Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

kburns10:

medv4380:

Aureliano:
Brilliant! So that's why violent crime has been on the rise for the last 20 years--Oh, er, wait. Sorry. Apparently violent crime has been on a massive decline since the early '90s. Huh. That one period of time where people have been playing craploads more video games than ever before.

Anyway, there definitely couldn't be an inverse relationship between people getting out their rage fake murdering people and the rate of frustrated people getting guns and regular murdering people. That would be silly.

You have a point but you're missing some data. Things that affect violent crime in youth typically take 20 years for it to be seen in statistics. The book Freakanomics has a good argument that shows the logic behind it. So if you use Mortal Kombat as the start of Violent video games then there should have been an uptick in violence in 2011. And since games only got more violent you'd expect the next 10 years to have a substantial increase in Violent Crime. However, we're still in a decrease in violent crime.

This. I feel like this study made a few leaps in conclusions without fully testing them. Either way, I have yet to kill or want to kill anyone, so *shrugs* I don't know.

Sorry to jump into your conversation but the first gaming console the Magnovox Odyssey was invented in august 1972. I don't really see many 40 - 50 year olds running about tearing each other apart.

Violent crime has been on the decrease since video games were invented. If they were villain training machines surely the earth would be a wasteland by now. I have been playing games since I was 3 years old in 1984 and I haven't killed anyone yet :p.

Also as a personal anecdote my dad who suffered from violent episodes which we later found out were due to a form of epilepsy, (Think living in The Shining every night) could put off his rampages by playing DOOM 2 on the snes with infinite health and the chainsaw. I think video games are more likely to be an outlet for violent tendencies rather than a cause of them and that's the reaction their studies are seeing.

Riobux:
You know, alternatively violent video games produces a heighten violent imagination, or they are more likely to perceive FICTIONAL characters to doing violent things because they've been constantly exposed to a medium where problems are fixed violent. He may be correct, but it's REALLY lacking ecological validity and I'm really hoping the article is being paraphrased and not they've deduced that violent video-games have long time negative effects from three days of playing video games leading to a tendency to be more violent with the imagination. Which by the way, violent imagination means nothing in terms of violent behaviour.

Mature, well composed, and well spoken, kind sir.

The study did suggest that the violence factor "levels off" after a certain point. So maybe it levels-off at a point so insignificantly low that it has virtually no impact on actual violence/aggression outside of the mind. Those who are violent and aggressive would've been that way regardless of whether they were playing violent videogames or not.

Aaron Sylvester:
The study did suggest that the violence factor "levels off" after a certain point. So maybe it levels-off at a point so insignificantly low that it has virtually no impact on actual violence/aggression outside of the mind. Those who are violent and aggressive would've been that way regardless of whether they were playing violent videogames or not.

Actually what he says is that 'It may level off at some point' he uses very dismissive language about the possibility while going on to claim that there is no 'theoretical reason' why levels would later decrease.

Except all the studies mentioned which only found short-term aggression increases rather then long ones.Odd how he forgets to mention that.

Id like to see this study's data, was it peer reviewed?
Ive been playing violent games since Ive been 14 and if anything have mellowed out as time has gone on, I'm 20 btw
Actual violence is nothing but a lack of self control and will

The problem is, WHAT counts a violent?
I recently played Ys Origin, and while it has plenty of violence, it's more or less light-hearted anime fantasy, and I don't think it promotes aggression on a social level.

I.Muir:
Id like to see this study's data, was it peer reviewed?

It's been published in a not-so-reputable journal, but there's thousands of those which nobody really reads. So, strictly speaking it was, but effectively it's not peer-reviewed. I couldn't find anything about reviewing policies in the journal itself, so chances are they're one of those journals who just print whatever they get e-mailed to them, without having it reviewed first.

The first thing a peer review would do was tear it to pieces because it used a tiny sample size and from a selected and therefore heavily biased group. This study used 35 people. To compare it: My bachelor thesis about regional identity used a sample of 42, and the rules stated that if you used the absolute bare minimum of 30, lower grades would be very likely.

So this study is effectively worse than the average bachelor thesis.

What I would like to know is whether they are considering whether the player is losing or winning when they determine how aggressive they are, because I'm a level headed person yet like anyone, when I'm losing or can't figure out a puzzle then I do become frustrated and that can lead to me being aggressive; like I'd hit my desk or when I was younger throw my pad. Additionally how competitive are the non violent games? Because if they're easier then of course the students are going to be less frustrated and therefore less aggressive.

Nah, this study or at least the media dissection of smells very much like rubbish. I wager that at the root of this study is an entity with an agenda. I expect that the exactly same results would arise if the subjects had done any activity which hypes up that part of the brain, say, an action movie, wrestling, boxing, a rock concert or a game of football. It's pretty unsurprising that the subjects forced to play sedate games were less agro immediately after, however, both states are temporary. There is the smell of bullshit in the air and more than a few flies.

DrOswald:

--snip--

Fine, I'll bite. Why do you presume all of these studies are faulty? What's wrong with their methodology?

Look, this is one of the few reasonable studies about this. They are not stating anything that they havent found evidence supporting it. To simply call it false because of our bias will not help anyone. It is when someone tries to make an argument out of banning violent games that you should react.

I am pretty sure that if a 14 year old who only read 50 shades of grey several times a year would develop pretty strange sexual tendencies, but we dont ban it because of it.

image

So that's why I keep shouting Fus-Ro-Dah at my boss...

... Those must be the tamest negative effects of anything ever. "You get a bit louder and you're more likely to think fictional characters will be more aggressive once you've been playing a violent fictional character."

Absolutely shocking.

I'm not sure if it's been brought up yet. But they completely forgot to test the effects of games like multiplayer Micro Machines, Bomberman, Mario Kart and/or co-op New Super Mario Bros and how aggressive they make people. Beautiful friendships have fractured over those games! Truly it should've been part of the research.

Shakura Jolithion:
So is this more aggression, or is this people being more aggressive only immediately after having played the games? Because I think that's the next step to study, as what I got from this article doesn't give any indication of effects beyond aggression immediately after playing the games. Also, I'd like to see some of these studies done with people who watch sports, or other activities to get a better comparison of how entertainment media affects people.

Yeah, that would have been the responsible approach for this study to take, but...

I don't seem to recall a videogame study like this ever demonstrating responsible research methods.

People seem to get pretty defensive about simple research. I find this pretty interesting, and am eager to know how the research progresses.

Farther than stars:

DrOswald:

--snip--

Fine, I'll bite. Why do you presume all of these studies are faulty? What's wrong with their methodology?

I never said I did. I was responding to a statement you made trying to explain the fault in logic. Someone said (paraphrasing here) that this was another garbage study to ignore. You responded that the more studies that get put on the "These studies are garbage ignore them" list the less valid his point was. The purpose of every post I have made in this thread was explaining to you that if these studies are indeed garbage then they should be ignored completely.

But since you asked, generally speaking research done on the effects of violent video games has been shoddy at best in the past. I have usually been able to tear apart the experimental procedure with only the information presented in the article.

This time I cannot dismiss the procedure out of hand, through there are more than a dozen questions I would like to ask Professor Bushman about his procedure to determine if it really was a valid procedure.

That is not to say this procedure was without problems, just nothing that would cause me to dismiss it immediately. Lets start with the obvious.

The sample size of 70 students is small. I do not know how he came to the conclusion that 70 people was a significant sample size, but I am willing to bet it had more to do with practicality than scientific rigor, because 70 (actually 35 if the control group was as large as the test group) is far too small to make any certain conclusion unless the effects of violent video games were extremely drastic.

Second, even if the data collected could be counted on to be statistically reliable, his conclusions are far too sweeping and sure. Even if the experiment had been performed on 10,000 students across the globe, the conclusion that video games make you more aggressive over time would still be suspect because the data supports many other possible conclusions.

For example, I might have performed the exact same experiment in an attempt to show that the Maslow's Hammer effect gains strength as the person becomes more familiar with a tool. (in this case the tool being violence.)

Third, his claim that this was a long term study is ridiculous. Measuring a psychological effect over an absolute maximum of 72 hours (most likely only 48 hours) is not a long term study. He is flat out lying on this point. He also claims that it would be impractical and unethical to extend the test for longer than 3 days. I can understand if it is impractical for him, but saying it is unethical is moronic.

I am out of time here, so onto the conclusion

Basically, while the data might have been obtained using sound methods (impossible to determine without more information) his conclusions are not supported by the data. His experiment was poorly designed to test his hypothesis and he tried to hand wave that fact by claiming that a more rigorous experiment would be unethical. I have very little confidence in the validity of this study.

DrOswald:

--snip--

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Of course you should disregard studies with faulty methodology, but the more independent studies are conducted, the less likely the chance becomes that all of them use a faulty methodology. Surely, all the issues you name are certainly valid, but personally I find them insignificant when faced with a multitude of other studies which indicate the same psychological effect by looking at it from different angles.
Of course you could nitpick every other study for their flaws, but the process would be futile considering the fact that there are no perfect or ultimate conclusions. And in my opinion, scientific consensus has been reached on this issue. Now all that rests is to continue testing it and adapting it to new theories and, luckily for us, we don't seem to be running out researchers willing to do that for us.

plainlake:
I am pretty sure that if a 14 year old who only read 50 shades of grey several times a year would develop pretty strange sexual tendencies, but we dont ban it because of it.

I think anyone reading "Fifty Shades of Grey" several times a year would develop pretty strange sexual tendencies...
Also, loved the poster, especially the bit at the end with the dog roasting a marshmallow on the sweat, blood and tears of a few dozen writers. To wit, the following:

"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." - Ernest Hemingway

Farther than stars:

DrOswald:

--snip--

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Of course you should disregard studies with faulty methodology, but the more independent studies are conducted, the less likely the chance becomes that all of them use a faulty methodology. Surely, all the issues you name are certainly valid, but personally I find them insignificant when faced with a multitude of other studies which indicate the same psychological effect by looking at it from different angles.
Of course you could nitpick every other study for their flaws, but the process would be futile considering the fact that there are no perfect or ultimate conclusions. And in my opinion, scientific consensus has been reached on this issue. Now all that rests is to continue testing it and adapting it to new theories and, luckily for us, we don't seem to be running out researchers willing to do that for us.

Ok, I am going to repeat this again. Having many studies does not make any of them valid. This isn't a roll of the dice sort of thing where you can expect every 1 out of 6 studies to be performed correctly. This is a crucial concept. You need to understand this. If you are going to perform a meta analysis you need to actually examine a large amount of studies and individually check each study for validity, throwing out bad data.

Second, there is no consensus on this issue. Just a few minutes on google brings up many studies with wildly varying results. Here are the findings of several studies, summarized and peer reviewed by Lillian Bensley, Ph.D., and Juliet Van Eenwyk, Ph.D., in their meta analysis of the issue.

"No effect of aggressive versus nonaggressive video games. Boys were more aggressive than girls before video game play and reduced aggression to a level similar to girls after play."

"No consistent findings"

"More aggressive behavior after violent video game."

"Video game play rated as moderately calming."

"No change in hostile mood after playing violent games. No associations of game preference with mood or psychoticism."

"Self-reports of hostile mood were higher after playing either video game than after no game. Difference between mildly and highly aggressive game was in predicted direction but not statistically significant."

"More aggressive behavior after playing or observing violent game and after watching violent cartoon than at baseline. No effect on fantasy behavior"

Their final conclusion: "In conclusion, current research evidence is not supportive of a major concern that violent video games lead to real-life violence. However, well controlled studies of adolescents are lacking. Also, this conclusion might change as more research is conducted on more recent and increasingly realistic games."

And from another, more recent meta analysis review by Christopher J. Ferguson, Ph.D., and John Kilburn, Ph.D.

"Publication bias was a problem for studies of aggressive behavior, and methodological problems such as the use of poor aggression measures inflated effect size. Once corrected for publication bias, studies of media violence effects provided little support for the hypothesis that media violence is associated with higher aggression."

And yet another conclusion from another similar meta analysis (Mark Griffiths, Nottingham Trent University, qualification not stated)

"To briefly conclude, the question of whether video games promote aggressiveness cannot be answered at present because the available literature is relatively sparse and conflicting."

DrOswald:

--snip--

Well, aside from using Google to do your academic research, the information does seems less conclusive than I previously thought. Those thoughts were probably instigated by a media-bias on The Escapist and in other news outlets tending to cite only those studies that conclude aggressive behaviour, since those are, after all, more sensational. I also cannot name the meta-study that led me to believe an academic consensus was being reached, but I believe it was the one by Mark Griffiths.
I think the discussion pretty well ends here. It was nice talking to you.

Oh, look. Another flashy research news-bit about someone trying to link violence with video games.

Let's see here... Still the wrong assumptions and wrong premise, inconclusive testing, and a very weak ending. Well, I'd like to say that I'm relieved, but I was hoping that after Luxembourg, people would be smart enough to stop trying.

Allow me to put everyone who has ever tried to prove this stuff in the right perspective forever and ever: YOU ARE APPROACHING IT BACKWARDS. violent games (or any media) do not create violence. They are a direct result of tendancies that existed prior to their conception. In short, they are outlets FROM base violence to answer to a need FOR violence without actually DOING anything violent. It's therapy.

The idea is simple. To loosen up, people invent diversions and do things to entertain themselves, right? Right. (Kinda' has to be right unless one is into meditation...and even that is a mental diversion of some kind.) So, violent media is an avenue of entertainment which has been explored extensively since early civilization. (A Roman collisium or the first Olympics, for one.) Ergo, violent entertainment is a part of our history and culture at its core, responding to a need. The ones who act out are limited and crazy. The ones who sit there and watch are normal, a pacified audience. If you cut people off from it, they are more irritable (in part because there's nothing to look forward to).

But it OR the lack of it does not guarantee violence. Violent entertainment of any form is not a smoking gun. It's merely a notion towards an idea which is pure fantasy. Games are not real. Anyone supposedly influenced by what is not real to commit acts of horror is obviously one of a tiny percentage of the insane. It wasn't designed to be real, nor did the people selling it say "Go kill people", so anything you do that might exist in tenuous connection to a game is YOUR FAULT.

And that is why all of these researchers are crap.

So is playing Tropico going to make me more likely to overthrow the government of a small Caribbean nation and set myself up as dictator?

FalloutJack:
Oh, look. Another flashy research news-bit about someone trying to link violence with video games.

Let's see here... Still the wrong assumptions and wrong premise, inconclusive testing, and a very weak ending. Well, I'd like to say that I'm relieved, but I was hoping that after Luxembourg, people would be smart enough to stop trying.

Allow me to put everyone who has ever tried to prove this stuff in the right perspective forever and ever: YOU ARE APPROACHING IT BACKWARDS. violent games (or any media) do not create violence. They are a direct result of tendancies that existed prior to their conception. In short, they are outlets FROM base violence to answer to a need FOR violence without actually DOING anything violent. It's therapy.

The idea is simple. To loosen up, people invent diversions and do things to entertain themselves, right? Right. (Kinda' has to be right unless one is into meditation...and even that is a mental diversion of some kind.) So, violent media is an avenue of entertainment which has been explored extensively since early civilization. (A Roman collisium or the first Olympics, for one.) Ergo, violent entertainment is a part of our history and culture at its core, responding to a need. The ones who act out are limited and crazy. The ones who sit there and watch are normal, a pacified audience. If you cut people off from it, they are more irritable (in part because there's nothing to look forward to).

But it OR the lack of it does not guarantee violence. Violent entertainment of any form is not a smoking gun. It's merely a notion towards an idea which is pure fantasy. Games are not real. Anyone supposedly influenced by what is not real to commit acts of horror is obviously one of a tiny percentage of the insane. It wasn't designed to be real, nor did the people selling it say "Go kill people", so anything you do that might exist in tenuous connection to a game is YOUR FAULT.

And that is why all of these researchers are crap.

Do you have research evidence to support this claim? Because I hope I don't have to explicitly state what's problematic about calling a bunch of researchers "crap" and then pushing a proposal that lacks scientific testing.

I have to laugh at the whole "those who played violent videogames thought the lead characters would behave violently" bit. No fucking shit, the super-duper soldiers in CoD or Halo don't exactly act like they're peace-loving, generally happy people.

That's like asking whether you think a cookie will taste like a cookie, or whether it will taste like coffee grounds.

As for the whole "victory noise" thing, that may be a little more solid. That said, I've heard some fairly colorful screams come from my younger brother whilst playing sports games such as Madden or FIFA.

Instead of assuming that playing a violent game makes people violent, why not test the hypothesis that generally aggressive people naturally gravitate towards violent/aggressive entertainment mediums?

Riobux:

ScrabbitRabbit:

This is an awful test. Of course the students would believe that the lead characters of the more violent games would react violently - they would! That's why they're the lead character of a violent game!

The other test is more credible, though.

Actually, they got a neutral story and were told "okay, the main character in this neutral story (e.g. a story about a man breaking down) has a problem, how would that main character (not the character in the games people are playing) fix the problem in the story?". It's still flawed, but not because that.

They should have had all participants going out and grabbing lunch or some other activity before coming back and reading the story and rating it. After all, it's supposedly a long term cumulative effect.

ravenshrike:

They should have had all participants going out and grabbing lunch or some other activity before coming back and reading the story and rating it. After all, it's supposedly a long term cumulative effect.

Less than six hours is not long term.

Katatori-kun:
SNIP

Evidence, eh? Well, I am not - strictly speaking - a scientist. That much is obvious. My evidence is therefore not a study that would be mentioned at a gaming forum. So, my evidence is from observations that I have been taking in steadily for years. Each time I see something IN the gaming news, and believe me I have tried to keep an eye out, I look into it all serious-like and...get very disappointed. Because they've been attacking this thing for about as long as I can remember and that's all the way back into the first Mortal Kombat, when I was a child.

But what I've seen is essentially three-fold. The first and most obvious is that in all this time, no connecting proof - no real truth - has actually said that video games do MAKE you do stuff. If that were at all true, there would be a SOPA-level act to heavily-regular it. It would certainly be more in the news, more heavily-debated than now, etc. This has not happened, and it has not happened because I began to notice the pattern that I did. I studied THEIR STUDIES to try and figure out "Okay, why DIDN'T it prove anything?". I had always seen games - including violent games - as relaxing. Might get riled up and angry if you lose, but you don't KILL people over it. The thing that I came up with was that it's not really strong enough. It's smoke from the fire, and we are that fire.

So, the first thing is the non-proving-ness. The next, I mentioned already. I've observed that game playing in or out of the violence media is not an evil place. YOu HAVE assholes who game, people who shout profanities, but that is because they are indeed assholes and this is how they enjoy themselves. People who cuss others out in multi-player are doing so because they see no consequence and therefore let go. They are not holding back and this is what makes them feel good. It's a shitty way to do so, but it's not because they are violent and liable to bite your ear off. Most people would be shocked if...after cussing me out...I showed up on their doorstep. They wouldn't know WHAT to do. Even if they DID try something violent, it would be out of fear because it would mean consequences from the internet or something.

The third thing is simply a case test of looking around and seeing how often violence that might have something to do with a video game or ANY violent media actually happens. One of the reasons the whole notion is treated with disbelief is because there isn't even much of it to go on. There was a joke video once about "What if Jack Thompson was right?", amusingly-depicting the kind of world where gamers are suddenly up in arms because of their violent media. A clever jest, but it has a very relevant point: Where the hell are all the media-influenced psychopaths? If violent games make violent people, then shouldn't there be a millions of 'em raised on Battlefront, CoD, Fallout, Skyrim, Duke Nukem, Halo, and on and on and on and on? There is ALOT out there, so much that any REAL concern should be way more obvious by now. Seriously, how long has Id Software been in business? How long have we been shooting zombies, demons, and spider-brains? If there was ever a beginning, the pure sign of aggression, that was it.

Because the research has been little more than a footnote, proving nothing of real merit...
Because these games were designed to make people relax, unwind, and feel better...
Because that epidemic of media-controlled monsters just hasn't happened...

...what ELSE would you want me to say? I can squint and poke and prod and fuss about, but I'm not going to FIND anything.

It isn't there.

FalloutJack:

Katatori-kun:
SNIP

Evidence, eh? Well, I am not - strictly speaking - a scientist.

Fortunately, science is not a tool that requires you to have a particular career in order to use it. Not everyone is a scientist, but anyone can use science.

So, my evidence is from observations that I have been taking in steadily for years.

Observations are only one step of the scientific process. You need to go through the others.

I studied THEIR STUDIES to try and figure out "Okay, why DIDN'T it prove anything?".

How flawed another study is has zero bearing on the accuracy of your counter-claim.

If violent games make violent people,

The claim of the study you dismissed was not that violent video games make people violent, but that they make people aggressive. It's entirely possible to be aggressive without being violent.

...what ELSE would you want me to say?

I'd like you to back up your claim ("violent games (or any media) do not create violence. They are a direct result of tendancies that existed prior to their conception.") with evidence.

Or not really. I'm being a tad unfair, picking you out for what is general behavior of people in the thread. I'm not doing it to be pedantic, however, but to make a point:

The study that was posted was potentially quite flawed- no one is arguing that. The news article interpreting it is potentially even more flawed (as news stories that pretend to interpret science for the public so often are). But people on this forum are blasting this study as bad science, and then turning around and just declaring things without a shred of evidence. People are claiming sinister motivations on the part of the people who did the study, or alternative explanations for the phenomena observed without qualification (i.e. not saying, "It may be because of this..." but instead saying, "It's because of this!") That's not the way science works, and if you want to criticize someone else's science you need to respond with science of your own. Gamers have an opportunity here to take the high road, and it's disappointing to see so many respond with the rhetorical equivalent of, "Nuh-uh, I'm right because I want to be right!"

Okay I'm going to break this down into a list of claims and evaluate the validity (from my view point).

One: Long term exposure to violent video games increase aggressive behavior.
Okay, well lets just forget the fact that three days is not long term, in fact since it is only twenty minutes a day, this is actually less exposure than other studies on violent video games. As for increasing aggressive behavior, I think we have already proven that video games in general increase aggressiveness on a short term basis. This study however, didn't actually manage to prove aggressive behavior, only a tendency to believe others will react violently.

Two: Effects of violent video games are cumulative.
Not really even sure how they came to this assumption. There is nothing in that article that proves anything of the sort, with the possible exception of the victory excitement. As for the cumulative effect, unless they do this study with a large enough sample size and over a significant time frame, I have to call bull excrement on this as well.

The only thing they show with this research is that people who have recently played violent video games have a tendency to believe that another person will react violently. I did not see any evidence leading to the conclusions they have given.

Out of curiosity did anyone find a link to the actual research paper? I would like to see if this was paraphrased poorly or if they really published such shoddy experimentation.

Josh12345:
So all those screaming kids on XBOX live can be 'cured' by playing Animal Crossing or Mario for a couple weeks?
Welp, looks like every mum who sees this study is getting a WiiU in the near-future.

Which is not a bad thing at all, because the Wii U has some nice potential, but needs initial success.
And if it is true they can be "cured" by playing such games, well, crisis averted! if not? well... lets just not rely on that longshot to solve the problem.

Who does that n00b fag think he is? I feel like calling an airstrike on his casual arse. After seeing his mother ;)

Woah, what did I just say? It must have been all those violent video games I play. Just ignore me, I need to go lie down.

Yeah, I believe it. I've noticed similar effects in myself. Being engaged in something enjoyable and violent does make me feel more aggressive, and I tend to have more aggressive thoughts. Of course, when I watch something romantic on TV, I start to feel more romantic. Depressing movies make me feel melancholy, and funny movies make me feel like cracking jokes.

What you have to realize is that the effect these scientists have observed IS real, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with their methods or their theory.

What IS wrong is saying that this is proof that people playing violent video games will cause them to do harm to others, which is a bit like saying romantic movies cause unwanted pregnancies, or that comedies are responsible for bad puns.

Katatori-kun:
Please don't separate my posts into quotelets.

Yes, I know not to take any of this personally, and I understand if you're frustrated about kneejerk reactions. For myself, I have been trying to look into this in my own fashion because it is a thing that I enjoy and wouldn't want to see it unduly taking heat for what isn't its fault. You can blame guns for gun violence. They're built for that. Games...not so much. Even as a kid reading that article, my first reaction is "Aw, come on! Mortal Kombat is FUN!". Fun and entertainment is a difficult thing to examine sometimes, especially when you get some rather sick people out there. Nevertheless, I want to know.

I don't simply have an opinion. I feel that I'm qualified to comment because I did more than react. I know the good feeling of a game well-played, and I don't think that makes you psyched to do something like kill. I was on Swtor today and I single-handedly stormed a palace and killed a would-be king. It was not only a good battle, it was a GREAT battle. A challenge to even get at him because of his defenses, and then once they were worn down...to take care of him personally. I play an assassin on this game, and I know for a FACT that I am someone whose rage and anger could probably do serious damage. But I don't feel inclined to butcher some people. I'm in a good mood from that. Not good and violent, but good and cheerful. This is what I feel is the natural gamer state. This is why I have to look into these reports and see if they come away with anything of merit.

But therein lies the disappointment. I've been seeing this for YEARS, for most of my life, and I know it goes further back with the question of television and music. "Is media brainwashing our teens?" With as many times as we've come to this and come back with nothing, I believe the negative has been proven. There was one class I had in college that benefits this kind of discussion: Media Psychology. We focused on television, but all the points still stand. There is quite alot that media CAN do to influence people subtly, but we also know that it's there and it does not MAKE people do anything. I suppose if any game developer really tried hard, they could screw some people up hard, but that isn't even what they want. The developers want you to like them and spend money on them. None of this is achieved by making people violent, so they're out already.

The main reason this receives alot of scorn is that nobody wants that to be true, I know. But if you're going to try and prove it, could you try to at least put REAL work into it that can demonstrate without fail the actual danger of games making people violent? This was somebody's job, not the stuff I do on offtime. Those who get paid to work should be the ones responsible for delivering the goods. I'm holding games innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. The prosecution has made a call for emotional reactions due to game playing excessively. I would think that anyone who plays them would find this pretty straightforward. Doesn't prove the case, though, and I need alot more to see that one through.

So....

They have discovered what we have known for years

when you fail, you get frustrated!

Great work guys

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

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
Registered for a free account here