Tragedy and videogames
WichitaSubmitted by Dan Rucker
Tragedy and videogames
by Danny R.
(see: http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/04/18/after-a-tragedy-the-anti-gaming-voices-always-get-louder )
My take on this is we try to blame everything else but ourselves when we or someone we know does something wrong on a magnitude such as this. Sure it is known that violent video games can raise the adrenaline level in an individual and make them more "aggressive" but with millions of people playing video games, shouldn't be safe to argue that we should then be seeing more of this type of violent behavior and crime? What irritates me the most is seeing Jack Thompson use any chance he gets to blame video games for the likes that happened at Virginia Tech. Further, he has friends in Washington that agree with him. Thankfully no laws have been passed to restrict the game industry.
However, now I see other major psychologists get in on the act: Dr Phil for instance also looking or attempting to blame games. At some point the industry needs to grow a pair and call bullshit on these people. Further, there are probably only three people to blame. Parents and child. However, possibly the retailer that sold the game or the rental place that rented it. Why? Games are clearly marked for their intended age markets: E for everyone, T for Teen(13+), and M for Mature(17+). Yet, friends of Jack in Washington claim this is confusing? I'm sorry, this seems simple and easy to understand(more so over TV or Movie ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, ....). More so still, the games tell you why they are rated as such.
My ideas: parents need to take an active role in their children's lives and I know this isn't easy, and sometimes impossible given the case that sometimes both parents have to work. Further, retailers need to be held accountable for who is buying the games, or who they are selling them to. Nothing more restrictive than movies or music. Beyond that, video games are free speech.
So tell me Wichita, what are your thoughts? Do games cause people to do bad things and should they be regulated like guns as Jack Thompson believes? Is the cause of the violence video games? Is that just one step in a chain that had to occur to cause the violence? Should video games be the scapegoat that some believe it should be?
Danny said:
I agree, but do video games cause people to take their video game violence out into the real world?
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny, that's one of the many issues in the debate. One might try drawing a positive correlation between increases in violent acts by those who routinely play violent video games, assuming that this variable may be isolated from all other factors. How does one do this isolation of the variable given the complex nature of the human psyche, the number of factors present in society deemed as "maybe" having some impact on violent acts?
My thoughts, random and scattered as the same may be: 1) Age check on purchases/rentals of video games by younger persons; 2) Parental refusal to purchase/rent video games not identified for the age group of the offspring for whom the same are procured; 3) Parental monitoring of game playing; etc.
Dan, to respond in short fashion to the questions presented: as to 1), there is no proof that games qua games have this causitive effect; 2) see response to 1), supra; 3) Very probable; 4) No, as it now stands.
My thoughts, random and scattered as the same may be: 1) Age check on purchases/rentals of video games by younger persons; 2) Parental refusal to purchase/rent video games not identified for the age group of the offspring for whom the same are procured; 3) Parental monitoring of game playing; etc.
Dan, to respond in short fashion to the questions presented: as to 1), there is no proof that games qua games have this causitive effect; 2) see response to 1), supra; 3) Very probable; 4) No, as it now stands.
lindainks55 said:
Danny, I'm not smart enough to know about the affect of video games. What pushes one person over the edge is perhaps different than what pushes the other person and yet another person may never get close to any edge. Perhaps moderation is the best in all activities. I remember when playing Dungeons and Dragons was said to be dangerous to young minds.
There is NO DOUBT that parents must be involved in every aspect of their children's lives. Children require quidance and protection while they mature.
I do have questions.
Are the most challenging games, the ones everyone wants to play rated M (mature)? And, if so, does the violence, blood and guts make these the games everyone wants to play or is it the challenge? Aren't there "settings" than can be changed on those games rated M to remove some of the violence? Leave in the challenge but take out some of the blood and guts?
There is NO DOUBT that parents must be involved in every aspect of their children's lives. Children require quidance and protection while they mature.
I do have questions.
Are the most challenging games, the ones everyone wants to play rated M (mature)? And, if so, does the violence, blood and guts make these the games everyone wants to play or is it the challenge? Aren't there "settings" than can be changed on those games rated M to remove some of the violence? Leave in the challenge but take out some of the blood and guts?
Wendy said:
I think a large part of the problem is that parents today want too much to be able to blame someone else, and don't take enough responsibility for their own actions in raising their children... The whole "It isn't my fault" mentality that we have pushed onto kids that are now starting to have kids... I guess maybe I am old school. And I just think my kid is MY responsibility.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Wendy, no "alibi parent" will you be. :-)
I'm most definitely "old school", and think a part of the problem is the perception by parents that they (parents) are to be their childrens' "best friends". From my perspective, one cannot be an effective parent and be a "best friend". Now, being an effective parent may indeed result in the parent being a "best friend", but not in the context I've heard the remark.
What has caused me some amusement over the years in observing the environment is the mother, in an attempt to be the "best friend" dressing as a 16 year old; not too appropriate for most women over 30, if I may say so. Fathers get no breaks from me, either, although I've not observed too many of them trying to emulate their sons' choice of dress (sagging pants, etc.), but the attempt to learn the argot of the streets, e.g., so they can be perceived as "cool" is amusing. The offspring get it, and often (among themselves) make somewhat negative comments (overheard by dear old Vaughn, who is treated often as a piece of the furniture) concerning the attempt of the parents to regain their high school days (I guess). Anyway, back to work.
I'm most definitely "old school", and think a part of the problem is the perception by parents that they (parents) are to be their childrens' "best friends". From my perspective, one cannot be an effective parent and be a "best friend". Now, being an effective parent may indeed result in the parent being a "best friend", but not in the context I've heard the remark.
What has caused me some amusement over the years in observing the environment is the mother, in an attempt to be the "best friend" dressing as a 16 year old; not too appropriate for most women over 30, if I may say so. Fathers get no breaks from me, either, although I've not observed too many of them trying to emulate their sons' choice of dress (sagging pants, etc.), but the attempt to learn the argot of the streets, e.g., so they can be perceived as "cool" is amusing. The offspring get it, and often (among themselves) make somewhat negative comments (overheard by dear old Vaughn, who is treated often as a piece of the furniture) concerning the attempt of the parents to regain their high school days (I guess). Anyway, back to work.
Danny said:
Linda,
I'll answer your questions, though understand these are strictly my opinions and my tastes in games heavily influence my opinion.
1. Well, the problem if I answer the question about the most challenging games you will get my opinion of games, which isn't bad. I've found a challenging game in Super Mario 64, and it has little "real" violence in it. Another example, using Nintendo, is their Wii Sports: fun, a challenging, and absolutely not violence(except boxing) and no blood anywhere. The real challenge here is finding a Wii. :D
I also like some role playing games(such as Fallout 1 and 2) and these are for mature audiences(due both to a certain violent nature in their view of a post apocalyptic world and some sexual vulgarities in it). The story lines in each of these though far outweighed the violent/sexual nature of the games. As such when it is made, I'll also play Fallout 3. With that, the answer is individual taste and I'd also say in the case of children parental influence. The thing is, I won't let my children play games of similar nature until I feel they are old enough to understand the difference in them.
2. I don't think it is necessarily blood and violence that makes the game, but game play and story. However, in the First Person Shooter style games it *IS* what differentiates them from each other in some aspect or another. I'm generally not a fan FPS myself, however I've played one called Gears of War, this game is not meant for anybody 17 I'm sure, but I'm sure there are going to be 14, 15, 16 year olds playing it. I'm not saying the can't handle it. GoW has alot of blood, guts, violence, and cussing. On the flip side though, the Halo series. Just as challenging as GoW, and while there is killing, alot less in the way of blood, guts, and cussing yet I found it to be more fun, though Gears was interesting.
3. Some of the most popular games are First Person Shooters(I don't really like these myself, I'm an RPG/Strategy fan myself) and in some cases you can adjust the violent/blood settings. The real problem lies in, at least my understanding it, there aren't any real parental controls that can't be easily circumvented. So those settings could be turned back on.
4. I don't see why this can't be the case.
Wendy,
I agree with you. I think much of the problem stems from parents not understanding or not paying attention to what their children are doing. After all, why should I when I have a scapegoat that I could sue for it? For me, this sounds too much like the twinkie defense and I just don't find that acceptable.
I won't have an issue with my children playing games, I'll likely play them with them, ensuring they understand this is a game and not real.
I'll answer your questions, though understand these are strictly my opinions and my tastes in games heavily influence my opinion.
1. Well, the problem if I answer the question about the most challenging games you will get my opinion of games, which isn't bad. I've found a challenging game in Super Mario 64, and it has little "real" violence in it. Another example, using Nintendo, is their Wii Sports: fun, a challenging, and absolutely not violence(except boxing) and no blood anywhere. The real challenge here is finding a Wii. :D
I also like some role playing games(such as Fallout 1 and 2) and these are for mature audiences(due both to a certain violent nature in their view of a post apocalyptic world and some sexual vulgarities in it). The story lines in each of these though far outweighed the violent/sexual nature of the games. As such when it is made, I'll also play Fallout 3. With that, the answer is individual taste and I'd also say in the case of children parental influence. The thing is, I won't let my children play games of similar nature until I feel they are old enough to understand the difference in them.
2. I don't think it is necessarily blood and violence that makes the game, but game play and story. However, in the First Person Shooter style games it *IS* what differentiates them from each other in some aspect or another. I'm generally not a fan FPS myself, however I've played one called Gears of War, this game is not meant for anybody 17 I'm sure, but I'm sure there are going to be 14, 15, 16 year olds playing it. I'm not saying the can't handle it. GoW has alot of blood, guts, violence, and cussing. On the flip side though, the Halo series. Just as challenging as GoW, and while there is killing, alot less in the way of blood, guts, and cussing yet I found it to be more fun, though Gears was interesting.
3. Some of the most popular games are First Person Shooters(I don't really like these myself, I'm an RPG/Strategy fan myself) and in some cases you can adjust the violent/blood settings. The real problem lies in, at least my understanding it, there aren't any real parental controls that can't be easily circumvented. So those settings could be turned back on.
4. I don't see why this can't be the case.
Wendy,
I agree with you. I think much of the problem stems from parents not understanding or not paying attention to what their children are doing. After all, why should I when I have a scapegoat that I could sue for it? For me, this sounds too much like the twinkie defense and I just don't find that acceptable.
I won't have an issue with my children playing games, I'll likely play them with them, ensuring they understand this is a game and not real.
Wendy said:
I just think that a video game alone does not make a killer. I think there are a lot of other environmental and social aspects that have to go into the equation first. I myself am not a "gamer" - my fiance is, but his tastes run much more the the sports genre, where you find very little blood or guts... (although he did have to run out and buy "Scarface" once it was available - I have yet to see him actually play it). I still think "the videogame made me do it" is a load of BS. It's a freaking game. And if you make kids aware that it is a freaking game, well there you are... It's kind of like rules in my home - my son will probably not play a lot of those video games, because for one, I think too much video games is not good and I would rather he be outside playing, and two because I do not like violence and do not want it in my home... same a guns - I have already established a rule that there are no toy guns in my house - primary reason being that I don't want him learning that guns are toys, and because I personally don't like guns so they aren't allowed in my home... to each their own, but I still think the problem has more to do with the parents than with any video game...
darwinsdisciple said:
In WWII there was a significant problem of soldiers being killed without ever firing their rifles. They could have survived by shooting the enemy, but they did not fire their guns. I have read figures on how often this happened, and it seemed surprisingly high to me.
There was a former military guy who came and talked to my place of work. I did not go listen to him myself, but what he would do with military people who had this same firing your gun inhibition was to have them play video games and then work toward firing real guns.
A friend of mine heard him and decided that her son was not going to play those first person shooter games.
This is all second hand info that I have and thus I can't say for sure that it is accurate. There is a part of me that wonders if the military would really go to this trouble. Wouldn't it be easier to just discharge somebody who wouldn't fire a gun (no pun intended).
I'll have to ask around at work to see if I can find anybody who remembers this guy and then see if he has a presence on the web. I'll try to google him in the meantime.
This is a very interesting subject, Dan. Thanks for posting this.
There was a former military guy who came and talked to my place of work. I did not go listen to him myself, but what he would do with military people who had this same firing your gun inhibition was to have them play video games and then work toward firing real guns.
A friend of mine heard him and decided that her son was not going to play those first person shooter games.
This is all second hand info that I have and thus I can't say for sure that it is accurate. There is a part of me that wonders if the military would really go to this trouble. Wouldn't it be easier to just discharge somebody who wouldn't fire a gun (no pun intended).
I'll have to ask around at work to see if I can find anybody who remembers this guy and then see if he has a presence on the web. I'll try to google him in the meantime.
This is a very interesting subject, Dan. Thanks for posting this.
darwinsdisciple said:
Here's an article that suggests the U.S. Army and Islamic terrorist groups have used first person shooter games to enhance their recruitment efforts:
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=11...
Couldn't find the guy I mention above. I will email some folks at work.
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=11...
Couldn't find the guy I mention above. I will email some folks at work.
Vaughn Tolle said:
dd, I was aware that the U.S. Army had included a video game or games within its recruiting efforts, but was not aware that these were first person shooter games. I guess it makes sense to use the same for these purposes, if true.
Using video games so soldiers in the field would fire their weapons in combat is interesting. Given the personnel issues with the Army in particular, I would suspect it would want to try to get the soldiers already there acclimated to firing their weapons rather than just discharging them.
Using video games so soldiers in the field would fire their weapons in combat is interesting. Given the personnel issues with the Army in particular, I would suspect it would want to try to get the soldiers already there acclimated to firing their weapons rather than just discharging them.
darwinsdisciple said:
This was the guy I was trying to think of on Wednesday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)
http://www.killology.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)
http://www.killology.com/
Danny said:
DD,
One such example of this could be "America's Army". It is a first person shooter based on the Army and made by the Army. It is freely available to anybody online. It has high reviews etc. I've seen it, I don't think it would desensitize me though. However, maybe it would. Never played it, so don't know.
One such example of this could be "America's Army". It is a first person shooter based on the Army and made by the Army. It is freely available to anybody online. It has high reviews etc. I've seen it, I don't think it would desensitize me though. However, maybe it would. Never played it, so don't know.
Loading....