286: Videogame Myths Debunked
- Thread starter C J Davies
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What, exactly, was clearly laid out? Maybe you could go ahead and explain the difference, in your opinion, between trolling and failing to agree with you. You have added absolutely nothing to this thread other than accusations. You haven't even stated that you disagree, let alone formed a coherent argument about it. You went directly to name calling, and now expect everyone to believe that you are the rational one. There are plenty of people making intelligent arguments, your input is not required. Dismissed.mr_rubino said:
Now what you say about violence is interesting. Also I would note that I honestly personally have no problem with violence, gore, or really anything in any media. And on this subject I feel I mostly agree with you. My main goal here was to point out that it CAN be argued that video games at the very least promote a violent outlook, as do many many things.Therumancer said:
As for the artistic debate. I think what gets mistaken here is that the D20 roll is there purely for gameplay reasons. Yes it makes things unpredictable, but calling that unpredictability part of the point I feel is mistaken. It's really just there to make the game part work the way it should. Fighting segments in D&D are often times very separated from the story being weaved, and as soon as the fight is over everyone just goes back to the story they were creating anyway. I'll agree that the story is largely improvisational, but once again the story aspects of it seem separated from the rolls mostly. Really what happens is people just use the roll as a way of randomly determining between two already though up stories, and they only officially adopt one of them as what happens.
Even when the DM does an excellent job of making your decisions in a fight have larger consequences within the story, it's still mostly just people making stuff up on the fly, only using dice as an indicator of how long certain things take or at best a way to determine between two story ideas that they were already going to use. Once again I'd argue the art within the story is separated from the gameplay aspect, no matter how hard a good DM or player works to the contrary.
Very interesting post though. I definitely enjoy reading your point of view.
I played M rated violent assasination games since I was 12. Many of my friends beat me to it, and those that didn't were playing violent games since the age of 15 at the latest. That's easily 20 people that I know well who play violent video games, and you know what, not only have none of us gone out and started shooting people, but I would argue that we are less violent than kids that don't. In my highschool, fistfights occurred several times a day, keep in mind there were about 100 kids in my highschool, and that's a little disturbing. The kids who were most often in fights, were the ones who didn't play violent video games. In college, my group of friends plays violent video games for a minimum of 5 hours a day, and yet, we are completely non-violent in real life.Pirate Kitty said:
finally, saying that video games cause violence in real life is tantamount to saying that the kids have no choice in the matter. This is not true, at the end of the day, any violence that a person perpetrates is thier fault, and no one elses, because they chose to do it.
As far as the article, I have one big problem with it. he says that "vidoe gaming is social" is a myth, and i find that hard to believe. Social interaction is not limited to face to face. Look at communities like the escapist that are based around gaming, these sites bring gamers togethor in a social environment about gaming. Me and my friends spend hours talking about, joking about, and playing video games. Half of our conversations and other social interactions wouldn't exist without video games. I can't even begin to count the number of hours we have spent debating the finer points of party design in dragon age: origins, or the best class layout in CoD, or who knows what. In that light, Gaming is one of the driving social influences on many people.
All really depends on how you define art. I define it as a product of creativity, and, in that respect, even the basic mechanics, the control layouts and how pressing down a button or moving a joystick sends a signal almost instantaneously and changes thousands of pixels at the same time that has been programmed to act that way is art.joebthegreat said:
And then there's things like the "art" of making a good...I don't know, sandwich? The art of playing an instrument, after someone's gotten really good at it. If there's such a thing as the art of programming all the responses and machinations of different game mechanics (especially when one's really good at it), then who's to say a product of those "artful" actions can't be called art?
Yeah, I read through this thread, and even though the whole argument is very, very stupid and just mostly arguing about semantics, I was kind of irked how they turned against you with the whole "Oh, I've seen Pirate Kitty here and there, and she is suuuch a troll" just because you were adamant about your standpoint.Pirate Kitty said:
Also, I remember one guy talking about Extra Credits' "high horse" that they like to mount often, when, at the same time, catalyst, the guy who (if I remember correctly) said it is in "cahoots" with mr_rubino, whose modus operandi in this thread seems to consist purely of trying to put down for having a differing opinion and trying to one-up you, while also having convinced catalyst to do the same.
Seems to me like it's the pot calling the ladle black (and no, I'm not trying to give off the same implication of the well-known idiom; think about it, those mentioned items and their interactions actually describe this situation pretty well).
Only the first part of my post was in response to your post, that statement was a general statement about the whole, "that kid shot up a school cuz he plays call of duty" argument. sorry, I should have made that more clear.Pirate Kitty said:
Actually, promoting IS encouragement. And yes, it is. Violence, by definition, takes place in the real world. You cannot harm that which does not exist.Pirate Kitty said:
No, but redefining words to fit your position makes you a troll.Pirate Kitty said:
think you could have expended on the art bit, if movies can be classed as art then why the hell is there a question with games, hell look at enslaved, kickass game with fantastic "acting". infact you can use those god awful games have an example aswell, if films like zombie slayer strippers can still be protected what cant be haha
World English Dictionary
art 1
? n
1. a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
-----------
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that, videogames = art to those who think of them as art.
----
The bigger question is: is deliberate pedantry trolling?
art 1
? n
1. a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
-----------
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that, videogames = art to those who think of them as art.
----
The bigger question is: is deliberate pedantry trolling?
I took the time to read it and I found it disappointing am I not allowed to voice my opinion? I was under the apparently false opinion that this is a 'forum' generally used for discussing/expressing opinions or knowledge, though looking at your replies I'm not surprised you felt I had no right to express my opinion.Pirate Kitty said:
Wow... look at all the tension and bruised egotism. Did everybody have a bad weekend? There's no reason we can't have dissenting opinions and still be cordial and respectful.
This isn't 4-chan for God's sake.
As far as the actual topic, I suggest everybody review Extra Credits [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits] (yes, all of them [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0&feature=&p=C598047E25417684&index=0&playnext=1]).
Pretty much anything I would have said related to this topic (and lots of other topics, etc.) is in there; far better researched than my opinions.
This isn't 4-chan for God's sake.
As far as the actual topic, I suggest everybody review Extra Credits [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits] (yes, all of them [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0&feature=&p=C598047E25417684&index=0&playnext=1]).
Pretty much anything I would have said related to this topic (and lots of other topics, etc.) is in there; far better researched than my opinions.
You are analyzing the phrase "promoting violence" differently than every one else in this thread. And I think I can explain why people are arguing about it with you.Pirate Kitty said:
In articles such as there say that a game "promotes violence" they are stating that because the human player is seeing the stuff happen in the game, they are being encouraged to perform violent actions in real life. This statement is false (in my opinion), because the game does not encourage the human player to actually perform any things the game character does.
Ok, so here is where your argument differs, and why people are getting mad at you...
What you are saying by the game "promotes violence" is that that the game character is encouraged to perform murder and such activities. You said "If a game gives you no alternative to committing a violent act, and then rewards you for doing so, it has promoted the use of violence."
The game doesn't reward the human player for performing these actions in any real way, it rewards the game character. There are no real monsters shooting at the human player, and the player does not get a better score in life for shooting enemies. The human player is just playing a game. the game character is given no alternate solution. There is no game option for the character to sign a peace treaty. However, the human player can always stop playing, or play the game without shooting, or whatever they want to do.
So the difference lies in who the target for this "promoting violence" is in the context of your argument.
In your statement you are actually saying that the game promotes violence to the game character. Which is different than what others are saying.
And here is why everyone got really mad at you, because you specified the wrong target in your original post when you said "Video games can and do promote violence in young people." We assume that when you say young people you mean the human player, and in that case your argument is wrong (as hopefully I have explained clearly enough).
Basically, the way it should be looked at is this:
The game character is promoted to use violence
The human player is simply exposed to violent images.
And that is where people were getting mad at you, because you are talking about violence contained in the game world. And everyone else is talking about violence in the real world. But everyone was too busy trying to show how they were right and the other was wrong to see that you weren't arguing about the same thing.Pirate Kitty said:
All you are saying is that violent games contain violence. That is not what this article was talking about, or what other users were discussing.