Viewing Thread:
"It doesn't FEEL like killing."

Controversy about violent games has died down a bit now.

It was roughly a year back when shootings in America and Germany were blamed on games (after all, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that those kids had been brought up to use leathal fire-arms...) and their violent content.

So why would games get the blame?

If an onlooker watched someone playing an FPS, they'd see a game where you played through the eyes of a killer and killed people in a horrifyingly realistic way.

Goldeneye's animations looked surprisingly realistic the first time you saw them, and more modern FPS's are even more realistic.
You can see why these onlookers think that these games are bad for our psyhological health.

But the truth is, they don't really know jack.

Sure, at when people play games like Perfect Dark for the first time, the people do almost seem real in so many ways, and that's all these analysts/psychologists do - play one or two goes to make up their mind.

Now if they played the game in a regular manner (to play it, not to analyse it's effect) then they'd soon find that within a week, that killing these "people" is nothing spectacular - just part of the game.

Traditionally, these psychologists say that the gamer is "hardened" to violence and killing and isn't shocked or appalled by it any more.

They're wrong.

It's not so much we're hardened to the violence, it's just we've gotten used to the "characters". You see a games character is simply the same set of "realistic" animations/routines/speech samples used again, and again, and again...

Sure, they feel realistic the first time, but loose their effect the more they're repeated. Hence, it doesn't feel like killing a person, when you shoot them, you've just knocked out another "AI bot" as part of the game.

When you kill your friend at a deathmatch, if it's the first time you're playing the game, you'll probably think of it as destroying his/her character.

Once you've played it few time, the novelty of "killing" has worn off and you just think "my point". Just as you'd think if you scored a point in Tennis or Basket Ball or Laser Quest.

Besides, killing in a computer game can NEVER prepare you for pulling the trigger on a real gun, or keeping cool in a gun fight.
Sure, in a computer game you just press the button and the most you'll hear is a sound effect and maybe a weak rumble. Holding the real thinkg would be a lot different.

Likewise, seeing polygon bullets fly towards you isn't really so daunting, it seeing your screen going red isn't a huge punishment for being hit.
However, you only have to go paintballing to realise how scary it is to have REAL bullets flying past your head, richocheting around your ears.

And besides, in every case of a game-blamed shooting, the killer was brought up to use a gun at an early age. Now that's MUCH more dangerous than playing a game.

Sure, playing a game might make you fantasize about killing, but the moment you'd have a real gun in your hand, the chances are that you'd suddenly notice the difference between real and fantasy and change your mind.

However, if someone is used to using leathal fire arms as part of their every day life, any psychological inspiration could end up with them using it.

Because shooting as a sport is traditional and computer games are relatively new, naturally they're going to be the scape goat.
After all, the generation of adults who currently rule our world generally weren't brought up on games - or if they were, FPS games were long before their time.

I've been playing Perfect Dark against my brothers for 2 years.
Am I killing them?
Nope. I'm beating them, just as the way I'd do at sport, or a board game etc...

Deathmatches are of a sport mentallity, not a homocidal one.

Basically I don't think society as a whole is ready to accept that someone who seems normal could go and kill people in cold blood for no apparent reason. So they try to find a reason as to why, which means finding something that isn't normal about the person. If they played videogames a lot, or if they listened to an alternative style of music, or if they have a collection of horror/action (basically extremely violent) films or something like that. Then because these things are not considered 'normal' by society they assume that they must be to blame.

Your right of course. If Video game violence was to blame for those kid going and shooting people then wouldn't we all be going out shooting people. No because to some extent these people have been influenced by other factor, most likely their upbringing. It sounds to me like society is trying to shift the blame.

Kids going on killing sprees have also blamed music, Marylin Manson's music was blamed for some killings, and I seem to remember (if it wasn't MM it was some other band) that lyrics claming to have been written by the band were published in the newspapers, which when it was invesigated weren't to be found in any of the music. Its just another case of society shifting the blame. How easy to for the parents to say it wasn't there fault some game or band made them do it. A great way of absolving themselves of any guilt, but also a dangerous way.

Ros

Strafex wrote:
> Normad, that's down to difficulty rather than scene.
>
> Ironically, it's the cute and quirky games that tend to be the most
> difficult and therefore most fustrating.
>
> Besides, when you're relaxing on an FPS, you're hardly going to play
> it on it's hardest difficulty setting.

*

Yeah, you're right. Apologies for my nonsensical post. :)

Normad, that's down to difficulty rather than scene.

Ironically, it's the cute and quirky games that tend to be the most difficult and therefore most fustrating.

Besides, when you're relaxing on an FPS, you're hardly going to play it on it's hardest difficulty setting.


And to Cookie and Dringo, watch an action film and then play Perfect Dark.
Both are fake killing, but in the film, it seems real. In the game, although when the AI routines/animation are fresh and new, it seems real, play it a few times and you start seeing it as capping targets rather than killing people.

I've always found that games which feature loads of gratuatous killing to be the most relaxing, and games which are cheerful, cutesy and (so-called) light-hearted to be the most infuriating and downright anger-inducing.

I think ive been desensitised to violence to a degree. I really dont think i would have too many inner angels trying to stop me pulling the trigger on someone i really wanted to shoot. A chilling thought.

And mr Strafex sir? How do YOU know what killing feels like???

BTW, the point about shooting for sport is a good one, that never gets blames. And I didn't see Duck Hunt blamed for any murders. I mean Ninty released that, the company who are a family company, probably one of the least controversial companies in videogames because of their 'for everyone' ethics. And Duck Hunt had a light gun. You held the light gun. Sure it didn't look like a real gun, but more realistic than holding a controller. That probably wasn't blamed for killings because it was based on an accepted sport and you weren't killing humans. Doom was blamed for killings and you had to shoot enemies in that with a keyboard and mouse, while the enemies were hellspawn.

The media that blame videogames are stupid and ignorant.

*Stares into Dringo's cold, murderous eyes*

Must... Kill... Notables...

;-)

Killing people in Perfect Dark made me want to shoot down an entire supermarket... they have yet to catch me!