U.S. Senator Says Violent Games Are "Practice Simulators"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

The thing is, she doesn't want to ban all guns from games, so this will never work. The Supreme Court has recognized video games as being protected by the first amendment. And you can ban certain proclamations or images from falling under the first amendment entirely, but you can't set an upper-limit quota for them.
If you ban them you assume that they're so damaging to society that they can't be used at all, but since guns are allowed in art and film, they're deemed unharmful, so they can be used in video games as well. And the government can't set a certain quota, because then that would mean that individual developers might be constrained by social trends which they have no power over (precisely the interest which the first amendment seeks to protect).
But I do love news stories like these. It makes the comments section the ideal place for target practice. Let's see what I can bag this time...

theSteamSupported:
Isn't violent crimes at an world history low?

Actually, speaking worldwide, crime is estimated to be higher than throughout history, owing to the rapid growth of populations in countries and regions which are more susceptible to crime (read: corrupt nations and cities). Also, the rise of video surveillance and computer technology has affected the way in which we monitor crimes and process associated records so that more crime can be documented and thus attributed to statistics. This separates modern crime figures from older ones. However, taking all that into account, it is true that there is less recorded crime in the United States and most other Western nations.
But even if there were fewer crimes your argument would still be a very weak argument, considering that there is no causal link between the two trends of more people playing video games and fewer violent crimes being committed. It's like saying: "It rains more often the morning after we do this rain dance." It might be a factually correct statement, but it doesn't prove any scientific causality. So scientifically speaking, it's entirely possible that video games stimulate aggressive behaviour on an individual and psychological level, while not showing up in sociological studies (although it's worth noting that there is no scientific research which proves the psychological link either).

theSteamSupported:
People usually commit murder, theft, rape etc on the basis of lacking decent living standards.

Again, as far as poverty and crime are concerned, although there is academic consensus that the two are related, the cause and effect are very much disputed among scientists. It is entirely possible that crime is the basis for "lacking decent living standards", rather than the other way around. On which side of the argument you fall really depends on your position on the political spectrum and less on what is factually correct.

Grabehn:
My entire mid to early highschool was spent playing GTA and CoD, and I almost fainted when I sliced the side of my finger while pairing an orange. I'm totally a sociopathic killer, obviously, desensitized to blood... yeah right.

Right, because your individual perception is the way things are. "I own a gun and I never shoot people with it, so no other gun-owner ever shoots anyone." Or: "We had the coldest winter ever, so obviously Global Warming is a myth."

DTWolfwood:
"First Amendment rights protection! Come at me bro!" ~Violent Videogames.

That's what I'm talking about! Or... writing about at least.

valium:
It is not an American thing, it is an idiot thing. They happen to be all over the world, we just have a bad habit of electing them into office.

I think that might say quite a lot about Americans as well, though...

Rogue 09:
I would feel better if we just had randomly selected people picked up off the street and forced to serve to two years...

Except Hippies.

Never Hippies...

Right, because who the hell wants leaders who are dedicated to everlasting peace? Of course, I say that sarcastically now, but I'd be singing a very different tune if when China invades and my own country no longer has a formal military.

LysanderNemoinis:
Yeah, problem with that is that most of the hippies back then are the people in power now.

Not most, "some", maybe... Thing about power is, there isn't much of it to go around, or else it wouldn't be power.

Mr.K.:
You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

There is. It's known as Darwinian evolution. It's just that it doesn't look very fast in a human lifetime.

BoogieManFL:
Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.

So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice all people who are more qualified because some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?

These statement always make me think of that kid who played "violent" video games almost daily, and cried his eyes out, begging for his mother when he was asked to shoot a real gun. Found in this video, of which the whole thing is very applicable and entertaining.

Xanex:
After books it was movies. After that was the internet. I'm sure there will be something after games to take on the role of boogyman to cast blame onto.

It's gonna be smartphones. I'm calling it now: we're going to hear about terrifying social network hiveminds that are turning our kids into Children of the Corn.

Anoni Mus:
This makes me rage real hard.

I cant stand ignorance. If someone doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, then shut up. She should disappear from politics.

If knowing what the hell you're talking about was required for politics we'd have no politicians... but governments would probably still run more smoothly

Mr.K.:
You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

Are you friggin' kidding me? Do you know how many people we'd have to throw in jail if we did that? I don't think we have enough prisons for that... unless you mean politicians in particular, in which case, we have to get that law passed as soon as possible.

Also, I find this appropriate for this thread:

Well, it would be, but I think I messed up trying to type the tags or whatever they're called at the ends of a image or a video. Can someone help please?

EDIT: Fixed

Rex Dark:
Also... Am I the only one who thinks she looks like professor Umbridge?

You are not alone good sir. Umbrige's grim visage was the first thing to pop into my mind when I saw the OP.

On-topic, when are these old and clearly out of touch politicians going to pull their heads out of their arses and give their jobs to someone who can actually do their job?

Farther than stars:
The thing is, she doesn't want to ban all guns from games, so this will never work. The Supreme Court has recognized video games as being protected by the first amendment. And you can ban certain proclamations or images from falling under the first amendment entirely, but you can't set an upper-limit quota for them.
If you ban them you assume that they're so damaging to society that they can't be used at all, but since guns are allowed in art and film, they're deemed unharmful, so they can be used in video games as well. And the government can't set a certain quota, because then that would mean that individual developers might be constrained by social trends which they have no power over (precisely the interest which the first amendment seeks to protect).
But I do love news stories like these. It makes the comments section the ideal place for target practice. Let's see what I can bag this time...

theSteamSupported:
Isn't violent crimes at an world history low?

Actually, speaking worldwide, crime is estimated to be higher than throughout history, owing to the rapid growth of populations in countries and regions which are more susceptible to crime (read: corrupt nations and cities). Also, the rise of video surveillance and computer technology has affected the way in which we monitor crimes and process associated records so that more crime can be documented and thus attributed to statistics. This separates modern crime figures from older ones. However, taking all that into account, it is true that there is less recorded crime in the United States and most other Western nations.
But even if there were fewer crimes your argument would still be a very weak argument, considering that there is no causal link between the two trends of more people playing video games and fewer violent crimes being committed. It's like saying: "It rains more often the morning after we do this rain dance." It might be a factually correct statement, but it doesn't prove any scientific causality. So scientifically speaking, it's entirely possible that video games stimulate aggressive behaviour on an individual and psychological level, while not showing up in sociological studies (although it's worth noting that there is no scientific research which proves the psychological link either).

theSteamSupported:
People usually commit murder, theft, rape etc on the basis of lacking decent living standards.

Again, as far as poverty and crime are concerned, although there is academic consensus that the two are related, the cause and effect are very much disputed among scientists. It is entirely possible that crime is the basis for "lacking decent living standards", rather than the other way around. On which side of the argument you fall really depends on your position on the political spectrum and less on what is factually correct.

Grabehn:
My entire mid to early highschool was spent playing GTA and CoD, and I almost fainted when I sliced the side of my finger while pairing an orange. I'm totally a sociopathic killer, obviously, desensitized to blood... yeah right.

Right, because your individual perception is the way things are. "I own a gun and I never shoot people with it, so no other gun-owner ever shoots anyone." Or: "We had the coldest winter ever, so obviously Global Warming is a myth."

DTWolfwood:
"First Amendment rights protection! Come at me bro!" ~Violent Videogames.

That's what I'm talking about! Or... writing about at least.

valium:
It is not an American thing, it is an idiot thing. They happen to be all over the world, we just have a bad habit of electing them into office.

I think that might say quite a lot about Americans as well, though...

Rogue 09:
I would feel better if we just had randomly selected people picked up off the street and forced to serve to two years...

Except Hippies.

Never Hippies...

Right, because who the hell wants leaders who are dedicated to everlasting peace? Of course, I say that sarcastically now, but I'd be singing a very different tune if when China invades and my own country no longer has a formal military.

LysanderNemoinis:
Yeah, problem with that is that most of the hippies back then are the people in power now.

Not most, "some", maybe... Thing about power is, there isn't much of it to go around, or else it wouldn't be power.

Mr.K.:
You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

There is. It's known as Darwinian evolution. It's just that it doesn't look very fast in a human lifetime.

BoogieManFL:
Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.

So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice all people who are more qualified because some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?

I wouldn't take that much from what I said, but in general I don't as often see younger people making outright idiotic statements that are more their personal opinion(and outright wrong) than any proven fact about things like this.

Yuuki:
The female senator is right, I'm currently practicing a LOT in Saints Row 3.

"String of fatal beatings of idiotic politicians with giant purple dildo continues, news at 11."

:P

OT: dumb woman, It is painful to realize that idiots like this can get and stay elected.

Reyold:

Also, I find this appropriate for this thread:

Like that, yo.

OT: Oh look, more politicians talking about video ga-

BORING!!!

Hah... I WISH I were that good, you jumped-up mouthpiece of stupid! After all the Doom, Rage, Fallout, Duke Nukem, Half-Life, MDK, Evil Dead, Saint's Row, GTA, Devil May Cry, and MUCH MUCH MORE that I've played in my life, I could take care of ALL your military problems and the rest of our boys could GO HOME! As it stands, I am not trained, but I'll sure as hell hit a target better than someone who only ever played games.

Heh, silly morons in office...

There is no real evidence of any link between violence in video games to actual violence and guess what there never will be. She is wrong and there is no reason to get worked up about it until she tries to implement something she does not fully understand to damage the industry.

Watch out for when they start to say things like gaming has it's good points followed by a small list. They are about to dismiss all of it in an attempt to implement some ill thought out plan to destroy games.

Try hearing something like this as someone who voted for her. In my defense, she does good things in other aspects of politics.

Maybe my being one of her constituents would lend my words some weight if I told her that, no matter how hard I practice, I can't shoot a fireball from my hands.

Chemical Alia:
I dunno...I shot some real guns when I was in the army, and I've played a few games with guns in them (even worked on a few!). I wouldn't consider them comparable experiences. At all.

Wait wait...you mean video games do not build the required muscle memory and physical experience for becoming proficient with firearms?!

What a stunning revelation!

BoogieManFL:

--snip--

I think a more important question is whether it's even possible to be objective about this kind of thing. There's a fun Douglas Adams quote: "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
By that logic there will probably be some new trend, by the time we're Feinstein's age, which we don't fully understand and doesn't fit in our own view of the world. My point being: we're all affected by biases dependent on what age group we're in. And I don't think it's fair or legitimate to fault someone for something which we're all susceptible to.

rob_simple:

Xanex:
After books it was movies. After that was the internet. I'm sure there will be something after games to take on the role of boogyman to cast blame onto.

It's gonna be smartphones. I'm calling it now: we're going to hear about terrifying social network hiveminds that are turning our kids into Children of the Corn.

THERE WAS PHONE CANCER AND NOW THERE IS SMARTPHONE CANCER!
BY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!
YOU MADE THE CANCER SMARTER!

Oh yeah, because the operation of a video game controller is just sooooo much like the operation of an actual real life firearm. __

FalloutJack:

Reyold:

Also, I find this appropriate for this thread:

Like that, yo.

Ah, I see. I thank thee, fellow Escapist, for assistance in my crusade against political stupidity.

Farther than stars:

BoogieManFL:

BoogieManFL:
Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.

So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice all people who are more qualified because some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?

I wouldn't take that much from what I said, but in general I don't as often see younger people making outright idiotic statements that are more their personal opinion(and outright wrong) than any proven fact about things like this.

Or maybe, just maybe
Everybody could have politicians that got the facts together before they decide to mess with things they don't understand. You know sit down and think 'what could the implications of my actions be?' or maybe 'is this the only possible cause to this problem?'.

That last quote just does not want to work

Chemical Alia:
I dunno...I shot some real guns when I was in the army, and I've played a few games with guns in them (even worked on a few!). I wouldn't consider them comparable experiences. At all.

There's your problem right there. You are bringing logic into this discussion. She's only bringing biased, hypocritical mudslinging, idiot-rangling nonsense!

Of course you wouldn't see it all as comparable.

Andy Chalk:
"I think the really violent videogame becomes a kind of simulator to practice on. And it enables the individual to become much more familiar with that depiction of death and blood," she said.

You "think," Senator? You don't "know"? You don't have anything conclusive to back that up?

I don't know if you're just trying to stir shit up and get your name in the news, but I certainly think that you are.

Andy Chalk:
"Of course it's not the way it is in real life."

Ah. Well, that's good. I guess it's not worth griping to the media about, in that case. Now you can spend less time fretting over fake guns and more time dealing with real guns.

"Hi there, out of touch senator dropping in to tell you I'd like to ban something I know fuck all about."

These stories are all the same by now. It always amazes me, though, how so many people in power can be so ignorant and out of touch. I'll never get over that.

If that was true, then there would be an awful lot of reports of RPG players mass-slaughtering wild animals & decapitating muggers & rapists.

In that case, can i be a pilot because all those 100 or so hours on a flight simulator must make me the greatest pilot in the world. Also ive played Forza games alot so i expect to have a drivers license mailed to me without passing any tests.

An as far as games being killing simulators, how? Most of the time your shooting people that are shooting at you. Rarely are you playing a game where you kill innocents on the street. Plus no game can give you a realistic feeling of firing a real gun, especially the sound and the recoil. Not to mention aiming at real people is a whole different thing to shooting a bunch of pixals. If you gonna blame games for that then what about target practice at gun ranges where your shooting human shaped targets?

Thing is, when you look at any shooting, there is always a reason and its never "i played this game". Its either mental issues, bullying, anger, money issues or the many other reasons one person want to kill another. Its never because of a game. If anything games help people focus there anger so they can calm down. I know when ive had a crap day at work, 10 minutes of mindless killing makes me feel better. Its good stress release. :-)

likalaruku:
If that was true, then there would be an awful lot of reports of RPG players mass-slaughtering wild animals & decapitating muggers & rapists.

Imagine that, a burglar is caught. An when he gets to court he states playing rpgs is what caused him to walk into peoples houses and take stuff out their cupboards. lol

Jaden Kazega:

Therumancer:

At the end of the day it's just more of the same, the issue will go on until they find another boogie man. Right now by harping on video games it gives the politicians something to talk about and pretend they are taking action while they try and avoid any kind of strong action on things like immigration, or actually cracking down on the elements of society doing violence (gangs, terrorists, etc...) as they all come with touchy issues and any position in any direction that could potentially be effective or make a differance comes with enough enemies and opposition to be tantamount to political suicide.

I think this just about sums it up, like you said: violent video games are just the 'flavor of the month', or in this case... year? More like decade at this point. If they were targeting solely games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, or the Grand Theft Auto series, their opinions and statements wouldn't bother me nearly as much. The term 'violent' video game, however, is a fairly broad term to use, since the word 'violent' could be twisted to encompass almost anything -- especially in a country where even so much as throwing water on someone can be considered assault. The realistic military shooter is still a fairly-recent development, and actually think that it's our own gun culture/gun worship which has influenced video game culture in recent years.

At the end of the day, logic and reason will win out... at least one would hope. lol

EDIT: Also, on the topic of military shooters, while I'm not a police officer or in any branch of the military myself, I have been trained in some firearms and know how to use them. As anyone else will tell you, pulling a game controller trigger and a 'real' trigger (while one may think them to be similar) feel entirely different; though, this would be more directed to people who think military shooters train people on how to operate guns...

No, video games won't teach you how to operate or maintain firearms, but learning that is actually very simple. As I said their case seems to be about these games conditioning people to be more violent and see firearms violence as a viable solution, and go out to learn how to do these things as a result. They also do teach tactics at a very basic level, depending on the game.

To be honest I don't think the US has any more of a "gun culture" than anyone else, it's just that we're one of the few nations that believes in the right to keep and bear arms as a basic right. It also guarantees a lot of freedom and the abillity of the individual to stand up to authority in an absolute sense. We've had the right to keep and bear arms for a very long time, and honestly it hasn't influanced the media more here than anywhere else. Gunplay, shootouts, and all of that stuff are general action fodder throughout all generes. Basically if your culture has fantasy entertainment, it has lots of action adventure stuff with people shooting guns everywhere. Ironically the US for all of the criticisms it gets is pretty tame when you get down to it. Hollywood is typically a step or two behind the violence/death/bloodshed curve compared to movies coming out in Asia or parts of Europe, it's just that Hollywood eventually tries to up the ante once in a while to equal it. This is why imported Hong Kong action movies have been a big deal, and why Italian horror/gore cinema is viewed with such reverance by fringe movie buffs. It's ironic that the US gets all kinds of flak for promoting violence and yet "having such a problem with sex" when really we've always kind of been pantywaists there too. There is a reasy why whenever you see a really intense gunfight, or some dude running around with paird automatics blowing away dozens of dudes in a stylistic, ultra-violent fashion, people mention John Woo, or in a discussion of hard core horror cinema the works of guys like Dario Argento come up. Even in video games, the "hardcore" approach to violence and sex is one of the big reasons why Japanese bootlegs, translation movements, and similar things became such a big deal for a while, especially when it was still kind of under the radar.

The current boogie man seems like a bigger deal than usual because of the fact that politicians have more of a reason to whack it with a lot of the current violence, and really nothing better has come along. In an absolute term I think various kinds of Rock music got it longer than video games have at this point, though Video games might eventually get the record. Understand people started screaming about music being responsible for society's ills including sex, violence, suicide, and anti-social behavior since like the 1920s. It became a big deal in the 50s through the 80s, where in the 80s and 90s they even had deprogramming centers to get kids off of "the devil music" much like drug addicts can be forced into private rehab by their parents (if they have enough money). I have no idea if that is still around though.

Also politicians need a scapegoat more than they ever did before, because there has been so much buck passing (to avoid ruining a current political career, making it someone else's problem as it compounded) that the US has become polarized on pretty much every major issue there is. The line has been deadlocked on most major issues ranging from gay rights, to immigration, to foreign policy, to domestic security, to almost anything else you can think of right at the 50% mark with major political offices being won by single digit percentage points. Obama, lead at like 7% at his highest total advantage for example and that's actually pretty big compared to some other elections.

As I've been saying for years now on this forum and others, the US is kind of falling apart, it's amazing that it's survived as long as it has with this kind of political deadlock, since there would have been a civil war long before now in any other country with these kinds of divides. A timer is pretty much ticking down until the point where one "side" of the country more or less decides to take back the country from the other side. When it comes to these issues neither side accepts a middle ground, and views the other as some kind of vocal minority that is totally off kilter and not even worth listening to. We've gotten to the point where we've actually had issues about the US flag being flown in US schools during foreign holidays (Cinco Del Mayo) to avoid upsetting students who identify more as being Mexican than US despite being US citizens and receiving a free education on the US dime. Not to mention the simple question of the right of the US to deny admittence to people from other countries... ie whether US citizenship is a right... again major nastiness on both sides of the issue.

The actual "spike" in violence is mostly people going a little bit crazy in the enviroment, with a few "popping" and going off in general before anything starts. The US is a powder keg, and those are the sparks, and pretty much nobody wants to acknowlege it. It's easier to attack video games than address the issues, which is the point of a video game. I don't expect it to happen for a few years yet, but if things don't change soon on the eve of some major policy desician made by a group of extremists that claim they are balanced, there is going to be an explosion, it won't matter which side does it (though I am guessing it will be the left wing, as Obama is president right now, and the odds favor another democrat simply due to the endorsement of an incumbant from their own party, though it's still a roll of the dice, but really it doesn't matter who controls the goverment when it happens).

At any rate the point is to just get use to it, I told people to expect an upswing in violence (on these forums no less) for years. It happened, and politicians like always don't want to deal with the truth and take risks, so they are beating on their faux issues harder than ever before. If it wasn't video games it would be movies, television, or music, at the end of the days the politicians don't care what it is, all they care about is an excuse.

Ah, Feinstein. The only person who can say that something is a "simulator" and "nothing like real life" without irony. I'm glad California is slipping down the shitter right now. It's making life more difficult for us, but we need a good long introspective look at the way we do things and the people we elect into office.

Lady, it's 4 AM, I'm drunk as shit, and I can't be asssed to say anything to your misinformed kind that fuck right off.

If you've ever been in a damn fight, or fuck, played a goddamn game, you'd know that a videogame is nowhere near enough practice for any kind of violence.

Oh, and one more thing-No killer thinks he's racking up a score sheet. Nobody is that deluded. Nobody is that crazy. I'm not that crazy, and I literally don't understand people to the extent I refer to them as a different species. Both the current and last leader of north korea were not that crazy. Fuck, lady, even you're not that fucking crazy, and you're clearly far, far seperated from any kind of logical reality.

Just...go away. Go the hell away.

Because all psychopaths are inherently geared towards building a better killer score a la Donkey Kong.

Oh snap! Dude in Detroit gotz mo' killz than a gorillaz got skillz!

Seriously though, if anyone wanted to practiced their skills at murder, one could do better, such as becoming a police officer or a surgeon to apply some real science to the craft. To assume that it boils down to some Donkey Kong score sheet is ridiculous because there is no agreed upon point system for mass murder.

captcha: trust me

...I'm at a loss.

Jaden Kazega:
Birds fly, fish swim, politicians hate violent videogames....

"I think the really violent videogame becomes a kind of simulator to practice on. And it enables the individual to become much more familiar with that depiction of death and blood," and "Of course it's not the way it is in real life."

Am I the only one who thinks these two statements seem to conflict each other? Am I reading this wrong or misunderstanding what she's trying to say, or did she just contradict herself?

It seems like a contradiction at first, but the operating phrase here is

it enables the individual to become much more familiar with that depiction of death and blood

She's basically trying to imply that people get desensitized to real death and blood, because of overexposure to fake death and blood.

As for the rest of the article, it's the same song and dance people always crusade about against "violent" video games, so is it even worth responding to at this point?

if violent video games are Practice Simulators, then why oh why am i afraid of guns? i live in Canada and have only seen a gun once and it from a cop, i was more afraid of the gun 20 feet away from me than the actual reason why there was a cop armed with one! i didnt feel safe at all, quite the opposite. honestly, i would have felt safer if the cop wasnt armed

All my games have violence in them, from stabbing to shooting to hanging them with wire and i cant even punch someone in the face if i wanted too. im no fighter believe me. too top it off as a "potential threat" i was even bullied my entire childhood for being unattractive and nerdy and i still would never want to harm anyone.

but then again, hate to say but the US is pretty screwed up, what with the loss of jobs, sanity, the abundance of guns and desensitized children surrounded by the damn things, and mounting debts of course you're going to have maniacs flooding in.

by the way, i was grade 11 and there was a dude with a "pipe" threatening to hit another kid, the cops came and blah blah, kid didnt even have a pipe, he was just lying. idiocy. the cops were armed with those big scary assault guns, dunno what they were, and i hope i never seen one ever again. * shudders *

and here i play Hitman, sneaking behind an innocent human, silently strangling him slowly with a wire, all this with a grin on my twisted face. . .interesting...Heheh

If playing video games made you better at killing people, I should be a pro NHL player, Fighter pilot, sorcerer, zombie killing sniper guy whom is always humanities' last hope. I am fine with being this.

jackdeesface:
Is this just a Yank thing? I swear I've never heard British politics going on about games like this. Or is the focus of american politics on damning games just misrepresented on this site because every time anyone comes out with an offhand comment its posted as news?

no, the focus on American politicians is to get other people's focus off the guns they use hunting fluffy bunny rabbits in the deep dark forests behind their villas of doom.

or is that just Cheney?

There's nothing we can really add to this any more, is there? We have said everything we can possibly say on the matter.

The military trains people to kill too.

Lets ban those.

Yea, I also believe the US is going to be heading down the old civil war path once again; though, hopefully, it won't be a full-blown civil war so much as a simple blowup and quick reconstruction. And I wasn't making the comment about 'gun culture/gun worship' as in to denote it into a negative light -- I think the Second Amendment is as necessary as the next person lol. I was merely stating my belief that video games are more influenced by culture than they do the influencing; at least, in the context of firearm use. I have to admit that there is some basic military-esque tactics I would not know about today if not for video games, though.

Jaden Kazega:
Pokey

May I just say that experience is the greater teacher, though? You might learn OF certain actions or tactics in media, or hell even the internet, but that is only the intellectual side. I watched Bruce Lee and Cowboy Bebop, finding that I really like Jeet Kune Do as a means to defend one's self. More to the point, I like its mindset a great deal. However, knowing it and doing it are two different things. Seeing it allowed me to force a guy in excess of 300 pounds into a wall, yes, but the level of coordination of the people I watched could never be matched without real training. I know I can fire a rifle straight because I have, and no amount of simulation will reproduce that...and tactics attached to that will only serve after practicing a few times for real.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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
Register for a free account here