286: Videogame Myths Debunked

[spartan231490]

Video games can and do promote violence in young people.

Last I checked, using a chainsaw to cut a creature in half or shooting up a base full of militants is violent.

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.
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.

 

[Fraught]

To put it simply: The story your DM made up explaining how a band of thieves made it into the castle is art. The rolling of your D20 to see who goes first in initiative is not.

By my definition I would argue that a the game within a video game is not nor can never be art. I would argue that any story you attach to that game, and any picture or 3D model you put in that game is art. Any game mechanic is not. Don't link me to Extra Credits over this I vehemently disagree with them when they get on that high horse.

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.

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?

She's breaking the flow of conversation because her opinion is different from yours? That's fascinating. Apparently a real conversation is one where lots of people chant in unison.

Don't you know? Being adamant in your opinion if it happens to be contrary to popular belief makes you a troll.

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.

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).

 

[spartan231490]

Saying that video games cause violence in real life,

Please point out where I said that.

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.

 

[bdcjacko]

Games aren't art, they could be art, but I have yet too see a single game that is indeed art. And just because one game is more artistic than another, and might even be art, the genre as a whole is not art.

 

[targren]

Why would I say otherwise? I'm the first one who SAID it was the portrayal of violence (which is a synonym for "depiction"). But yet again, "portrayal"(or "depiction") is NOT
"promotion."

It is the promotion of violence. 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.

Promoting is not the same as 'encouraging you to commit [insert act here] in the real world'.

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.

She's breaking the flow of conversation because her opinion is different from yours? That's fascinating. Apparently a real conversation is one where lots of people chant in unison.

Don't you know? Being adamant in your opinion if it happens to be contrary to popular belief makes you a troll.

No, but redefining words to fit your position makes you a troll.

 

[Wistfane]

What a crock fiddlesticks. You can tell this person is a jounalist by the amazing in depth intospective argument especially for games are art argument

 

[ramboondiea]

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

 

[bdcjacko]

I don't consider Zombie Strippers as art either.

 

[mirasiel]

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?

 

[bdcjacko]

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?

The meaning of words change over time.

 

[Urialanis]

God I wish I hadn't wasted my time reading that, thank you for some irrelevant unproven information.

They don't make you read their articles, you know. People spend a lot of time writing for them. If you don't like them, there is no need to insult their work. Just don't read it.

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.

 

[2xDouble]

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.

 

[mirasiel]

The meaning of words change over time.

Usually by consensus not by individual desire, no?

Although yes, a consensus usually involves individual desires.

I request clarity as to which part of my post you were referring to though.

 

[bdcjacko]

I don't know, I'm just arguing. But I don't think video games = art...yet.

 

[An Inferior]

Why would I say otherwise? I'm the first one who SAID it was the portrayal of violence (which is a synonym for "depiction"). But yet again, "portrayal"(or "depiction") is NOT
"promotion."

It is the promotion of violence. 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.

Promoting is not the same as 'encouraging you to commit [insert act here] in the real world'.

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.

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.

 

[An Inferior]

snip nice post for the sake of forum space

But you see, the game does promote it and reward violence from the player, by progressing and unlocking more of the game. That is your reward.

It doesn't promote the use of real-world violence - that would just be silly - like you clearly said. But it does promote the use of violence in the game. If someone says games don't do this at all, they must have never played many of today's mainstream, big budget releases.

Maybe I see the reward for playing games differently? But to me, progressing though and seeing more of the game is the reward, and if a game gives you this after you kill an enemy, it has promoted the use of violence.

*shrug* Maybe people just have a bad taste in their mouth from all the 'video games cause real world violence' nonsense.

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.

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.