Hitting Is Natural Play
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
*Applause*
We need more rational people out in the world. It disturbs me how much people will forgo using common sense for falling for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Good article.
We need more rational people out in the world. It disturbs me how much people will forgo using common sense for falling for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Good article.
Considering that this has been posted on the Escapist, you're pretty much preaching to the choir here. That said, some very good points, and I'll have to bookmark this for the next time I end up in a debate along these lines.
Probably the best statement in there.Greg Tito said:
The focal point made about aggression, I think, should still be that aggression does not mean violence. Frustration and anger also don't mean violence.
Oh why do we need trained psychologists when we've got clever people on the internet "- an air horn? seriously? "
This is an established method of testing behaviour, I've even taken part in experiments exactly the same a couple of years ago about things completely unrelated to videogames. On the other hand we've got an aside and doubting the efficaciousness of the tests. I'm glad we have something other than unsubstantiated claims from lay people with a vested interest in the subject to counteract all these unsubstantiated claims from laypeople with a vested interest in the subject. I see a positive way forward in talking down the scientific studies
This is an established method of testing behaviour, I've even taken part in experiments exactly the same a couple of years ago about things completely unrelated to videogames. On the other hand we've got an aside and doubting the efficaciousness of the tests. I'm glad we have something other than unsubstantiated claims from lay people with a vested interest in the subject to counteract all these unsubstantiated claims from laypeople with a vested interest in the subject. I see a positive way forward in talking down the scientific studies
SCIENCE !!!!!!!! *rainbows*
Beyond that ... nah. I don't really have anything much to add. The writer here has said everything I'd want to say on this topic. Society is sick already, a few video games ain't pushing people over the edge anymore than that God ugly wench who won NZ's Next Top Model last night.
RRRRRRRAGE !!!!!
Capcha: screw driver.
Yes. In the face.
OMG! Capcha inspires me to violence!
EDIT: Maybe we should remove the Capcha because we don't know how many mass murderers have tried to post only to be told "we think you're a robot. try again."
Beyond that ... nah. I don't really have anything much to add. The writer here has said everything I'd want to say on this topic. Society is sick already, a few video games ain't pushing people over the edge anymore than that God ugly wench who won NZ's Next Top Model last night.
RRRRRRRAGE !!!!!
Capcha: screw driver.
Yes. In the face.
OMG! Capcha inspires me to violence!
EDIT: Maybe we should remove the Capcha because we don't know how many mass murderers have tried to post only to be told "we think you're a robot. try again."
Thank you greg, for pointing out that despite the tragedy of major events, not a lot of people die from them.
Hell, 1244 people younger than 15 died in road traffic accidents in 2010 in the united states- 30% more than died by violence.
BAN CARS IN GAMES AND IN EVERYWHERE
Hell, 1244 people younger than 15 died in road traffic accidents in 2010 in the united states- 30% more than died by violence.
BAN CARS IN GAMES AND IN EVERYWHERE
I don;t play arena combat, FPS, or beat-em-ups, but I will defend other's rights too.
Personally, I can't see slaying thousands of monsters, thieves, soldiers, & woodland creatures that will respawn in minutes as "violence."
I would also argue that playing violent games deters the desire to commit real world violence. You have a stressful day, you're angry, so you unwind with a game with little victimless crimes that release happy little endorphins in your brain.
Personally, I can't see slaying thousands of monsters, thieves, soldiers, & woodland creatures that will respawn in minutes as "violence."
I would also argue that playing violent games deters the desire to commit real world violence. You have a stressful day, you're angry, so you unwind with a game with little victimless crimes that release happy little endorphins in your brain.
I don't agree that video games make people violent, but some of the arguments in that article were ridiculous.
I mean really, siblings hitting and throwing things at each other is a natural and desirable way for them to 'express themselves'? Not to mention "Violence isn't always bad because sometimes dogs bite each other and I have a friend who likes to get scratched by cats". Right.
I mean really, siblings hitting and throwing things at each other is a natural and desirable way for them to 'express themselves'? Not to mention "Violence isn't always bad because sometimes dogs bite each other and I have a friend who likes to get scratched by cats". Right.
It's good that industry insiders and commentators like Greg are stepping forward and explaining their positions and justifying this great passion/hobby/pastime of ours.
It'd be better if we could have these kinds of views reach those outside of our own demographic. To Greg and the other escapist staff, have you pursued any ways of getting yourselves heard by those outside the gaming community? I'm sure even editing this article and submitting it as an opinion piece in a mainstream publication would do good things.
It'd be better if we could have these kinds of views reach those outside of our own demographic. To Greg and the other escapist staff, have you pursued any ways of getting yourselves heard by those outside the gaming community? I'm sure even editing this article and submitting it as an opinion piece in a mainstream publication would do good things.
I think they need to start including the unfair factor in games in these studys. I may become more violent and agressive after playing games like CoD or Soul Caliber but it is usualy after the game did some thing vary unfair to me. Like when the guy I just shot respawns behind me 10 times in a row, or when Nightmare was easy in round one but beats me to a pulp in half a second in round two. I've also gotten mad a wii sports when the same motion I did the last 10 times to get a strike suddenly makes my player flail around and toss the ball into the next lane. I wouldn't be suprised if more violence is caused by that winnie the pooh homerun game rather than CoD. Also if there is anything that I have learned from shooter games is that public shooting would be a horrible idea, everyone would just respawn behind me and take me out.
A very good read, and I fully agree with, but let's face it, you are preaching to the choir. Anyone who is reading this article (and even more so if they are reading the comments) will enjoy games and know that they do not cause violent behavior.
I would be interested to know if anyone has a link to a similar piece, or one discussing the same points form a similar perspective, in a mainstream American publication. I would be interested to see both how they make their case (if any differently) and what the response is.
An article like this form a develloper, or a games journalist in, say, the new york times, could do wonders. Hell, even a publisher could do it (not EA, because of the whole "buy the guns fron MoH thing would replace any intelligent debate")
I would be interested to know if anyone has a link to a similar piece, or one discussing the same points form a similar perspective, in a mainstream American publication. I would be interested to see both how they make their case (if any differently) and what the response is.
An article like this form a develloper, or a games journalist in, say, the new york times, could do wonders. Hell, even a publisher could do it (not EA, because of the whole "buy the guns fron MoH thing would replace any intelligent debate")
Discussions like this mask problems with the gaming industry that gamers and gaming publications don't deal with, however.
80% of mass market video games feature killing as the primary mode of gameplay. If 80% of games featured dolphins there would be outrage from gamers, but killing in games is welcomed by most gamers.
If 80% of games featured dolphins the argument gamers would use against that is that dolphins over and over and over again is boring as hell. Too many dolphins, in other words, gamers would say, cut back that 80% number to 10%.
If 80% of movies featured killing as the primary plot device, such as for example Battle Royale, movie-goers would complain that for reasons of increased creativity, innovation, and *making better movies*, that number should be greatly reduced.
Yet gamers, because they believe that they need to remain constantly vigilant against the political machinations of the terrifying and terrified humans who proclaim games evil, welcome violence in games not because violence is fun, but because it's rebellious against the very people who don't deserve our rebellion.
By welcoming violence in games, gamers are reducing themselves to the same level as the monsters and fools who rail against games.
By needing to rebel against people undeserving as such, those people become NECESSARY and the Jack Thompsons of the world become useful tools who must be kept around to serve us.
Some gamers want that 80% raised to 90% or even 100%, not for the sake of more fun but to spit in the face of "our enemies".
This is a plea from me to my fellow gamers to start caring more for the quality of games than the political pain we can inflict on others.
Please grow up.
80% of mass market video games feature killing as the primary mode of gameplay. If 80% of games featured dolphins there would be outrage from gamers, but killing in games is welcomed by most gamers.
If 80% of games featured dolphins the argument gamers would use against that is that dolphins over and over and over again is boring as hell. Too many dolphins, in other words, gamers would say, cut back that 80% number to 10%.
If 80% of movies featured killing as the primary plot device, such as for example Battle Royale, movie-goers would complain that for reasons of increased creativity, innovation, and *making better movies*, that number should be greatly reduced.
Yet gamers, because they believe that they need to remain constantly vigilant against the political machinations of the terrifying and terrified humans who proclaim games evil, welcome violence in games not because violence is fun, but because it's rebellious against the very people who don't deserve our rebellion.
By welcoming violence in games, gamers are reducing themselves to the same level as the monsters and fools who rail against games.
By needing to rebel against people undeserving as such, those people become NECESSARY and the Jack Thompsons of the world become useful tools who must be kept around to serve us.
Some gamers want that 80% raised to 90% or even 100%, not for the sake of more fun but to spit in the face of "our enemies".
This is a plea from me to my fellow gamers to start caring more for the quality of games than the political pain we can inflict on others.
Please grow up.
If 80% of all games feature killing in some form or another, that's because that is what gamers are paying for, what we want. Violence, or at least the idea of violence, is exciting to people. Real violence, not so much, but fake violence, where we can picture ourselves in the place of an ass-kicking tough guy? Yeah, that's going to remain popular pretty much for all time. It caters to the power fantasies most people have, it gets their blood pumping in a way that their day job won't, it lets off some of the pressure that they can't release during the day.briankoontz said:
Whereas games about dolphins... well, that doesn't appeal to any of our fantasies or instincts, except maybe the "aww, that's cute" instinct. That would get old very quickly. There is a very good reason 80% of the games aren't about dolphins, as you say. They wouldn't sell, and the developers would quickly go out of business. And be replaced by ones who would promptly (and intelligently) make a shooter instead. That's human nature, you can't change that, and I'm not sure that you should even try.
I would also like to point out that Jack Thompson isn't a useful tool, he's just a tool, period.
You guys make good points. I know I'm not convincing any of you guys about how violence in games doesn't turn us into killers. But I'm hoping by spreading the word and making well-reasoned arguments the idea will somehow filter into the mainstream thought.
Greg
Greg
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,162
- 130
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Wrestling or play-fighting a very common way for children to bond with each other or with care-giving adults, particularly in boys. Don't confuse it with actual fighting between siblings which is very different. The similarity with video game violence is that play-fighting also has a resemblance to actual fighting but harms no-one and is for the enjoyment of the participants.manic_depressive13 said:
The one thing about 'violent games = violence' that always bugs me is that it assumes that everyone is ready to start mass murdering at the push of a button. If a Call of Duty game inspires people to go out and kill, why are the majority of the people who play CoD not going out killing people? (No comment on Xbox Live)
As you so eloquently put it, Greg, there's no one single reason to blame for any of this. It's just that video games are often used as the whipping boy.
As you so eloquently put it, Greg, there's no one single reason to blame for any of this. It's just that video games are often used as the whipping boy.
While you did make some fairly decent points, most of said points have been said time and time again already. This article is nothing more than preaching to the choir.Greg Tito said:
But really, I had a problem with your arguments as soon as you said this;
These are not bullshit whatsoever. Extensive exposure to violent media constantly is generally a sign that something is not right, studies have shown that short-term aggression increases when playing video games (or any other violent media for that matter), and if the kids are spending every day of every week playing games I'd say that's a bit too much video gaming or that the child is not getting something that he needs.
It's this dismisal of the opposing side of the argument that really ruffles my feathers. I remeber that you were the one who posted the article on the video game study months ago that I have criticized for being incredibly biased and self-righteous, and some of your arguments remind me of why it ticks me off in the first place. I'm more forgiving here as this is more of an actual editorial rather than a news story.
As was stated before, the use of an air-horn is a perfectly legitimate tactic in the use of scientific inquiry. Really think about what the use of an air-horn means, it provides a blaring, uncomfortable noise, and if someone plays or watches violent media and prolongs its use, that is fairly significant in regards to aggression. What ticks me off about your mention of this particular study is how you simply brush it off, as if you are qualified to counter scientific findings (which, again, I remember criticising you about in that new story months before). In addition, you are presuming partisianship from said study. Not every study that finds something negative about violent media is against said media, science has no bias, only scientists and even then said scientists from the study hardly cared about the politics of their findings. It simply is.
Still, despite my problems here, you do make some fair points, but again they have been points made a hundred times before. It's this simple brushing off of legitimate concerns, in some ways claiming that video games have absolutely no affect on people, that really bug me since of course games can affect us and infact they do. We accept that they can make us laugh, relieve us of stress, cry, feel terror. They can move us emotionally, physically, mentally, hell even sexually for some of them. Why is it so hard to understand that games, and in fact most violent media in general, can cause some negative side-effects for some people? It is what it is, and if we just brush off these sort of questions then we are only devaluing the medium as a result.