The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Someone on the radio said some time ago about how a bloke went out & raped someone because he was excited after watching an acted rape on the television.
It got me thinking about how all things are blamed for violence/criminal activities without good proof. Including videogames.
Do any of you think that playing Quake or Goldeneye would force you (or anybody for that matter) to go down to your local school with a sawn off?
Does watching Tom & Jerry cause kids to shove milk bottles down each others throats?
Would watching a violent sex act on the television give anyone enough reason to do the same to the next stranger they saw?
I believe the answer to all these questions is no. None of the above cause violence/crime. A simple answer could be made from stealing a line from The Simpsons :
"There was violence before cartoons"
As well as that, there was violence before videogames & Tv's.
While that statement doesn't exactly blow the arguement out of the water, I still think that if someone has committed a crime after playing a game, they were probably going to do it anyway. If all that was required was a trigger to set them off, it could have been anything. The TV news reports violent crime at least once a week. Newspapers do the same. Whats to say that the same person was or wasn't going to have his criminal feelings aroused by these???
I dont think outside influence is to blame for violence. I think its down to the actual person themselves. And if they are capable of doing these things, they deserve to be locked up anyway...
Lemme hear your views...
It got me thinking about how all things are blamed for violence/criminal activities without good proof. Including videogames.
Do any of you think that playing Quake or Goldeneye would force you (or anybody for that matter) to go down to your local school with a sawn off?
Does watching Tom & Jerry cause kids to shove milk bottles down each others throats?
Would watching a violent sex act on the television give anyone enough reason to do the same to the next stranger they saw?
I believe the answer to all these questions is no. None of the above cause violence/crime. A simple answer could be made from stealing a line from The Simpsons :
"There was violence before cartoons"
As well as that, there was violence before videogames & Tv's.
While that statement doesn't exactly blow the arguement out of the water, I still think that if someone has committed a crime after playing a game, they were probably going to do it anyway. If all that was required was a trigger to set them off, it could have been anything. The TV news reports violent crime at least once a week. Newspapers do the same. Whats to say that the same person was or wasn't going to have his criminal feelings aroused by these???
I dont think outside influence is to blame for violence. I think its down to the actual person themselves. And if they are capable of doing these things, they deserve to be locked up anyway...
Lemme hear your views...
Page:
"Maybe they can even persuade George W. Bush to ban console games, after all he does like to jump on the latest bandwagons....."
As opposed to how Clinton didn't do a thing unless it was absolutely according to his principles? Please...Bush hasn't been around long enough to 'jump on the latest bandwagon'.
As opposed to how Clinton didn't do a thing unless it was absolutely according to his principles? Please...Bush hasn't been around long enough to 'jump on the latest bandwagon'.
And as we're discussing video game violence, a kid in California kills two of his fellow pupils and injures a further 13.
Apparently he was sick of being teased.
I wonder if details will come through, such as he was playingn his console or PC much more than usual, or something like that.
When this case comes to court, lawyers have to try to shift the blame, and videogames are such an easy target!
Maybe they can even persuade George W. Bush to ban console games, after all he does like to jump on the latest bandwagons.....
Apparently he was sick of being teased.
I wonder if details will come through, such as he was playingn his console or PC much more than usual, or something like that.
When this case comes to court, lawyers have to try to shift the blame, and videogames are such an easy target!
Maybe they can even persuade George W. Bush to ban console games, after all he does like to jump on the latest bandwagons.....
Sniper said, "...so some parents need to protect them from these sort of games."
True, but more and more this isn't happening. And the results can be miserable, leaving children without the ability to fundamentally comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality. In such cases, would you really want them learning from Quake or Half-Life?
It's become abundantly apparent to me that the Entertainment Industry as a whole has no intention of acting responsibly. "Give the people what they want" is the catchphrase to end all others, and isn't it just the most wonderful of them all? After all, that's a wonderful mindset for influencing a child's behavior - give them what they want.
To assume that the industry doesn't have a great deal of power is ridiculous. In the United States, the influence of a skit show (Saturday Night Live) completely altered the manner in which Presidential Debates were handled. Yet does the industry take any responsibility for anything? Nope. That's contrary to one of the most understood maxims of all: Great power means great responsibility. But this isn't the case in this industry. It certainly isn't in the U.S. where the First Amendment has been bled for all it's worth, despite the fact that they're using it in a way it was never intended for.
Do I think videogames cause violence? Not in and of themselves, but they don't exist in a vacuum, do they? Like I've said, I don't think government should step in to try and censor the gaming industry (or any other part of entertainment), but I do feel that entertainment, as a whole, needs to consider what exactly they may be promoting.
As for the notion that killing in a game is very different than killing in real life: That depends, are we talking about from your perspective or from a child's? Just because I've never played a game and thought, "Hey, let's go give this a try," it doesn't mean that others haven't; it also doesn't mean that children haven't tried to mimic their videogame heroes probably more than they should. They may not CAUSE violence, but I think they may sometimes inspire it.
True, but more and more this isn't happening. And the results can be miserable, leaving children without the ability to fundamentally comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality. In such cases, would you really want them learning from Quake or Half-Life?
It's become abundantly apparent to me that the Entertainment Industry as a whole has no intention of acting responsibly. "Give the people what they want" is the catchphrase to end all others, and isn't it just the most wonderful of them all? After all, that's a wonderful mindset for influencing a child's behavior - give them what they want.
To assume that the industry doesn't have a great deal of power is ridiculous. In the United States, the influence of a skit show (Saturday Night Live) completely altered the manner in which Presidential Debates were handled. Yet does the industry take any responsibility for anything? Nope. That's contrary to one of the most understood maxims of all: Great power means great responsibility. But this isn't the case in this industry. It certainly isn't in the U.S. where the First Amendment has been bled for all it's worth, despite the fact that they're using it in a way it was never intended for.
Do I think videogames cause violence? Not in and of themselves, but they don't exist in a vacuum, do they? Like I've said, I don't think government should step in to try and censor the gaming industry (or any other part of entertainment), but I do feel that entertainment, as a whole, needs to consider what exactly they may be promoting.
As for the notion that killing in a game is very different than killing in real life: That depends, are we talking about from your perspective or from a child's? Just because I've never played a game and thought, "Hey, let's go give this a try," it doesn't mean that others haven't; it also doesn't mean that children haven't tried to mimic their videogame heroes probably more than they should. They may not CAUSE violence, but I think they may sometimes inspire it.
The violence is in the game but doesn't make you want to do it yourself.
Of course that's logical because computer games are just for fun and entertainment, you can't get yourself your own falcon 2 or Shotgun, your too young to even to be able to buy them, but what would be the point of doing it anyway?
It is violence in a way, but a video game is a video game nothing else, not a drug or alcohol drink that makes you as mad as ever. Shoot em' ups and horror games are very disturbing if you think about it, playing in the dark night sure scares the living life out of you but it's all part of the entertainment.
A shoot em' up is just a simulation, you can't do it in real life, because it's a different worl remember, anybody who likes to go round shooting people because of them playing Goldeneye is a lunatic, problem is some kids imagination is crazy they'd like to act it out themselves, so some parents need to protect them from these sort of games.
Of course that's logical because computer games are just for fun and entertainment, you can't get yourself your own falcon 2 or Shotgun, your too young to even to be able to buy them, but what would be the point of doing it anyway?
It is violence in a way, but a video game is a video game nothing else, not a drug or alcohol drink that makes you as mad as ever. Shoot em' ups and horror games are very disturbing if you think about it, playing in the dark night sure scares the living life out of you but it's all part of the entertainment.
A shoot em' up is just a simulation, you can't do it in real life, because it's a different worl remember, anybody who likes to go round shooting people because of them playing Goldeneye is a lunatic, problem is some kids imagination is crazy they'd like to act it out themselves, so some parents need to protect them from these sort of games.
VenomByte wrote:
Erm...probably true. I saw it when I was about 6
> :)
Me too... freaked me out no end... great stuff!" :)
Actually my original post was against bans or
> restrictions on video games, simply because there are more important
> issues which need addressing.
errm.. well... okay... :)
It's the whole "I wasn't
> thinking straight!" occurence that I'm getting at here. It's
> about whether you stop to think before you act. With games like
> First person shooters you tend to act on instinct, it puts you in a
> certain 'frame of mind'. If you're still in that state of mind when
> your out on the streets and armed, things could get messy - even
> though you never really intended it to happen.
Okay... What I'm trying to say is that as a trigger to these events, I dont think that Computer game violence is valid... If you come from a violent environment, playing violent games wont be the trigger to make the personm flip and become violent themselves. Of if it is, its not because of the vilence within the game, more the unfortunate time and place for the console..
Erm...probably true. I saw it when I was about 6
> :)
Me too... freaked me out no end... great stuff!" :)
Actually my original post was against bans or
> restrictions on video games, simply because there are more important
> issues which need addressing.
errm.. well... okay... :)
It's the whole "I wasn't
> thinking straight!" occurence that I'm getting at here. It's
> about whether you stop to think before you act. With games like
> First person shooters you tend to act on instinct, it puts you in a
> certain 'frame of mind'. If you're still in that state of mind when
> your out on the streets and armed, things could get messy - even
> though you never really intended it to happen.
Okay... What I'm trying to say is that as a trigger to these events, I dont think that Computer game violence is valid... If you come from a violent environment, playing violent games wont be the trigger to make the personm flip and become violent themselves. Of if it is, its not because of the vilence within the game, more the unfortunate time and place for the console..
Isn't this arguement dissection business so much fun? ;)
Armatige Shanks wrote:
>Most kids
> probably have watched Nightmare on Elm street...
Erm...probably true. I saw it when I was about 6 :)
>So should the majority be made
> to lose out because of the minority...
Actually my original post was against bans or restrictions on video games, simply because there are more important issues which need addressing.
>It only takes one minute to make a wrong mistake in Doom for
> it to be game over... shooting someone on a computer screen and
> shooting someone in real life is completly different...
It's the whole "I wasn't thinking straight!" occurence that I'm getting at here. It's about whether you stop to think before you act. With games like First person shooters you tend to act on instinct, it puts you in a certain 'frame of mind'. If you're still in that state of mind when your out on the streets and armed, things could get messy - even though you never really intended it to happen.
Armatige Shanks wrote:
>Most kids
> probably have watched Nightmare on Elm street...
Erm...probably true. I saw it when I was about 6 :)
>So should the majority be made
> to lose out because of the minority...
Actually my original post was against bans or restrictions on video games, simply because there are more important issues which need addressing.
>It only takes one minute to make a wrong mistake in Doom for
> it to be game over... shooting someone on a computer screen and
> shooting someone in real life is completly different...
It's the whole "I wasn't thinking straight!" occurence that I'm getting at here. It's about whether you stop to think before you act. With games like First person shooters you tend to act on instinct, it puts you in a certain 'frame of mind'. If you're still in that state of mind when your out on the streets and armed, things could get messy - even though you never really intended it to happen.
Wow!... quick reply! :) ... okay...
VenomByte wrote:
> Armatige Shanks wrote:
Perhaps not, but like I said, some people are more
> affected than others (particularly kids), and people such as youself
> already have personality traits which would mean you would never
> commit such acts anyway.
>Better ban Tom & Jerry
>
> then...
Ah, but would it be okay for a kid to watch nighmare on
> elm street? Let's not forget games are getting progressively more
> realistic.
Most kids probably have watched Nightmare on Elm street...
>I'm no expert on psychopathic
> tendancies, so no comment here.
Sorry... I'm no expert either...I shard a hose with a psycotherapist last year, and the argument did arise with her over many a empty wine bottle :)
In the main. Even if the effect of games is
> unnoticable on 99.9% of the population, that's still too much of an
> effect. Violence is not about the majority, it's about a small
> minority.
So should the majority be made to lose out because of the minority...
It only
> takes one moment of not thinking straight to make a mistake. Just
> one moment where you don't pause to think of the consequences. Just
> like if you were playing a game...that's not to say people think
> they're in a game or something stupid, but it can put you in a
> certain frame of mind, act on instinct, think later.
It only takes a minute to make a wrong mistake in Doom for it to be game over... shooting someone on a computer screen and shooting someone in real life is completly different...
Let's take a random example, say....Eminem. Grew up in
> a broken home, moved school frequently, got picked on and bullied,
> yes he was a scared kid. The scared kid grew up to be a violent
> adult.
Dont violent adults generally come from violent homes... pretty much everyone (50 percent now is it?) comes from a broken home... and of the Army brats I know (which are admittadly all women, so I cant say for guys) tend to have fairly low self asteem, and take a while to trust, but are the last to be violent...
VenomByte wrote:
> Armatige Shanks wrote:
Perhaps not, but like I said, some people are more
> affected than others (particularly kids), and people such as youself
> already have personality traits which would mean you would never
> commit such acts anyway.
>Better ban Tom & Jerry
>
> then...
Ah, but would it be okay for a kid to watch nighmare on
> elm street? Let's not forget games are getting progressively more
> realistic.
Most kids probably have watched Nightmare on Elm street...
>I'm no expert on psychopathic
> tendancies, so no comment here.
Sorry... I'm no expert either...I shard a hose with a psycotherapist last year, and the argument did arise with her over many a empty wine bottle :)
In the main. Even if the effect of games is
> unnoticable on 99.9% of the population, that's still too much of an
> effect. Violence is not about the majority, it's about a small
> minority.
So should the majority be made to lose out because of the minority...
It only
> takes one moment of not thinking straight to make a mistake. Just
> one moment where you don't pause to think of the consequences. Just
> like if you were playing a game...that's not to say people think
> they're in a game or something stupid, but it can put you in a
> certain frame of mind, act on instinct, think later.
It only takes a minute to make a wrong mistake in Doom for it to be game over... shooting someone on a computer screen and shooting someone in real life is completly different...
Let's take a random example, say....Eminem. Grew up in
> a broken home, moved school frequently, got picked on and bullied,
> yes he was a scared kid. The scared kid grew up to be a violent
> adult.
Dont violent adults generally come from violent homes... pretty much everyone (50 percent now is it?) comes from a broken home... and of the Army brats I know (which are admittadly all women, so I cant say for guys) tend to have fairly low self asteem, and take a while to trust, but are the last to be violent...
Armatige Shanks wrote:
No offense... but would you like to watch
> me? ... I've played thousands of very violent games over the past 20
> odd years, and never have I once wondered what it would be like to
> do it in real life... I may become aggrivated at the in game
> character, and seriously want to damage Eugine in Manic Miner, but
> no matter how hacked off I get, Its never occured to me to turn to a
> flat mate and attempt to then kill him/her :)
Perhaps not, but like I said, some people are more affected than others (particularly kids), and people such as youself already have personality traits which would mean you would never commit such acts anyway.
>Better ban Tom & Jerry
> then...
Ah, but would it be okay for a kid to watch nighmare on elm street? Let's not forget games are getting progressively more realistic.
>Evironmental and genetic... its still not agreed what the cause
> of the conditions that produce muderers/rapist/paedephiles, serial
> killers, etc.. actually are... infact theres an entire sub-culture
> deoted to doing the lecture circuit climing their theory as to the
> reason why people do these things..
I'm no expert on psychopathic tendancies, so no comment here.
Because were independant, free-willed people, because we
> see violence doesnt mean we do violence...
In the main. Even if the effect of games is unnoticable on 99.9% of the population, that's still too much of an effect. Violence is not about the majority, it's about a small minority.
Of course its not the local gun
> fights, the acrtive participation with firearms, the socially
> acceptable hard drug use, the violent enviroment or peer pressure
> its half an hour playing a computer game thats done it...
It only takes one moment of not thinking straight to make a mistake. Just one moment where you don't pause to think of the consequences. Just like if you were playing a game...that's not to say people think they're in a game or something stupid, but it can put you in a certain frame of mind, act on instinct, think later.
>These themselves dont create vioent people, they
> create scared people...
Let's take a random example, say....Eminem. Grew up in a broken home, moved school frequently, got picked on and bullied, yes he was a scared kid. The scared kid grew up to be a violent adult.
No offense... but would you like to watch
> me? ... I've played thousands of very violent games over the past 20
> odd years, and never have I once wondered what it would be like to
> do it in real life... I may become aggrivated at the in game
> character, and seriously want to damage Eugine in Manic Miner, but
> no matter how hacked off I get, Its never occured to me to turn to a
> flat mate and attempt to then kill him/her :)
Perhaps not, but like I said, some people are more affected than others (particularly kids), and people such as youself already have personality traits which would mean you would never commit such acts anyway.
>Better ban Tom & Jerry
> then...
Ah, but would it be okay for a kid to watch nighmare on elm street? Let's not forget games are getting progressively more realistic.
>Evironmental and genetic... its still not agreed what the cause
> of the conditions that produce muderers/rapist/paedephiles, serial
> killers, etc.. actually are... infact theres an entire sub-culture
> deoted to doing the lecture circuit climing their theory as to the
> reason why people do these things..
I'm no expert on psychopathic tendancies, so no comment here.
Because were independant, free-willed people, because we
> see violence doesnt mean we do violence...
In the main. Even if the effect of games is unnoticable on 99.9% of the population, that's still too much of an effect. Violence is not about the majority, it's about a small minority.
Of course its not the local gun
> fights, the acrtive participation with firearms, the socially
> acceptable hard drug use, the violent enviroment or peer pressure
> its half an hour playing a computer game thats done it...
It only takes one moment of not thinking straight to make a mistake. Just one moment where you don't pause to think of the consequences. Just like if you were playing a game...that's not to say people think they're in a game or something stupid, but it can put you in a certain frame of mind, act on instinct, think later.
>These themselves dont create vioent people, they
> create scared people...
Let's take a random example, say....Eminem. Grew up in a broken home, moved school frequently, got picked on and bullied, yes he was a scared kid. The scared kid grew up to be a violent adult.
Designers like Shigeru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima have gained a great deal of my respect because they haven't gone the EASY route; they haven't advocated violence in-game as often as many do. Miyamoto, as the creator of characters like Mario and Link, has brought out games with good role models, while still making them fun; he hasn't resorted to the kill-everything approach yet. Neither has Kojima, whose game Metal Gear Solid is meant to be more focused on stealth than straight-out killing; you can also see him trying to illustrate points with Zone of the Enders, where the degree of damage you commit upon innocent people could potentially mean Game Over.
Solid Snake is one of the toughest figures in all of gaming, IMO, yet he doesn't blatantly exercise violence; he only uses it when it's absolutely necessary (or at least that's how the game is meant to be played). This makes him a striking figure; I've often rationalized his thinking to something like this: "Killing is easy, anyone with a trigger can do it. True professionalism, true skill, comes from not having to."
It appears that two of gaming's most elite designers likely think videogame violence, without some sort of lesson behind it, could potentially bring it about in the Real World. Otherwise, why go to such lengths to make it less desirable? I have to believe that they've a reason for this. Is it meaningful that the United States government has used videogames to assist in training soldiers before under the guise of DARPA [American Defense Department's Advanced Research Project Agency], which MGS even mentions at one point. Also, after defeating Sniper Wolf, Solid Snake appears regretful of having to do such things.
True, these appear to be their opinions, but I'd consider the both of them fairly knowledgeable on the issue.
What I'm truly afraid of is that one day, we'll have a similar epiphany as Ender Wiggin did in "Ender's Game"; in short, we'll learn that the game wasn't a game, but we'll learn it too late.
I'm not saying that games like Quake or Half-Life or Unreal Tournament are evil; I've really no problem with such games existing, so long as we have the others available also.
Solid Snake is one of the toughest figures in all of gaming, IMO, yet he doesn't blatantly exercise violence; he only uses it when it's absolutely necessary (or at least that's how the game is meant to be played). This makes him a striking figure; I've often rationalized his thinking to something like this: "Killing is easy, anyone with a trigger can do it. True professionalism, true skill, comes from not having to."
It appears that two of gaming's most elite designers likely think videogame violence, without some sort of lesson behind it, could potentially bring it about in the Real World. Otherwise, why go to such lengths to make it less desirable? I have to believe that they've a reason for this. Is it meaningful that the United States government has used videogames to assist in training soldiers before under the guise of DARPA [American Defense Department's Advanced Research Project Agency], which MGS even mentions at one point. Also, after defeating Sniper Wolf, Solid Snake appears regretful of having to do such things.
True, these appear to be their opinions, but I'd consider the both of them fairly knowledgeable on the issue.
What I'm truly afraid of is that one day, we'll have a similar epiphany as Ender Wiggin did in "Ender's Game"; in short, we'll learn that the game wasn't a game, but we'll learn it too late.
I'm not saying that games like Quake or Half-Life or Unreal Tournament are evil; I've really no problem with such games existing, so long as we have the others available also.
There are 2 things is society of which we can be sure, one is that violent acts will happen, and two, at least once a month the computer game violence topic has to be posted on this forum!
My personal thoughts on this are that it's down to the individual.
Some people are more easily influenced by what they see than others. In the past it has been thought that TV is worse because it's more realistic, but with games become more so realistic, and you interacting with them way more, surely some people are more likely to be influenced by what they play, rather than what they watch.
Whether it's games, TV, films or books that inspire violent acts, or whether it's due to some imbalance in the individual is hard to tell.
On a personal note, I find things I read in books can be far more disturbing than films or games, because they leave so much more up to the imagination. But who ever shouts "Ban all books!"
My personal thoughts on this are that it's down to the individual.
Some people are more easily influenced by what they see than others. In the past it has been thought that TV is worse because it's more realistic, but with games become more so realistic, and you interacting with them way more, surely some people are more likely to be influenced by what they play, rather than what they watch.
Whether it's games, TV, films or books that inspire violent acts, or whether it's due to some imbalance in the individual is hard to tell.
On a personal note, I find things I read in books can be far more disturbing than films or games, because they leave so much more up to the imagination. But who ever shouts "Ban all books!"
Page: