In response to "Monkey Play, Monkey Do" from The Escapist Forum: Good read.
As long as the law is getting paraded around so much, the extreme difficulty of legally proving a video game made someone commit a violent act cannot be understated. There's a great quote from the 8th Circuit case where they shot down the Mass. law banning the sale of games to minors:
"Whatever our intuitive (dare we say commonsense) feelings regarding the effect that extreme violence portrayed in the above-described video games may well have upon the psychological well-being of minors, [we still need] incontrovertible proof of a causal relationship between the exposure to such violence and subsequent psychological dysfunction...The requirement of such a high level of proof may reflect a refined estrangement from reality, but apply it we must."
- L.B. Jeffries
***
In response to "The Anatomy of Violence" from The Escapist Forum: Unfortunately, S.L.A. Marshall's conclusions and methods have been brought into strong doubt of late. Evidence has been put forth that seems to indicate that Marshall did not actually do any systematic research into the subject of fire ratios, and that he was just stating an opinion and presenting it as research instead. A bit of basic searching on the web will show that his conclusions are being strongly disputed today.
To bring a bit of personal information to the subject, my grandfather served in the European theater as part of a recon company. His unit was not part of the Normandy landing, they arrived about a month later. They saw very heavy combat in the push to Berlin, however, and his people were no strangers to the sound of gunfire and the hammer of artillery. His opinion of Marshall's writings would be summed up with the word "Bullshit!". If Marshall was correct and the number of soldiers who actually fired was 15% or so, then there were at least 4-6 companies of men who never fired a shot, because according to my grandfather, every man in his unit shot themselves dry on a couple of occasions, a statement borne out by the unit's official history. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that WWII could have been won with so few guns firing on the lines. The death tolls in some of the battles were a little high for a bunch of guys shooting to miss.
It's interesting that the author makes no mention of the controversy that currently surrounds Marshall's and therefore Grossman's works. It would be one thing if it was mentioned and then argued against, but here it isn't even mentioned. Almost as if he knows the current discussion would weaken his position, and that he can't successfully argue against it. Not the most convincing article I've read.
- Royas
Very good writing. Bravo.
It's so rare that actual science is brought into the video games violence equation. And it isn't that people aren't trying; a lot of it is just conflicting reports. Just as Royas says his grandfather's company shot themselves empty, I can say my grandfather went through World War 2 without firing a shot. And he was infantry, a sargent maybe, but infantry nonetheless. So who is right?
My belief is not so much that games desensitize; that argument is outdated and there is plenty of other media that is equal to the level of violence in games. It's that games reward, points, experience, items, money, for commiting acts of violence. It teaches kids that violence is an acceptable means to resolve a problem instead of working through it logically and keeping emotions in check instead of just exploding. In games, you can just shoot the person who is frustrating you and they go away, and there is no consequense for it, and in fact, you are generally rewarded for it. That is my beef with game violence.
And it's true that first-person games suck people in and make them feel involved, but I've yet to find or be pointed to any meaningful scientific conclusions regarding it.
- SamuraiAndPig
