286: Videogame Myths Debunked

[An Inferior]

snip

But I am also saying video games can and often do promote and reward violent acts. People seem to overlook this as they are desperate to be rid of the 'video games cause real violence' tripe. I think this is the source of a lot of friction between certain groups and gamers; some say video games promote violence and that allowing their child to engage in these acts and be rewarded for them, is bad in and of itself. Gamers seem to universally deny all violence being promoted, as if games punished the player for using it.

But you are missing the point I made before. The game demands acts of violence from the game character, not the human player. Here, I thought I have a decent example of my point.

Imagine we take the game Gears Of War, and we made a graphics mod for it. What this mod does is remove every character sprite, and gun image from the game. No blood, no bullets, ect...

This mod replaces all of these images with basic rectangle shapes. The aim of the game is to line up the cursor (cross hairs) over the different rectangles, and when you click on them, the rectangle is deleted and you get a point.

The controls and gameplay for this is exactly the same as gears of war, there is just no sound or gory graphics. This game is in basically no way violent. it does not DEPICT violence to the human player, or PROMOTE violent to the game character (my little green rectangle guy)

But what is the game asking of the human player? The exact same input commands. The user is doing exactly the same things to do exactly the stuff in the game. it just looks and sounds different.

So what does changing graphics in a game do? does it ask for more or less of a human player? Does it make you do anything different? No, it is still just an exchange of input commands into a program, and outputting data to the screen.

So what does changing the graphics of a game do? It simply exposes the human player to images of violence. This is not promoting violence (in any way) to a human player. It is simple displaying images to the person.

 

[ItsAPaul]

No offense, but the hours a week girls play Bejeweled or Diner Dash doesn't mean anything to me. Compare the number of core gamer girls to core gamer guys and you would indeed see the huge rift that exists. Same as every other medium, I don't see why you have to pretend that girls care about the same things guys do anyway.

I also kind of agree with PK; most fps games are just murder simulators to me. I don't think video games make kids shoot each other, since even the shootings-over-madden could happen over any competitive thing anyway, but don't act like its never carried over into irl for you.

 

[Mooko12]

The game itself does not encourage violence. The developers don't want you to go and kill people. It can influence people with mental problems to do violent acts but for the most part violence in video-games is harmless.

 

[Macq Stena]

*Khm* http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_266/7954-Videogame-Myths-Debunked

 

[pokepuke]

snip

The player is causing the violence - and is encouraged to do so. The player is the one pressing the button, after all. If the player did nothing at all, the video game character wouldn't move, shoot, talk, anything. It is the human behind the wheel that sets in motion the action.

So nearly all gamers should be tried for murder because of a magical power bestowed upon them by game developers. Every computer and console is now a "Death Note".

 

[An Inferior]

snip

The player is causing the violence - and is encouraged to do so. The player is the one pressing the button, after all. If the player did nothing at all, the video game character wouldn't move, shoot, talk, anything. It is the human behind the wheel that sets in motion the action.

This is beside the point that we were discussing.
I agree with your statement, that violence exists within the game. And that the video game "promotes violence" in the game world. I understand that point which you are making. The player is pushing events in the game world which will display violence.

But, that is not the point that the original article is trying to make (or the point that you and the other escapists were arguing about earlier). Their argument was that the violence get's promoted outside of the game world. I was just trying to show the difference between the arguments you were all bringing up.

It's similar to a parent giving their child a coloring book. They are encouraging (or "promoting", to use the key phrase of the discussion) their child to color inside the context of a coloring book. This doesn't mean that they are encouraging their child to go out and spray graffiti onto buildings.

Violent video games promote violence INSIDE the game world (that is the argument you were making, of which I agree).
Violent video games do not promote violence OUTSIDE of the game world (this is the argument that everyone else is talking about).

 

[mirasiel]

Pirate kitty has already indicated that s/he knows that on screen violent acts and real life violent acts are different and that two are unconnected (so far as we can tell).

So at this point PK is either being ultra-pedantic, trolling or as s/he says autistic but either way its a waste of time trying to argue with her point because she doesnt actually have one, merely a disturbing fixation on some unclear grammar/expression in the original article.

Games contain violence, they allow gamers to partake/influence/cause violence, players tend to be rewarded for the violence, therefor games promote (show in a positive light within the context of whats happening in game) violence (again within the confines of the game/player interaction). TRUE

Games contain violence, they allow gamers to partake/influence/cause violence, players tend to be rewarded for the violence, therefor games promote(cause/incite/influence) violence (outwith the game and in the real world against real flesh and blood people). FALSE (eh, unproven so far as we know)


I wish there was some way to take virtual post-its next to other posters.

 

[Ericb]

When I see a poster's avatar more than five times in a single topic page, that's a big clue to whom I should and will be ignoring.

Responding or quoting a troll's nickname will only feed it further. Don't you people ever learn?

PS.: No, you don't.

 

[bdcjacko]

When I see a poster's avatar more than five times in a single topic page, that's a big clue to whom I should and will be ignoring.

Responding or quoting a troll's nickname will only feed it further. Don't you people ever learn?

PS.: No, you don't.

So having a discussion is trolling now?

 

[Ericb]

So having a discussion is trolling now?

No.

 

[bdcjacko]

So having a discussion is trolling now?

No.

You make is sound like that.

 

[shadowsoul222]

A very simple piece of information that everyone seems to be missing in the "video games are/aren't art" argument is that it doesn't have to be good art to be art. A scribbling of a stick figure on a piece of lined paper is art. whether or not you enjoy that art is completely a separate argument. So just because you don't feel that video games aren't "up to par" with other forms of media doesn't mean that it isn't art.

On to another note, specifically the "video games cause/promote violence" argument. First of all, just because there are obviously violent video games, like Gears of War, but you also have to remember that Super Mario is violent, what with it's constant crushing of your enemies beneath your feet and lighting them on fire. Yet no one blames that game for causing violence in people, and no one would, because so many people have played Super Mario Brothers and of all the people who have played it probably 1/2,000,000 actually goes on to commit a violent act. And this statistic is most likely exactly the same for games such as Gears of War also (it would be impossible to actually find that statistic, or at least incredibly complex due to the varying natures of why people commit violent acts). And unless a majority of people who play the game commit violent acts then it cannot be said to promote violence.

 

[Urialanis]

snip

There are far, far better ways to do so.

You do seem to enjoy trying to destroy any opinion that questions yours if this thread is anything to go by, enjoy your arguments.

 

[pokepuke]

So nearly all gamers should be tried for murder because of a magical power bestowed upon them by game developers. Every computer and console is now a "Death Note".

You clearly have no grasp of the discussion taking place. Your sarcasm only makes you look silly.

Actually it illustrates the rift between your side and everyone else. You not understanding that point is what is silly. Your words simply don't make much of any sense to anyone but yourself, because you're not using them correctly.

 

[bdcjacko]

A very simple piece of information that everyone seems to be missing in the "video games are/aren't art" argument is that it doesn't have to be good art to be art. A scribbling of a stick figure on a piece of lined paper is art. whether or not you enjoy that art is completely a separate argument. So just because you don't feel that video games aren't "up to par" with other forms of media doesn't mean that it isn't art.

Stick figures aren't art.

 

[RC-1290'Dreadnought']

Or maybe not. Skeptics claim that the broadband capabilities needed for OnLive to work properly are an unrealistic dream.

20Mbit/s (downstream) connections are common in the Netherlands, and I'm pretty sure we're not alone. We certainly wouldn't be for long.

Oh, and there's one advantage to having a nice physical-format stack of games next to a nice physical-format console: you won't lose absolutely everything when a centralized server goes kaput. Which is handy.

The whole point of cloud computing is the lack of a centralized server. Often data is stored in multiple locations.