Violent Videogames are Awesome

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Couric- N. A metric for fecal matter or other products of one's ass. Normally used in competitive shit shitting.
Entomology- Coming from the name of Katie Couric.

I wouldn't worry about what she has too say.

The ironic thing is, however, is that just normal TV viewing in children before the age of 5 has a huge statistical effect on their likelihood to commit violent crime. Where's the tweets blaming violent crime on Katie; she's contributing to TV programming.

Nowhere Man:

tzimize:
I get so depressed when I read articles like this.

The logic and argumentation is so flawless, and so simple. I just fail to understand why other people cannot grasp these facts. Why are there so many god damn idiots on this planet? :|

It's because there's an agenda that these media puppets are following either knowingly or unwittingly. That goes for political figures too. If you follow the money trail used to fund this nonsense I bet it will provide us with better answers to why they scaremonger the public. But this kind of crap worked better in the 90s with the whole Mortal Kombat controversy as an example. Nowadays gaming is so mainstream that these kind of arguments are just looking more and more foolish to more people. Give it 30 years and the media will have found a new scapegoat because there will be noone left alive who will believe their bullshit.

I sincerely hope someone sends Katie the link to this article. But something gives me the feeling that deep down she doesn't believe that games cause violence either.

Yeah...but that doesnt really help. A new scapegoat? What will that be? VR gaming? Something entirely different? I just dont see how humanity cant seem to LEARN more. For all the progress we make there are oceans of idiots refusing to evolve, I just dont get it. Sometimes I'm just shocked at the lack of rational thought in some people. I'm not expecting people to be rocket scientists...but to just...think a bit.

Edit: Oh man, I just noticed your nick. Nowhere Man. That was a sweeeeeeet show back in the day <3

Braedan:

DragonStorm247:
I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

Incorrect. I many times feel that I want to shoot things. Pretend shoot things, but shoot things none the less. Maybe you don't, but I sure do, and almost everyone I've talked to (that plays games) gives the impression of enjoying seeing things explode into bits because they pulled the trigger.

You misunderstand. I do not deny that virtual violence and the direct input/effect of trigger to exploding heads is enjoyable and satisfying. But it's not the fundamental core of the game. In an FPS it's mostly about the skill and tactics involved. If you designed a game otherwise, with it only involving the feature you just described (ie just press button to make things die), it would objectively be a terrible game.

Violence can be an important or prominent feature, but on its own it's not what makes the game fun.

Braedan:

DragonStorm247:
I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

Incorrect. I many times feel that I want to shoot things. Pretend shoot things, but shoot things none the less. Maybe you don't, but I sure do, and almost everyone I've talked to (that plays games) gives the impression of enjoying seeing things explode into bits because they pulled the trigger.

I like destruction, mayhem and carnage. I also like being the cause of these things. Why? Not sure. Maybe it's because explosions look pretty. Violent videogames are a way to enjoy these things without anyone or anything getting hurt/damaged/killed/destroyed.

However, the other guy has a point in there somewhere or at least he had a point that partially matches up with me. I don't play multiplayer shooters solely for the destruction, it's also a test of skill and that's the main draw for me.

Shamus, thanks for coming back. Your articles raise the tone around here and your consistently thoughtful analysis is a pleasure to read.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, and thank you for not just picking one actor in the social play and declaring that all social ills can be attributed to this one actor.

Is any discussion needed beyond points 3 and 6?
That's about how movies did it.

tzimize:
I get so depressed when I read articles like this.

The logic and argumentation is so flawless, and so simple. I just fail to understand why other people cannot grasp these facts. Why are there so many god damn idiots on this planet? :|

image
I think it's more that they don't want to acknowledge the facts. They've already got this scaremonger train rolling, and they're going to crash and burn if they stop now. Not to mention they probably just don't want to even consider, much less acknowledge, that they're wrong

More than anything, though, it's probably money. As another poster said, sensationalism sells.

Great article, Shamus. Keep up the good work.

You Can't Take the Sky From Me:
Your fifth point really reminds me of what Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller says: Don't call it violence, there is no violence in video games there is the artistic representation of violence.

That, to me, is the point that none of these pundits seems to realize, when I shoot someone in Far Cry 3 NO ONE GETS HURT!

About that, while it is a good argument against games turning people into mass murderers, the opposition could still say that the shock value of actual violence still won't stop someone from committing their first act of violence, since they haven't seen actual violence yet. In a sense, the argument could be turned around to say that because video games don't accurately represent real violence, they could make it look appealing and cause a series of one-time murders.

At least that argument helps to distance us from the mass murderers that started this debate.

In the end, I think the real question is whether or not the culture of violence that exists in all media is to blame. If all media were about love and puppies kisses and hugs, would that make our society less violent? Hurry! Someone start researching!

I thought hip-hop caused gun violence. I can't keep up they keep changing their minds!

PunkRex:
I gambled in Pokemon when I was 10
I drank alcohol in Mass Effect when I was 18
I took drugs in Fallout 3 when I was 19

I do none of these in real life, yet I have no problem with those who do (well, maybe alcohol). The idea that fiction and real life interlink in such a way is interesting but goes far beyond 'he shot that zombie, he's a killer I tells ya!'

Scaremongering. Scaremongering never changes.

You should, those things are fun. Live a little

sageoftruth:
About that, while it is a good argument against games turning people into mass murderers, the opposition could still say that the shock value of actual violence still won't stop someone from committing their first act of violence, since they haven't seen actual violence yet. In a sense, the argument could be turned around to say that because video games don't accurately represent real violence, they could make it look appealing and cause a series of one-time murders.

At least that argument helps to distance us from the mass murderers that started this debate.

In the end, I think the real question is whether or not the culture of violence that exists in all media is to blame. If all media were about love and puppies kisses and hugs, would that make our society less violent? Hurry! Someone start researching!

The counter to that is that violence is down. This is, so far, the least violent time in human history. If the artistic representation of violence made people more violent than we would live in a vast quagmire of blood and death when you add up all of the "violent" media that we have access to, from Beowulf to whatever the most recent shooter is.

CountryMike:

PunkRex:
I gambled in Pokemon when I was 10
I drank alcohol in Mass Effect when I was 18
I took drugs in Fallout 3 when I was 19

I do none of these in real life, yet I have no problem with those who do (well, maybe alcohol). The idea that fiction and real life interlink in such a way is interesting but goes far beyond 'he shot that zombie, he's a killer I tells ya!'

Scaremongering. Scaremongering never changes.

You should, those things are fun. Live a little

But bro, life is my drug... that and unhealthy amounts of suger.
image

Reyold:

tzimize:
I get so depressed when I read articles like this.

The logic and argumentation is so flawless, and so simple. I just fail to understand why other people cannot grasp these facts. Why are there so many god damn idiots on this planet? :|

image
I think it's more that they don't want to acknowledge the facts. They've already got this scaremonger train rolling, and they're going to crash and burn if they stop now. Not to mention they probably just don't want to even consider, much less acknowledge, that they're wrong

More than anything, though, it's probably money. As another poster said, sensationalism sells.

Great article, Shamus. Keep up the good work.

Yeah, but it wouldn't sell if people didn't buy it.

PunkRex:

But bro, life is my drug... that and unhealthy amounts of suger.

I prefer a fine glass of Pinot Noir myself

and Xanax

Fantastic piece, I've written a lot of similar stuff across different posts loads of times and it's nice to be able to just link to this artile which says most of what I have to say on the matter instead of writing a long ass post every time.

Good job :)

So true.
I personally still have to find game more fun than Postal2
Man, my favorite killing way is peeing on the person until he/she starts to puke
While the person pukes I grab the fuel can and spill gasoline all over that person
Then I light it up >:D
.
.
.
I can do this in real life, you know
I have penis, urine, gasoline can and matches
But I don't do this in real life
I will never do this in real life
And never did
Not because I'm afraid or that I don't have people that I hate
But because I'm not insane person (or at least not THAT insane)

But when it comes to insane people they will find "inspiration" to commit horrible in ANYTHING
Usually it is some sort of media (or religion)
But saying that a person started mass onslaught because of a book, music or movie is so last century
Saying that religion made person to commit horrible act of violence often is even treated as "hate speech"

But games?
Games are easy target.
Games are rarely defended.
They are often graphically violent.
Majority of adults and seniors have never played any game.
It is D&D BS all over again, just with games as a main target now.

Well, that's just, like, common sense, man.

You Can't Take the Sky From Me:

sageoftruth:
About that, while it is a good argument against games turning people into mass murderers, the opposition could still say that the shock value of actual violence still won't stop someone from committing their first act of violence, since they haven't seen actual violence yet. In a sense, the argument could be turned around to say that because video games don't accurately represent real violence, they could make it look appealing and cause a series of one-time murders.

At least that argument helps to distance us from the mass murderers that started this debate.

In the end, I think the real question is whether or not the culture of violence that exists in all media is to blame. If all media were about love and puppies kisses and hugs, would that make our society less violent? Hurry! Someone start researching!

The counter to that is that violence is down. This is, so far, the least violent time in human history. If the artistic representation of violence made people more violent than we would live in a vast quagmire of blood and death when you add up all of the "violent" media that we have access to, from Beowulf to whatever the most recent shooter is.

True. The problem is that people never seem to accept statistics these days, and I can't blame them. I've seen so many clashing statistics that I don't know what to believe anymore. Still, it's a good point that violence does seem to be going down rather than up. Now I just need a way to get my co-workers to believe it. Maybe I'll just run it by them and see how they respond. I'll let you guys know if my boss has a handy counter-attack.

Your link between violent videogames and a decrease in violent crime has some academic backing: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959

What's interesting is that it is *specifically* violent games that cause the decrease. Non-violent games show no corresponding decrease.

Somebody who's on twitter may want to tell Katie, the research is only 2 yrs old after all. She might not have had the time to find it yet.

DragonStorm247:

Braedan:

DragonStorm247:
I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

Incorrect. I many times feel that I want to shoot things. Pretend shoot things, but shoot things none the less. Maybe you don't, but I sure do, and almost everyone I've talked to (that plays games) gives the impression of enjoying seeing things explode into bits because they pulled the trigger.

You misunderstand. I do not deny that virtual violence and the direct input/effect of trigger to exploding heads is enjoyable and satisfying. But it's not the fundamental core of the game. In an FPS it's mostly about the skill and tactics involved. If you designed a game otherwise, with it only involving the feature you just described (ie just press button to make things die), it would objectively be a terrible game.

Violence can be an important or prominent feature, but on its own it's not what makes the game fun.

That's the name of the game here, FUN. Violence (as presented in video games) should only be seen as one means to an end out of several, not the end itself. I just read Yahtzee's latest Extra Punctuation and there's some overlap with this article, and some differences.

captcha: whet your appetite
... For DESTRUCTION! Sorry, my parents are Guns 'n' Roses fans.

My interpretation on the drop in violent crime in the USA: consider what demographic is most likely to commit violent crime.

Give this a quick glance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Then consider the dates involved.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here