 1995, Volume 10)
- Male college students who played a more violent version of Mortal Kombat
scored higher on hostility measures and had higher blood pressure than those who played a less violent version (Ballard & Wiest, Society for Research in Child Development, Spring, 1995)
- Children who played Mortal Kombat responded more negatively to six
provocative story questions than those who played a non-violent videogame.
(Kirsh, ERIC, 1998)
- The level of aggression of 153 middle and high school students (as
measured by teachers) was positively correlated with the amount of students self-reported videogame play. (Fling, Smith, Rodriguez, Thornton, Atkins & Nixon, Southwest Texas State University, 1992)
Neutral/Positive Effects
- University students show similar performance on hostility and personality
measures after playing with games containing different levels of violence
(Strathclyde University, 1995)
- Recent survey figures (for the Interactive Digital Software Association)
suggest that videogames encourage socialization with family and friends.
More specifically, out of 1500 individuals and families surveyed, 42%
reported that they enjoy playing games because they can be shared with
friends and family (2002). (Note: this study did not separate out violent
from non-violent videogames, but looked at gameplay as a whole.)
- A literature review of 59 studies conducted by the Washington State Dept
of Health concludes that current research evidence is not supportive of a
major concern that violent games lead to real life violence. (Bensley and
Van Eenwyk, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol 29, 2001)
- Time spent playing with videogames was not correlated with aggression for
middle school kids (144 females, 134 males), although boys with a preference for aggressive games were perceived as more aggressive by peers. (Wiegman & van Shie, Social Psychology, 1998)
- No differences in measures of aggressive thought were found for 52 3rd and 4th graders who played Mortal Kombat versus a basketball sim. (Kirsh,
Childhood- a Global Journal of Child Research, 5, Volume 2, 1998)
-----
However, before anyone, PARTICULARLY the Daily Mail, decide to cut choice wordbites out of the above research just to further their case against videogames, Ellen Wolock also discussed the inconsistencies of the above research, e.g. how long did the noted increases in aggression last? How was the aggression measured? Define 'violence' etc. The overall conclusion was that the issue has not been studied adequately.
The best overall point raised was in a side note about human nature. It explained that humans are fascinated by violence, hence why kids enjoy Judge Dredd, Zorro, Batman, Power Rangers, Pokemon, and why we enjoy films like Gladiator, The Matrix and programmes like ER, and why we enjoy watching violent sports like Rugby, Boxing, American Football, Wrestling etc. There was even a murder in Coronation Street last night just to spice things up for the viewers.
But perhaps, like videogames, these activities 'channel' our aggression rather than help to unleash it.
More research, and in particular more longitudinal research, is required, using pre-defined definitions of what violence is and using pre-defined and across the board scales for measuring aggression before any conclusions can be drawn.
Banning games, movies and even music will never solve the problem, merely divert it somewhere else. All the bad things of this country and planet can't be attributed to one thing, there are many different sources that can lead to desensitisation and pinning it solely on different kinds of entertainment won't solve it.
Besides which, I'd say the biggest influences of desensitisation probably come from the news, with it's constant reports on real life killings, murders, wars and everything else bad, and the internet which has no rating system so is full of some pretty strong violent subject matter.
“Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games””
Also that comment makes Dr Howell look like an ignorant git for ignoring the age limits all “violent” games come with, and letting kids play them. Though I think it’s because he’s trying to prove a point, which makes him seem even more ignorant.
Besides which, I'd say the biggest influences of desensitisation probably come from the news, with it's constant reports on real life killings, murders, wars and everything else bad, and the internet which has no rating system so is full of some pretty strong violent subject matter.
“Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games””
Also that comment makes Dr Howell look like an ignorant git for ignoring the age limits all “violent” games come with, and letting kids play them. Though I think it’s because he’s trying to prove a point, which makes him seem even more ignorant.
Page: